Forums
RS-Linkify
Quick find code: 261-262-33-65181208
Keighlea
said
:
-puts on some hot chocolate instead so Indy isn't awake all night-
Hehe didn't work, I was up late but thank you
Oh this why I was up late, lil Christmas message for RS Linkify users.
to see it, toasters running chrome might not like it, so appoligies in advance if your computer melts.
After updating, see Options --> Miscellaneous to configure and Merry Christmas!
-puts on some hot chocolate instead so Indy isn't awake all night-
Hehe didn't work, I was up late but thank you
Oh this why I was up late, lil Christmas message for RS Linkify users.
Update to Version 3.0.1.2
to see it, toasters running chrome might not like it, so appoligies in advance if your computer melts.
After updating, see Options --> Miscellaneous to configure and Merry Christmas!
24-Dec-2013 08:28:11
Soccerdies
said
:
EDIT: Why is the Y-direction inverted? It seems unnatural for the snow to descend faster when my cursor moves up and visa-versa.
The logic behind is...
The cursor position is where you are viewing from. Moving downward means you are almost matching the speed of snow falling thus it appears to fall slower. Imagine standing a roof looking a falling snowflake and jumping off while not taking your eyes of the flake. The flake relative to you would give the same effect.
If your viewpoint is ascending (moving cursor up) and the snow is descending then it will appear to move faster. In actual fact the snow's rate of descent is unchanged but relative to you it looks faster (or should look faster). Einstein's theory of relativity describes it better than I can, but in this case the snow is relative to the cursor and you are the cursor.
Hope that makes sense
EDIT: Why is the Y-direction inverted? It seems unnatural for the snow to descend faster when my cursor moves up and visa-versa.
The logic behind is...
The cursor position is where you are viewing from. Moving downward means you are almost matching the speed of snow falling thus it appears to fall slower. Imagine standing a roof looking a falling snowflake and jumping off while not taking your eyes of the flake. The flake relative to you would give the same effect.
If your viewpoint is ascending (moving cursor up) and the snow is descending then it will appear to move faster. In actual fact the snow's rate of descent is unchanged but relative to you it looks faster (or should look faster). Einstein's theory of relativity describes it better than I can, but in this case the snow is relative to the cursor and you are the cursor.
Hope that makes sense
24-Dec-2013 09:20:12 - Last edited on 24-Dec-2013 12:19:44 by Indecent Act
Yep it's intentional to toggle the snow to foreground/background.
Glad my crude explanation made sense. Assuming the cursor is the viewpoint isn't a natural thing to do when the rest of the area is static (not moving). If the background scrolled accordingly it would make more sense, but I'd never get this update out before Christmas if I were to try to do that
Edit: just saw your edit...
I like it when people question things, the snow movement or the toggle. I need that to keep me on my toes, besides it makes for some interesting discussion
Glad my crude explanation made sense. Assuming the cursor is the viewpoint isn't a natural thing to do when the rest of the area is static (not moving). If the background scrolled accordingly it would make more sense, but I'd never get this update out before Christmas if I were to try to do that
Edit: just saw your edit...
I like it when people question things, the snow movement or the toggle. I need that to keep me on my toes, besides it makes for some interesting discussion
24-Dec-2013 09:40:03 - Last edited on 24-Dec-2013 09:43:23 by Indecent Act
Really like the Christmas theme Indy!
A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves - Lao Tzu.
24-Dec-2013 10:16:26
Blasty
said
:
- testing - valid, 2-part qfc refers to a section
- [qfc id=14-15-1]testing[/qfc]
- testing - valid, 4-part qfc refers to a thread
- [qfc id=14-15-1-1-1]testing[/qfc]
- testing - valid, 6-part qfc refers to a post
- [qfc id=14-15-1-1-1-1-1]testing[/qfc]
- [qfc id=14-15-1-1-1-1-1-1]testing[/qfc]
Using a 4-part qfc should always be valid tbh because they wouldn't leave it unparsed for threads in the grave. They only might do that for qfc id's that don't follow a certain format. The valid pattern atm seems to be 1-3 digits for the 3rd value and 8 digits for the 4th value.
That should give some room for further additions in the future
E: same with posts, 1-3 digits for the 5th value, 9 digits for the 6th value.[/qfc]
The snow looks really nice
Merry Christmas everyone
- testing - valid, 2-part qfc refers to a section
- [qfc id=14-15-1]testing[/qfc]
- testing - valid, 4-part qfc refers to a thread
- [qfc id=14-15-1-1-1]testing[/qfc]
- testing - valid, 6-part qfc refers to a post
- [qfc id=14-15-1-1-1-1-1]testing[/qfc]
- [qfc id=14-15-1-1-1-1-1-1]testing[/qfc]
Using a 4-part qfc should always be valid tbh because they wouldn't leave it unparsed for threads in the grave. They only might do that for qfc id's that don't follow a certain format. The valid pattern atm seems to be 1-3 digits for the 3rd value and 8 digits for the 4th value.
That should give some room for further additions in the future
E: same with posts, 1-3 digits for the 5th value, 9 digits for the 6th value.[/qfc]
The snow looks really nice
Merry Christmas everyone
i
<
Blasty
the Blue
>
Blasty
// @BlastytheBlue // Blasty#5167
| Co-owner of
Mine Nation
24-Dec-2013 12:54:17
Nice to see people are liking the snow
@Blasty, sorry I did actually read you post but I was hoping to check out some things before I got back to you.
This is what used to happen to invalid qfc's [qfc id=#][/qfc]. Happened to linkify avatar codes when my first thread fell off page 50. Didn't even get the thread doesn't exist message. Every post with a avatar code turned into that. Some posts still exist from that time, but the server is parsing it differently and not changing it to # anymore.
I'm pretty sure there were a few things that could cause that, but most often it was when a thread slipped off page 50.
Every section in qfc had a max number that could be used. Some had to point to something, other sections did not. When that max number was exceeded the digits for that section were removed completely, that would sometimes give the 'thread does not exist' message. From what I remember qfc's created when a thread exists are fine to play with. But creating qfc's that don't exist are not fine.
It seems currently qfc's to legit threads that once existed but now do not are also fine, examples of this are in the first few pages of this thread. This isn't how it's always been though. I have a feeling things are going to change again, that's why I'm reluctant to build on it without a some kind of backup redundancy.
I guess I have to wait and see, even now if they reverted back to the old system it would break god icons because page numbers 5 digits with a leading number greater than 2 would break. So in a way I'm already testing the waters so to speak.
For now I'm just going to play it safe. If god icons break I can throw together a work around, but avatars is not so simple.
Edit: I might be wrong about the 5 digit page number, it could have more than 5 digits. I think (hope) I went with 5 to give me some breathing room.
@Blasty, sorry I did actually read you post but I was hoping to check out some things before I got back to you.
This is what used to happen to invalid qfc's [qfc id=#][/qfc]. Happened to linkify avatar codes when my first thread fell off page 50. Didn't even get the thread doesn't exist message. Every post with a avatar code turned into that. Some posts still exist from that time, but the server is parsing it differently and not changing it to # anymore.
I'm pretty sure there were a few things that could cause that, but most often it was when a thread slipped off page 50.
Every section in qfc had a max number that could be used. Some had to point to something, other sections did not. When that max number was exceeded the digits for that section were removed completely, that would sometimes give the 'thread does not exist' message. From what I remember qfc's created when a thread exists are fine to play with. But creating qfc's that don't exist are not fine.
It seems currently qfc's to legit threads that once existed but now do not are also fine, examples of this are in the first few pages of this thread. This isn't how it's always been though. I have a feeling things are going to change again, that's why I'm reluctant to build on it without a some kind of backup redundancy.
I guess I have to wait and see, even now if they reverted back to the old system it would break god icons because page numbers 5 digits with a leading number greater than 2 would break. So in a way I'm already testing the waters so to speak.
For now I'm just going to play it safe. If god icons break I can throw together a work around, but avatars is not so simple.
Edit: I might be wrong about the 5 digit page number, it could have more than 5 digits. I think (hope) I went with 5 to give me some breathing room.
24-Dec-2013 13:20:30 - Last edited on 24-Dec-2013 13:37:51 by Indecent Act
Quick find code: 261-262-33-65181208 Back to Top