'you' and c_scan

Posted By: 3run

'you' and c_scan - 10/11/18 19:36

Hi guys. I'm back to Acknex, and facing indeed a very noobish problem.
c_scan doesn't set 'you' pointer, in EVENT_SCAN for scanned entity..

Take a look at this code, press space key and you will get error:

Code:

#define PRAGMA_POINTER

void ph_object_event(){
	
	if(event_type == EVENT_SCAN){
		
		set(you, INVISIBLE);
		
	}
	
}

void main(){
	
	warn_level = 6;
	level_load("");
	
	vec_set(&camera->x, vector(-250, 0, 100));
	vec_set(&camera->pan, vector(0, -10, 0));
	
	ENTITY *ent1 = ent_create(CUBE_MDL, nullvector, NULL);
	set(ent1, PASSABLE | TRANSLUCENT);
	
	ENTITY *ent2 = ent_create(CUBE_MDL, vector(0, 32, 32), NULL);
	ent2->emask |= (ENABLE_SCAN);
	ent2->event = ph_object_event;
	
	while(!key_esc){
		
		if(key_space){
			
			if(ent1->skill1 == 0){
				
				c_scan(&ent1->x, &ent1->pan, vector(360, 0, 200), SCAN_LIMIT);
				ent1->skill1 = 1;
				
			}
			
		}
		else{
			
			ent1->skill1 = 0;
			
		}
		
		wait(1);
		
	}
	
}

Can anyone tell me, what's wrong in this code? Thank you guys.

Edit: can't get ENABLE_DETECT working too.. this makes me mad. I set ENABLE_DETECT for entity that performs the c_scan, and ENABLE_SCAN for scanned entity... in the event of scanning entity, I try to make all scanned entities INVISIBLE, but just nothing happens (as if scanning doesn't find any entities with ENABLE_SCAN event set on).

Posted By: HellThunder

Re: 'you' and c_scan - 10/11/18 20:24

Hi 3run,

I think there are two possible ways, in dependence of the needed result.

If you want this one entity (ent2) to hide after scaning it, you need to take the my pointer instead of the you pointer for its event. This would be the first solution.

Code:

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Template main script:
// Created by WED.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// entry: Start Level
// entry_help: Name of the level loaded at start
char* t_levelname = "%NAME%.wmb";

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
#include <acknex.h>
#include <default.c>
#define PRAGMA_POINTER

void ph_object_event(){
	
	if(event_type == EVENT_SCAN){
		
		//if(my)
		set(my, INVISIBLE);
		
	}
}
void main(){
	
	warn_level = 6;
	level_load("");
	
	vec_set(&camera->x, vector(-250, 0, 100));
	vec_set(&camera->pan, vector(0, -10, 0));
	
	ENTITY *ent1 = ent_create(CUBE_MDL, nullvector, NULL);
	
	set(ent1, PASSABLE | TRANSLUCENT);
	
	ENTITY *ent2 = ent_create(CUBE_MDL, vector(0, 32, 32), NULL);
	ent2->emask |= (ENABLE_SCAN);
	ent2->event = ph_object_event;
	
	while(!key_esc){
		
		
		if(key_space){
			
			if(ent1->skill1 == 0){
				
				c_scan(&ent1->x, &ent1->pan, vector(360, 0, 200), SCAN_ENTS | SCAN_LIMIT );
			}
			
		}
		else{
			
			ent1->skill1 = 0;
			
		}
		wait(1);
	}
	
}

If ent1 should be able to hide all entities which will be, you have to assign the event to ent1 and enable scan for it too. Then the you pointer would work too.

Code:

void ph_object_event(){
	
	if(event_type == EVENT_SCAN){
		
		if(you)
		set(you, INVISIBLE);
		
	}
}
void main(){
	
	warn_level = 6;
	level_load("");
	
	vec_set(&camera->x, vector(-250, 0, 100));
	vec_set(&camera->pan, vector(0, -10, 0));
	
	ENTITY *ent1 = ent_create(CUBE_MDL, nullvector, NULL);
	ent1->emask |= (ENABLE_SCAN);
	
	set(ent1, PASSABLE | TRANSLUCENT);
	
	ENTITY *ent2 = ent_create(CUBE_MDL, vector(0, 32, 32), NULL);
	ent2->emask |= (ENABLE_SCAN);
	ent1->event = ph_object_event;
	
	while(!key_esc){
		
		
		if(key_space){
			
			if(ent1->skill1 == 0){
				
				c_scan(&ent1->x, &ent1->pan, vector(360, 0, 200), SCAN_ENTS | SCAN_LIMIT );
			}
			
		}
		else{
			
			ent1->skill1 = 0;
			
		}
		wait(1);
	}
	
}

Cheers!

Posted By: 3run

Re: 'you' and c_scan - 10/11/18 20:51

Hey HellThunder! Thank you for a quick help!

About MY instead of YOU pointer, in the event in order to make scanned entity invisible

No, that wasn't a point of my question (you probably mistaken with what I wrote about ENABLE_DETECT). I just couldn't get pointer to the scanning entity, which should be in this case YOU pointer. I was expecting (almost all events work this way) ENABLE_SCAN event to set YOU pointer automatically to the scanning entity, but in my example it didn't work and resulted in E1513. Yes, I could add if(you) check in order to avoid poping up error message

But my case was - 'why doesn't ENABLE_SCAN set YOU pointer to the scanning entity?'.

Your second solution is what I tried to do with ENABLE_SCAN, but why didn't it work in my example? Isn't setting ENABLE_SCAN for entity which should be scanned enough to set you pointer? I used c_scan with SCAN_LIMIT but without setting SCAN_ENTS, could that cause the problem?

Edit: just noticed that you set ENABLE_SCAN for ent2 and event function for ent1.. Why? Usually when you use events, you set event and the event function which should be triggered for the same entity, right? (as for ENABLE_BLOCK, IMPACT, ENTITY, SHOOT etc).

Edit2: added a picture, to make it more clear

Edit3: now this is weird... maybe tomorrow with a fresh head I'll find out the difference, but I got it working (as it should work!) here:

Code:

#define PRAGMA_POINTER

void obj_event(){
	
	if(event_type == EVENT_SCAN){
		
		set(you, INVISIBLE);
		
	}
	
}

void obj(){
	
	c_setminmax(my);
	set(my, POLYGON);
	
	my->emask |= (ENABLE_SCAN | ENABLE_FRAME);
	my->event = obj_event;
	
}

void hero(){
	
	while(my){
		
		if(key_space == 1){
			
			if(my->skill1 == 0){
				
				c_scan(&my->x, &my->pan, vector(360, 0, 200), SCAN_LIMIT);
				my->skill1 = 1;
				
			}
		}
		else{
			
			my->skill1 = 0;
			
		}
		
		wait(1);
		
	}
	
}

void main(){
	
	warn_level = 6;
	level_load("");
	
	vec_set(&camera->x, vector(-250, 0, 100));
	vec_set(&camera->pan, vector(0, -10, 0));
	
	ent_create(CUBE_MDL, nullvector, hero);
	ent_create(CUBE_MDL, vector(0, 32, 32), obj);
	
}

But anyway, I can't understand, why my first example doesn't work??

Edit4: seems that I got it working only cause I've put 'c_scan' into the 'hero' function.. If I assign to that entity a pointer and try to c_scan from main function, it gives E1513.. And I can't understand why.

My best regards! Thank you for your time and help!

Posted By: Superku

Re: 'you' and c_scan - 10/12/18 09:46

The reason that your first example does not yield the desired result (set the you pointer) is that the my pointer is NULL in the main function.
c_scan does not have an entity parameter (compared to let's say c_move) as you are aware:

c_scan (VECTOR* pos, ANGLE* ang, VECTOR* sector, var mode)

When you use ent1->x and ent1->pan as arguments you "lose" all context to the entity (ent1).
Workaround for keeping it in the main function:

me = ent1; // or save the old me pointer in case you use stuff like this somewhere else, ENTITY* oldMe = me;
c_scan(...);
me = NULL; // me = oldMe;

Posted By: 3run

Re: 'you' and c_scan - 10/12/18 10:33

Originally Posted By: Superku

c_scan does not have an entity parameter (compared to let's say c_move) as you are aware:

c_scan (VECTOR* pos, ANGLE* ang, VECTOR* sector, var mode)

Superku, you (as always) just opened my eyes. I missed such an obvious part...

Thank you very much for being part of this community!

My best regards!

Posted By: jumpman

Re: 'you' and c_scan - 10/15/18 04:07

Is it really worth it to put the whole game loop into main? Is having separate actions/whiles that bad?

Posted By: 3run

Re: 'you' and c_scan - 10/15/18 08:51

Originally Posted By: jumpman

Is it really worth it to put the whole game loop into main? Is having separate actions/whiles that bad?

Don't take example in my first post too serious, I just wanted to prototype something and faced this prob (cause I'm dumb

). In my projects, I usually use 'event_frame' instead of while loops, for entities, props etc (thanks to MasterQ32). Then one while loop inside of player's action (player's movement, weapons etc), and one loop inside of main function for all gui, shader pipeline etc. I think it's better to avoid using loops, if possible. I remember having performance issues when I used while loop for each NPC etc.

Best regards!

Posted By: Superku

Re: 'you' and c_scan - 10/15/18 10:12

Having one game loop is the way to go IMO, so as long as your project isn't that complex already change it.
wait(1) is rather "slow" and you have no real influence on when functions are executed. proc_mode (in particular PROC_GLOBAL) is a game and project killer, leading to seemingly random crashes as it affects all kinds of functions you don't want it to have an impact on. Example:

Click to reveal..

What I've done for the past few years for new projects was to use on_frame, like this:

Code:

///////////////////////////////
#include <acknex.h>
#include <default.c>

// header files
#include "player.h"

// implementation:
#include "player.c"

///////////////////////////////

void mainFrameEvent()
{
	input update function;
	if(gameMode == GAME_MODE_PLAY)
	{
		objectsUpdate();
		enemiesUpdate();
		playerUpdate();
	}
	if(gameMode == other modes) { ... }
}

void main()
{
	fps_max = 60;
	level_load(NULL);
	...
	on_frame = mainFrameEvent;
}

This way you have complete control over what gets executed when and how. You could for example freeze all enemies or projectiles in the game with a simple if(variable) check, while allowing the player to move freely.
You only have to let's say create a list of objects after level_load (on_level_load or what it's called) and free that list on or before level change.

I still use wait(1) entity loops here and there but just for some level decoration/ dynamic objects which don't have an actual influence on gameplay.

Posted By: 3run

Re: 'you' and c_scan - 10/15/18 14:08

Superku, that's an awesome idea! Got to give it a try. Thank you very much!

Edit: it's sad that you can't find anything about 'on_frame' in manual.

Posted By: Emre

Re: 'you' and c_scan - 10/15/18 15:23

Originally Posted By: 3run

Edit: it's sad that you can't find anything about 'on_frame' in manual.

There is a title about on_frame... but only in A7 manual i guess. That's weird.

Posted By: 3run

Re: 'you' and c_scan - 10/15/18 15:24

That's indeed very strange... Thank you for sharing it with us Emre!

Posted By: 3dgamelight

Re: 'you' and c_scan - 10/22/18 06:33

Originally Posted By: Superku

Having one game loop is the way to go IMO, so as long as your project isn't that complex already change it.
wait(1) is rather "slow"[...]

With Lite-C 10,000 functions could run at the same time so avoiding wait will be pointless for many games.

Posted By: Superku

Re: 'you' and c_scan - 10/22/18 08:51

Sorry, but you are wrong. A big project is super tough to manage and debug when using wait. The initial setup is a little easier but that's about it, no other advantages, only disadvantages.
Btw. 10000 waits eat up 2ms of performance already on a 6700k. You'd have to do one hell of an optimization to save 2ms normally, or you could just NOT use wait.

Posted By: 3dgamelight

Re: 'you' and c_scan - 10/26/18 20:27

I can't get because wait makes debugging difficult. Your problem with proc_mode is documented " It is automatically reset by wait() for not affecting further functions, but restored when the function continues".
By default the order is not random: "the execution order of functions is determined by the order of their calls"

Originally Posted By: 3run

I remember having performance issues when I used while loop for each NPC etc.

This only makes sense if you need many functions active. With Lite-C more than 30000 functions could be waiting at the same time with a good fps.

Posted By: rayp

Re: 'you' and c_scan - 10/26/18 22:00

I think 3run and Superku are right here. Whiles and waits killing fps very fast in a bit bigger Project.

Posted By: 3dgamelight

Re: 'you' and c_scan - 10/27/18 05:23

Optimizing for more than 200 fps on the target platform do not makes sense.

Posted By: 3run

Re: 'you' and c_scan - 10/27/18 06:11

Originally Posted By: 3dgamelight

Originally Posted By: 3run

I remember having performance issues when I used while loop for each NPC etc.

This only makes sense if you need many functions active. With Lite-C more than 30000 functions could be waiting at the same time with a good fps.

It's actually so funny to read

You probably didn't understand what Superku (me) was talking about.
Just to make things more clear for you, try to run 30.000 npc at the same time, make sure each of them will have it's own while loop, share your results here

When you will fail, try to run at least 10.000 npc, all at the same time, make sure each npc has it's own while loop running, share your results (as screen shots, with debug panel ON).

Best regards

Posted By: rayp

Re: 'you' and c_scan - 10/27/18 08:07

Quote:

Optimizing for more than 200 fps on the target platform do not makes sense.

200 fps with 30.000 while loops running ? This is acknex, not unreal 4. Theres no way to have even 50fps with 5.000 npcs and while loops.

In a normal project, 20 while Loop npcs with c_move+ent_animate are enough to kill performance already.

Posted By: txesmi

Re: 'you' and c_scan - 10/27/18 11:17

The only way of speaking about the offtopic is with numbers.

Code:

-----------------------------------------
| a wait per entity | own scheduler     |
| 1 byte stack      | 1 byte stack      |
-----------------------------------------
| a wait per entity | own scheduler     |
| 128 bytes stack   | 128 bytes stack   |
-----------------------------------------

Notice that the stack memory size has also its impact in the difference.

Click to reveal..

Code:

#include <acknex.h>
#include <default.c>

#define ENT_COUNT    10000
#define STACK_SIZE   1
#define COMPLEXITY   1

ENTITY *ents[ENT_COUNT];

action actWait() {
	BYTE _n[STACK_SIZE];
	while(1) {
		int _i = 0;
		for(; _i<COMPLEXITY; _i+=1)
			_n[random(STACK_SIZE)] = random(256);
		wait(1);
	}
}

var actList(ENTITY *_ent) {
	BYTE _n[STACK_SIZE];
	int _i = 0;
	for(; _i<COMPLEXITY; _i+=1)
		_n[random(STACK_SIZE)] = random(256);
	return -1;
}

void entLoop () {
	while(!key_esc) {
		wait(1);
		ENTITY **_ent = ents;
		ENTITY **_entLast = _ent + ENT_COUNT;
		for(; _ent<_entLast; _ent++) {
			if(*_ent == NULL)
				continue;
			var _result = actList(*_ent);
			if(_result == 0)
				continue;
			switch(_result) {
				case 1:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 2:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 3:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 4:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 5:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 6:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 7:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 8:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 9:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 10:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 11:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 12:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 13:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 14:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 15:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 16:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 17:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 18:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				case 19:
					ent_remove(*_ent);
					*_ent = NULL;
					break;
				default:
					break;
			}
		}
	}
}

void main () {
	max_entities = ENT_COUNT;
	
	void _act ();
	_act = actWait;
//	_act = actList;
	
	level_load("");
	def_debug();
	int _i = 0;
	for(; _i<ENT_COUNT; _i+=1)
		ents[_i] = ent_create(SPHERE_MDL, vector(0, 0, -1000), _act);
	if(_act == actList)
		entLoop();
}

I gived a bit of complexity to the scheduler loop so it can be considered a complete flux manager. The numbers speak by themself. It is clear it gains performance with a single while loop but it is not that much. Take into account that we are speaking about a difference of 3/10000 ms/ent: the time taken by few operations. Bad programming practices will waste more time.

Salud!

Posted By: sneha

Re: 'you' and c_scan - 01/24/19 06:44

Hi HellThunder,
Excellent, I agree with you.

Posted By: Raveeshyui

Re: 'you' and c_scan - 08/28/20 11:44

Very useful post Thanks