I have given usefull tutorials on my tutorial thread !
The thread don't interest you : it's your right !

BUT don't come and trash on what people give to others.

My tutorial thread is to help people, i have nothing to gain making it.
When i can improve what people can make in some way with some
critics i post.

That's my choice to gve positive and constructive posts !



You post just like that, like JustSid you have time to waste
to just search to annoy people freely like that !
Poor of you !
I think it's the same thing in your real life, you won't tolerate when people will not agree with you i htink !


Continue wasting your time annoying people !
Where is your interest ? your goal by doing that ?

If ou don't like other people post don't read them and don't espond to them !
It's what i do, when discussion going nowhere or that really
is annoying i just skip it : DO THE SAME WITH MY POSTS

You write so many lines and yet fail to answer my simple question?

Sorry, that isn't true. At least not for firoball, and at least not about all posts from JustSid.

What JustSid wanted to point you at is this - at least from my way of interpretation:
"Okay, you've read that it is such an easy approach with the collision system in irrlicht, but did you try it?"

Now from my point of view, because of my experiences I can say that nothing works the easy way, as it was said, when you try it yourself.

ratchet, don't get me wrong, I appreciate your posts and links to news of other engines etc., but many advices are missing the solid validation of doing it on your own to assure that it is actually working as others proclaimed.

As PhysX is already there, ratchet, feel free to use it for collision detection, just like in in irrlicht after "that tutorial", just a lot easier, as you just have to use it, no need to integrate anything anymore
Isn´t that great?

PhysX wouldn't work for me because there's too high of a chance that the player will fall over or start bouncing around the environment when I don't want him to. I want something I have absolute, unquestionable control over.

Simple AABBs fill this gap perfectly, so I'm looking into writing my own AABB system for block based levels.

Isn't it easier to ask for re-implementing it as an option for non BSP level in the Future Forum?
I've seen many requests the last months that have been fulfilled within a short time.

I could, but we're using A7 to build the game and that's already been succeeded by A8. Therefore if AABB support is put back into Gamestudio, it will end up in A8; not A7.

Still... In the long run, convincing spike to purchase A8 and convincing jcl to put AABB support back into Gamestudio would be easier than trying to write my own buggy, unoptimized AABB code.

EDIT: Here's my pitch to JCL:
http://www.opserver.de/ubb7/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=359815

ratchet, don't get me wrong, I appreciate your posts and links to news of other engines etc., but many advices are missing the solid validation of doing it on your own to assure that it is actually working as others proclaimed.

Ok i htink i was wrong on saying it was simple !
I'm doing only basic game scripting and i don't implement Dlls
or physic engine or shaders.

So next time, instead of saying it's easy, i think i will shut up on these subjects

Shaders are simpler than any other kind of game scripting, IMHO. It's a different way of thinking, sure, but a small game will be hundreds if not thousands of lines of code. A small shader could be less than 10.

I agree that the built-in collision system is very limited in terms of usefulness. KarBOOM doesn't use any of the c_ functions at all. In future games of mine that require more complex character interaction with the environment, I see myself using c_trace, but doing all the collision stuff myself.

Jibb

As we see, I think there in no sense asking jcl to implement AABB or other shapes for collusion.. and that is really sad! Cause ellipsoid sucks!