It's quite evident that Conitec wants this engine to be user friendly via either use of their templates or easy to understand instructions. IMHO, perhaps the best solution to adding these features I've requested would be to modify the effect instruction. A new parameter that tells it to create either an emitter, attractor, or a repeller would need to be created. This would be as simple as typing a 0, 1, or a 2 at the end of the instruction. To avoid the annoyance of having to edit all of your existing effect instructions, if there is no new parameter present then it defaults to our standard emitter. That sounds easy enough to implement on paper, but actually doing it may be a different story. Anyway, I've just provided one possible solution/implementation, so there it is.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I'm more interested in the addition of the feature itself so neither myself or anyone else has to worry about creating the code

---

Such things are rarely used in my opinion.. i have never wanted a particle attractor before, but if I did i would code it...I don't think Conitec needs to add such little features every time someone requests something or another engine has it.

---

@Matt:

just because you might never want to do this doesn't mean we all are of the same mindset. And, I don't think you really know if this kind of thing is rarely used or not. I don't see any evidence to back it up. The very fact that another engine has such a feature is a very good reason to consider adding it. Of course, it depends on the engine in question and in this case it is TV3D 6.5. There are some of use that believe it is the #1 competitor to 3DGS, so I think, in this particular case, that borrowing ideas from it is a necessary step to make sure the two pieces of software are at least equal. Finally, Conitec should at least consider "little" features when they are requested. And yes it is a little feature but a very powerful one. It's the small things that make a difference. 3DGS is made up of a lot of small things requested by users, and I bet the small things are a greater portion of the engine than the bigger ones.




Anyway, I can think of more than a few reasons/situations for use of such a feature. Yes, coding it is an option if you are a competent programmer. I do have some skills in this area; however I am not as talented nor skilled as a lot of our professional programmers that frequent this forum. Quite simply, there are things I cannot code; thus I require help when those situations arise.

The whole point of having a built in feature like this that can be activated with a simple line of code or adding a single digit to an already existing instruction (see first paragraph above) is user friendliness. It's something that could benefit all of us, both hardcore programmer, someone like me, or better yet the noob who doesn't know a damn thing, yet but knows enough to add a 0, 1, or a 2 to the end of the effect instruction. What's better....coding it or flipping a pre-existing switch?