Open XHXIAIEIN opened 6 months ago
This would be extremely useful and if I'm not mistaken checking for collisions/overlaps of objects with circle collision masks is easier/faster compared to using "circleish" polygons with a bunch of points.
I'd be very happy with the option to put even just a single circle collision mask on an object with the possibility the radius (and maybe the position) of the circle.
Yeah I've also heard that a check for a circle collision is really efficent. But in any case I have quite often spend time making these awkward polygon circles and it's just... bleh. Circle collision would be really elegant (box2D also has that option which is great!)
Reviewed guidelines
Checked for duplicate suggestions
Summary
Add a circle collision option. and adjust the radius.
Possible workarounds or alternatives
add the behavior physics and put the collision in a circle.
Use the more points to make a collision polygon.
Why can't an octagon collision polygon replace a true circle?
Because 8 and 12 polygons may get stuck at some extreme angles when sliding.And it is not so easy to draw a regular octagon in the editor.
A simple example, I hope that when collision the LampPostPole, player can slide over it instead of stop https://editor.construct.net/#open=vehicle-switching
Using more points can also cause performance issues, as the editor prompts.
Proposed solution
Add a circle collision option. and adjust the radius.
Maybe it is in the parameter bar above the collision tool, there is a polygon option. Enter a number and it will automatically generate a prefabricated regular polygon based on the center of the canvas/or the position of the image point.
Why is this idea important?
This would solve so many problems with bullet, 8direction, car and other behaviors, that collide with solids.
Using circles instead of polygons can also improve the collision algorithm and use radius to determine
Even better if we could make an ellipse collision mask with horizontal diameter=sprite.width and vertical diameter=sprite.height
Additional remarks
No response