FORWARDJUMP x JUMPFORWARD

[O Ilusionista]

What is the difference between those animations?

FORWARDJUMP {players, enemies}

~Optional.
~Played when entity jumps forward with normal jump.
~It won't be used if entity jumps with 'jumpframe'.

JUMPFORWARD {players}

~Optional.
~If a player has this animation, they will only play their JUMPATTACK animation if they jump straight up and attack. This attack will be used if they jump forward and attack.

The second one is an attack animation, right?

 

[ABK]

yes, a lot of openbor anims names are confusing ;D

 

[O Ilusionista]

ah, I think I got it.
JUMPFORWARD its the Jump Forward Attack, which plays only if the player is not doing a neutral jump (a static jump, with no direction) AND attack

FORWARDJUMP is the Jump Forward animation, where the player does a directional (non-neutral) jump, without attacking.

Man, those names are very confusing. JUMPFORWARD could be renamed to JUMPFORWARDATTACK or FJUMPATTACK

 

[DCurrent]

Those are artifacts from long ago - before any of the current coding team was on board, and I agree they don't make much sense. Unfortunately we're now stuck with them for backward compatibility reasons.

DC

 

[ABK]

You can always make new ones so theres 2 names possible for the same animation right?
JUMPF
JUMPB
JUMPATTACKF
JUMPATTACKB

 

[O Ilusionista]

Yeah, I think it would be better, so we suggest to the coders to use the new one instead of the old one.
Will this consume too much memory?

 

[ABK]

I think old names would be kept as backward compatibilty and new ones will be used as default ones, its not a lot of code, single line per animation maybe less ?

 

[DCurrent]

Honestly I don't see a reason to add redundancy like that. We do sometimes when functionality of a given feature is extended (speedf vs speed for instance), but in this case it's extra code for no gain what so ever. A small amount yes, but bloat is bloat and it's just plain bad practice to do that.

It's a silly naming convention and I don't like it either - but from a technical standpoint it works perfectly. The effort is better spent fixing actual bugs and cleaning the engine, which I am currently focused on.

DC

 

[aL BeasTie]

What if there was a way to create 'aliases' for built in commands?

So any command could be renamed, allowing the engine itself be customized.