More accurate bounceonactors?

[Cutmanmike]

The BOUNCEONACTORS flag works fine, but projectiles aren't bouncing as I had hoped them to. For argument's sake let's say I have a bouncing projectile weapon and a solid, shootable DECORATE object in the room. There's also a monster in the room that I cannot see from where I'm standing.

Code: Select all

---------------
|             |
|         o   |     p = Player
|p            |     o = Object
----          |     m = Monster
   |m         |
   ----------

What I was hoping for was if you shot at the object from the correct angle, you could reflect to shot at the monster around the corner. What actually happens though is a bit inconvenient. You would think that firing at the object at one angle would bounce it in the same direction if you fired at it again at the exact same angle, but this is not the case. Standing perfectly still and firing seems to just bounce the projectile off in a random direction.

I was looking at the flags and I saw that there were REFLECTIVE and DEFLECT flags. I tried giving the object these flags and shot with with a non-bouncing projectile and they still reflect off the object with a random angle. I don't know if this is intentional or not because the wiki description for these is a bit vauge.

Making DEFLECT not random, "fixing" BOUNCEONACTORS or making a new flag entirely would be fine if this feature could be added.

[Snarboo]

I think it bounces off actors randomly because of inaccuracies with actor bounding boxes. Obviously a projectile can tell whether it has hit a bounding box or not, but I don't think it takes into account things such as the angle at which it hits them. Could be wrong, though.

[Gez]

Yup. Keeping in mind that the bounding boxes are square and do not rotate, more accurate bounces would always be by mirroring the angle either along the X or the Y axis. A p->o->m trajectory on your example is therefore impossible...

[Amuscaria]

Yup. Keeping in mind that the bounding boxes are square and do not rotate, more accurate bounces would always be by mirroring the angle either along the X or the Y axis. A p->o->m trajectory on your example is therefore impossible...

I thought the Bounding boxes were Octagons? o_o

[Project Shadowcat]

Nope. Bounding boxes are just that: boxes.

[DoomRater]

It is at these times I wish the bounding mechanism was circles...

[The_Funktasm]

Nope. Bounding boxes are just that: boxes.

At least they aren't triangles.

[Project Shadowcat]

Nope. Bounding boxes are just that: boxes.

At least they aren't triangles.

Ugh. Yeah. I couldn't imagine how bad the collision detection would be.

[Graf Zahl]

A p->o->m trajectory on your example is therefore impossible...

Correct. And unfortunately this makes the entire suggestion impossible to handle.