intersect . . . invisible images

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
47 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

intersect . . . invisible images

Mark Wieder via use-livecode
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear . . .

There I am fooling around setting up an "exam" for my "kiddiewinks"
when I discovered something quite unsuspected about intersect ;

So I have some code that goes something like this:

if intersect(img"A",img"B",4) then
    add 1 to SCORE
    set the vis of img "B" to false
end if

now I am making img "B"invisible to that the gameplayer doesn't
rack up points be performing a repeated intersect

BUT

the intersect CONTINUES registering with a hidden image

this is a "bally nuisance, old bean"

Richmond.
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Mark Wieder via use-livecode
On 2017-07-14 11:20, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode wrote:

> Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear . . .
>
> There I am fooling around setting up an "exam" for my "kiddiewinks"
> when I discovered something quite unsuspected about intersect ;
>
> So I have some code that goes something like this:
>
> if intersect(img"A",img"B",4) then
>    add 1 to SCORE
>    set the vis of img "B" to false
> end if
>
> now I am making img "B"invisible to that the gameplayer doesn't
> rack up points be performing a repeated intersect
>
> BUT
>
> the intersect CONTINUES registering with a hidden image

How about:

if the visible of img "B" and intersect(img "A", img "B", 4) then
     add 1 to SCORE
     set the vis of img "B" to false
end if

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

--
Mark Waddingham ~ [hidden email] ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Mark Wieder via use-livecode
Thanks, Mark, that is a solution that would work very well.

In my solution to the problem I just "parked" the images off-screen once
they had been intersected with.

HOWEVER . . . at the risk of sound a teeny-weeny bit b*tchy . . .

It does seem illogical that while one can set levels of transparency
with interset
an image can continue intersecting with another when it is, supposedly,
invisible . . .

Certainly, having to explain THAT to children is going to make them take
an even
more dim view of adults than I hope they do already.

Best, Richmond.

On 7/14/17 12:37 pm, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:

> On 2017-07-14 11:20, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode wrote:
>> Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear . . .
>>
>> There I am fooling around setting up an "exam" for my "kiddiewinks"
>> when I discovered something quite unsuspected about intersect ;
>>
>> So I have some code that goes something like this:
>>
>> if intersect(img"A",img"B",4) then
>>    add 1 to SCORE
>>    set the vis of img "B" to false
>> end if
>>
>> now I am making img "B"invisible to that the gameplayer doesn't
>> rack up points be performing a repeated intersect
>>
>> BUT
>>
>> the intersect CONTINUES registering with a hidden image
>
> How about:
>
> if the visible of img "B" and intersect(img "A", img "B", 4) then
>     add 1 to SCORE
>     set the vis of img "B" to false
> end if
>
> Warmest Regards,
>
> Mark.
>

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Mark Wieder via use-livecode
Hi Richmond

I would think there could be use cases where that would be useful (hidden
monsters, unexploded bombs)

I assumed that they left this undocumented feature (bug?)  in   because the
"fix" is so simple but with the other use cases not so simple - or is it?

Lagi

On 14 July 2017 at 11:01, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks, Mark, that is a solution that would work very well.
>
> In my solution to the problem I just "parked" the images off-screen once
> they had been intersected with.
>
> HOWEVER . . . at the risk of sound a teeny-weeny bit b*tchy . . .
>
> It does seem illogical that while one can set levels of transparency with
> interset
> an image can continue intersecting with another when it is, supposedly,
> invisible . . .
>
> Certainly, having to explain THAT to children is going to make them take
> an even
> more dim view of adults than I hope they do already.
>
> Best, Richmond.
>
> On 7/14/17 12:37 pm, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
>
>> On 2017-07-14 11:20, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode wrote:
>>
>>> Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear . . .
>>>
>>> There I am fooling around setting up an "exam" for my "kiddiewinks"
>>> when I discovered something quite unsuspected about intersect ;
>>>
>>> So I have some code that goes something like this:
>>>
>>> if intersect(img"A",img"B",4) then
>>>    add 1 to SCORE
>>>    set the vis of img "B" to false
>>> end if
>>>
>>> now I am making img "B"invisible to that the gameplayer doesn't
>>> rack up points be performing a repeated intersect
>>>
>>> BUT
>>>
>>> the intersect CONTINUES registering with a hidden image
>>>
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> if the visible of img "B" and intersect(img "A", img "B", 4) then
>>     add 1 to SCORE
>>     set the vis of img "B" to false
>> end if
>>
>> Warmest Regards,
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Mark Wieder via use-livecode
Those invisible images are a bit like hidden monsters; jumping out
at unwary programmers!

Richmond.

On 7/14/17 1:40 pm, Lagi Pittas via use-livecode wrote:

> Hi Richmond
>
> I would think there could be use cases where that would be useful (hidden
> monsters, unexploded bombs)
>
> I assumed that they left this undocumented feature (bug?)  in   because the
> "fix" is so simple but with the other use cases not so simple - or is it?
>
> Lagi
>
> On 14 July 2017 at 11:01, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Mark, that is a solution that would work very well.
>>
>> In my solution to the problem I just "parked" the images off-screen once
>> they had been intersected with.
>>
>> HOWEVER . . . at the risk of sound a teeny-weeny bit b*tchy . . .
>>
>> It does seem illogical that while one can set levels of transparency with
>> interset
>> an image can continue intersecting with another when it is, supposedly,
>> invisible . . .
>>
>> Certainly, having to explain THAT to children is going to make them take
>> an even
>> more dim view of adults than I hope they do already.
>>
>> Best, Richmond.
>>
>> On 7/14/17 12:37 pm, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-07-14 11:20, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear . . .
>>>>
>>>> There I am fooling around setting up an "exam" for my "kiddiewinks"
>>>> when I discovered something quite unsuspected about intersect ;
>>>>
>>>> So I have some code that goes something like this:
>>>>
>>>> if intersect(img"A",img"B",4) then
>>>>     add 1 to SCORE
>>>>     set the vis of img "B" to false
>>>> end if
>>>>
>>>> now I am making img "B"invisible to that the gameplayer doesn't
>>>> rack up points be performing a repeated intersect
>>>>
>>>> BUT
>>>>
>>>> the intersect CONTINUES registering with a hidden image
>>>>
>>> How about:
>>>
>>> if the visible of img "B" and intersect(img "A", img "B", 4) then
>>>      add 1 to SCORE
>>>      set the vis of img "B" to false
>>> end if
>>>
>>> Warmest Regards,
>>>
>>> Mark.
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
>> subscription preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Mark Wieder via use-livecode
In reply to this post by Mark Wieder via use-livecode
On 2017-07-14 12:01, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode wrote:
> It does seem illogical that while one can set levels of transparency
> with interset
> an image can continue intersecting with another when it is,
> supposedly, invisible . . .

Originally intersect only worked on the rects of the objects - I don't
think it ever took visibility into account (nor blendLevel, for that
matter).

When we (I think it was me, actually) added the support for pixel-level
intersection we just extended the rect approach - so, again, visibility
(nor blendLevel) were considered.

The threshold parameter isn't really setting levels of transparency - it
is telling intersect what level of transparency and above should be
considered as being 'actually there' - which means you can have some
control over what is considered 'the actual thing you want to intersect'
and what is considered 'just background'.

Basically intersect works by generating a 'sharp' mask (i.e. which
pixels are 'on' and which are 'off') by rendering the object offscreen
and then taking any pixel with alpha > threshold as being 'on' and any
pixel with alpha < threshold being 'off'. Two objects then intersect if
when their masks are overlapped there is at least one pixel which is
'on' in both.

As Lagi pointed out one can imagine that there are use-cases where you
want to know whether two things intersect regardless of whether they can
be seen (i.e. visible false, or blendLevel 100). Indeed, I don't recall
anyone ever commenting on this - so either it was too long ago and I
have since forgotten, or it is useful the way it currently is.

Indeed, one could consider the current 'intersects' as a 'non-effective'
form. i.e. It works with the pixels the object is composed of regardless
of how they are rendered visually. This does suggest that an 'effective'
form is missing - one which takes into account blendLevel and visible.

(There's even another point of variance here - you might not actually
want blendLevel taken into account - imagine ghost sprites - you might
want them very transparent when rendered, but to still intersect as if
they had 0 blendLevel).

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

--
Mark Waddingham ~ [hidden email] ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Mark Wieder via use-livecode
Indeed, I won't list them but I get at least 5 use cases popping into my head the moment I saw this, where one would want the intersection between 1 object and an invisible object 2:

just one: solution to a puzzle could be invisible. as user moves tiles around the intersect would trigger "got it" for placement.   In fact I am using another algorithm for this very use case where we do stuff like store the loc of the hidden object then on mouse drag check the abs of the loc of the dragged vsibiel object   ….  and I'm thinking think, sheesh… I thinking I could be using intersect instead…

is intersect expensive on mobile? Performant on Android?

 BR

On 7/14/17, 1:11 AM, "use-livecode on behalf of Mark Waddingham via use-livecode" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

    As Lagi pointed out one can imagine that there are use-cases where you
    want to know whether two things intersect regardless of whether they can
    be seen (i.e. visible false, or blendLevel 100). Indeed, I don't recall
    anyone ever commenting on this - so either it was too long ago and I
    have since forgotten, or it is useful the way it currently is.

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Mark Wieder via use-livecode
In reply to this post by Mark Wieder via use-livecode
I'm not sure why the explanation would be difficult. Existence is different
from appearance. Intersect looks for existence at a particular location,
visibility is how the object looks.

Substitute "blue" for "visible" and it's the same thing.


On July 14, 2017 5:03:09 AM Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> It does seem illogical that while one can set levels of transparency
> with interset
> an image can continue intersecting with another when it is, supposedly,
> invisible . . .
>
> Certainly, having to explain THAT to children is going to make them take
> an even
> more dim view of adults than I hope they do already.

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     [hidden email]
HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com



_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Mark Wieder via use-livecode
The invisible man still had to worry about opening doors and bumping into
things.  His shin could intercept painfully with the corner of a coffee
table whether visible or not.

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 10:19 AM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm not sure why the explanation would be difficult. Existence is
> different from appearance. Intersect looks for existence at a particular
> location, visibility is how the object looks.
>
> Substitute "blue" for "visible" and it's the same thing.
>
>
> On July 14, 2017 5:03:09 AM Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> It does seem illogical that while one can set levels of transparency
>> with interset
>> an image can continue intersecting with another when it is, supposedly,
>> invisible . . .
>>
>> Certainly, having to explain THAT to children is going to make them take
>> an even
>> more dim view of adults than I hope they do already.
>>
>
> --
> Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     [hidden email]
> HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Mark Wieder via use-livecode
In reply to this post by Mark Wieder via use-livecode
If intersect looks for existence rather than appearance why does it tale
transparency levels into consideration?

R.

On 7/14/17 7:19 pm, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode wrote:

> I'm not sure why the explanation would be difficult. Existence is
> different from appearance. Intersect looks for existence at a
> particular location, visibility is how the object looks.
>
> Substitute "blue" for "visible" and it's the same thing.
>
>
> On July 14, 2017 5:03:09 AM Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> It does seem illogical that while one can set levels of transparency
>> with interset
>> an image can continue intersecting with another when it is, supposedly,
>> invisible . . .
>>
>> Certainly, having to explain THAT to children is going to make them take
>> an even
>> more dim view of adults than I hope they do already.
>
> --
> Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     [hidden email]
> HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Mark Wieder via use-livecode
In reply to this post by Mark Wieder via use-livecode
I hope his shin does; unless, of course, his transparency level is below
a certain threshold.

The problem is NOT the invisible man; it's the kid he fathered on a
visible woman so we
have the 50% visible child, also known as "The situation that H.G.Wells
didn't think about too
carefully."

Things get even more difficult in further generation with the 5% visible
descendant,
the 95% visible distant cousin and so forth.

Richmond.

On 7/14/17 7:38 pm, Mike Bonner via use-livecode wrote:

> The invisible man still had to worry about opening doors and bumping into
> things.  His shin could intercept painfully with the corner of a coffee
> table whether visible or not.
>
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 10:19 AM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure why the explanation would be difficult. Existence is
>> different from appearance. Intersect looks for existence at a particular
>> location, visibility is how the object looks.
>>
>> Substitute "blue" for "visible" and it's the same thing.
>>
>>
>> On July 14, 2017 5:03:09 AM Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> It does seem illogical that while one can set levels of transparency
>>> with interset
>>> an image can continue intersecting with another when it is, supposedly,
>>> invisible . . .
>>>
>>> Certainly, having to explain THAT to children is going to make them take
>>> an even
>>> more dim view of adults than I hope they do already.
>>>
>> --
>> Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     [hidden email]
>> HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
>> subscription preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Mark Wieder via use-livecode
Hes the invisible man with a multi-phasing skill.  Just being invisible
doesn't remove him from physical constraints.  Add the ability to set a
phase state based on transparency level and there ya go.

You're welcome.

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I hope his shin does; unless, of course, his transparency level is below a
> certain threshold.
>
> The problem is NOT the invisible man; it's the kid he fathered on a
> visible woman so we
> have the 50% visible child, also known as "The situation that H.G.Wells
> didn't think about too
> carefully."
>
> Things get even more difficult in further generation with the 5% visible
> descendant,
> the 95% visible distant cousin and so forth.
>
> Richmond.
>
>
> On 7/14/17 7:38 pm, Mike Bonner via use-livecode wrote:
>
>> The invisible man still had to worry about opening doors and bumping into
>> things.  His shin could intercept painfully with the corner of a coffee
>> table whether visible or not.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 10:19 AM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure why the explanation would be difficult. Existence is
>>> different from appearance. Intersect looks for existence at a particular
>>> location, visibility is how the object looks.
>>>
>>> Substitute "blue" for "visible" and it's the same thing.
>>>
>>>
>>> On July 14, 2017 5:03:09 AM Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> It does seem illogical that while one can set levels of transparency
>>>
>>>> with interset
>>>> an image can continue intersecting with another when it is, supposedly,
>>>> invisible . . .
>>>>
>>>> Certainly, having to explain THAT to children is going to make them take
>>>> an even
>>>> more dim view of adults than I hope they do already.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     [hidden email]
>>> HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> use-livecode mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
>>> subscription preferences:
>>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
>> subscription preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Mark Wieder via use-livecode
In reply to this post by Mark Wieder via use-livecode
OT: your physical/food body is "intersected" by your pranic, astral, mental and superconscious bodies, all of which are "invisible." Hopefully they fully intersect most of the time unless you are sleeping or actively astral traveling. (Not a good idea for the untrained)   but I would change the coloir scheme, substitute "light blue" for invisible (some people, children, cats *can* see them)  and it’s the same thing.  then when you die, all you just "delete" the first two objects (food body, energy body)  (ha!)  

so yes, I think children will do fine with this.

BR


On 7/14/17, 6:19 AM, "use-livecode on behalf of J. Landman Gay via use-livecode" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

    I'm not sure why the explanation would be difficult. Existence is different
    from appearance. Intersect looks for existence at a particular location,
    visibility is how the object looks.
   
    Substitute "blue" for "visible" and it's the same thing.

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Mark Wieder via use-livecode
In reply to this post by Mark Wieder via use-livecode
Ha! It not that deterministic:

Your blend level is a matter of person evolutionary "work" that you have or have not done to date.

Oh.. this metaphor has great edu possibilities.

BR
 

On 7/14/17, 7:26 AM, "use-livecode on behalf of Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

    I hope his shin does; unless, of course, his transparency level is below
    a certain threshold.
   
    The problem is NOT the invisible man; it's the kid he fathered on a
    visible woman so we
    have the 50% visible child, also known as "The situation that H.G.Wells
    didn't think about too
    carefully."
   
    Things get even more difficult in further generation with the 5% visible
    descendant,
    the 95% visible distant cousin and so forth.

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Mark Wieder via use-livecode
In reply to this post by Mark Wieder via use-livecode
I'm not sure if all the adherents to the Use-List would accept the
existence
of the pranic, astral, mental and superconscious bodies
as they are empirically unverifiable.

LiveCode and object within a LiveCode stack, are, on the other hand 100%
empirically verifiable.

It might be argued that talk of pranic, astral, mental and
superconscious bodies
came from the realm of metaphysical belief and therefore were not
entirely relevant
to talking about the physical world.

Yes, I know that the invisible man was fictional, but so does everyone
else as well.

Richmond.

On 7/14/17 8:57 pm, Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami via use-livecode wrote:

> OT: your physical/food body is "intersected" by your pranic, astral, mental and superconscious bodies, all of which are "invisible." Hopefully they fully intersect most of the time unless you are sleeping or actively astral traveling. (Not a good idea for the untrained)   but I would change the coloir scheme, substitute "light blue" for invisible (some people, children, cats *can* see them)  and it’s the same thing.  then when you die, all you just "delete" the first two objects (food body, energy body)  (ha!)
>
> so yes, I think children will do fine with this.
>
> BR
>
>
> On 7/14/17, 6:19 AM, "use-livecode on behalf of J. Landman Gay via use-livecode" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>      I'm not sure why the explanation would be difficult. Existence is different
>      from appearance. Intersect looks for existence at a particular location,
>      visibility is how the object looks.
>      
>      Substitute "blue" for "visible" and it's the same thing.
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Mark Wieder via use-livecode
As I attempted to explain (clearly not very well!) intersect uses the transparency of pixels of the object when rendered in isolation to determine what parts of the object should be used to check for intersection.

For example, you might have an image which incorporates a mostly transparent drop shadow. By choosing an appropriate threshold, the shape which actually gets interacted in that case can be everything but the drop shadow.

Mark.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 14 Jul 2017, at 19:10, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if all the adherents to the Use-List would accept the existence
> of the pranic, astral, mental and superconscious bodies
> as they are empirically unverifiable.
>
> LiveCode and object within a LiveCode stack, are, on the other hand 100% empirically verifiable.
>
> It might be argued that talk of pranic, astral, mental and superconscious bodies
> came from the realm of metaphysical belief and therefore were not entirely relevant
> to talking about the physical world.
>
> Yes, I know that the invisible man was fictional, but so does everyone else as well.
>
> Richmond.
>
>> On 7/14/17 8:57 pm, Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami via use-livecode wrote:
>> OT: your physical/food body is "intersected" by your pranic, astral, mental and superconscious bodies, all of which are "invisible." Hopefully they fully intersect most of the time unless you are sleeping or actively astral traveling. (Not a good idea for the untrained)   but I would change the coloir scheme, substitute "light blue" for invisible (some people, children, cats *can* see them)  and it’s the same thing.  then when you die, all you just "delete" the first two objects (food body, energy body)  (ha!)
>>
>> so yes, I think children will do fine with this.
>>
>> BR
>>
>>
>> On 7/14/17, 6:19 AM, "use-livecode on behalf of J. Landman Gay via use-livecode" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>     I'm not sure why the explanation would be difficult. Existence is different
>>     from appearance. Intersect looks for existence at a particular location,
>>     visibility is how the object looks.
>>          Substitute "blue" for "visible" and it's the same thing.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Mark Wieder via use-livecode
You explained it well enough . . . however some of us (well, 2 of us at
least) do love wandering off topic.

Richmond.

On 7/14/17 9:16 pm, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:

> As I attempted to explain (clearly not very well!) intersect uses the transparency of pixels of the object when rendered in isolation to determine what parts of the object should be used to check for intersection.
>
> For example, you might have an image which incorporates a mostly transparent drop shadow. By choosing an appropriate threshold, the shape which actually gets interacted in that case can be everything but the drop shadow.
>
> Mark.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 14 Jul 2017, at 19:10, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure if all the adherents to the Use-List would accept the existence
>> of the pranic, astral, mental and superconscious bodies
>> as they are empirically unverifiable.
>>
>> LiveCode and object within a LiveCode stack, are, on the other hand 100% empirically verifiable.
>>
>> It might be argued that talk of pranic, astral, mental and superconscious bodies
>> came from the realm of metaphysical belief and therefore were not entirely relevant
>> to talking about the physical world.
>>
>> Yes, I know that the invisible man was fictional, but so does everyone else as well.
>>
>> Richmond.
>>
>>> On 7/14/17 8:57 pm, Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami via use-livecode wrote:
>>> OT: your physical/food body is "intersected" by your pranic, astral, mental and superconscious bodies, all of which are "invisible." Hopefully they fully intersect most of the time unless you are sleeping or actively astral traveling. (Not a good idea for the untrained)   but I would change the coloir scheme, substitute "light blue" for invisible (some people, children, cats *can* see them)  and it’s the same thing.  then when you die, all you just "delete" the first two objects (food body, energy body)  (ha!)
>>>
>>> so yes, I think children will do fine with this.
>>>
>>> BR
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/14/17, 6:19 AM, "use-livecode on behalf of J. Landman Gay via use-livecode" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>      I'm not sure why the explanation would be difficult. Existence is different
>>>      from appearance. Intersect looks for existence at a particular location,
>>>      visibility is how the object looks.
>>>           Substitute "blue" for "visible" and it's the same thing.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> use-livecode mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
>>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>> _______________________________________________
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Mark Wieder via use-livecode
In reply to this post by Mark Wieder via use-livecode
Ahh, very helpful to understand that utilization.



On 7/14/17, 8:16 AM, "use-livecode on behalf of Mark Waddingham via use-livecode" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

    For example, you might have an image which incorporates a mostly transparent drop shadow. By choosing an appropriate threshold, the shape which actually gets interacted in that case can be everything but the drop shadow.

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Mark Wieder via use-livecode
In reply to this post by Mark Wieder via use-livecode
Richmond Mathewson wrote:

 > I'm not sure if all the adherents to the Use-List would accept the
 > existence of the pranic, astral, mental and superconscious bodies
 > as they are empirically unverifiable.
 >
 > LiveCode and object within a LiveCode stack, are, on the other hand
 > 100% empirically verifiable.
 >
 > It might be argued that talk of pranic, astral, mental and
 > superconscious bodies came from the realm of metaphysical belief
 > and therefore were not entirely relevant to talking about the
 > physical world.

<cheese>
We can observe that there is a difference between a living person and as
dead body.  No one has discovered the exact mechanism that distinguishes
the two.  But we all see it, even if we have different names for it.
</cheese>

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  ____________________________________________________________________
  [hidden email]                http://www.FourthWorld.com

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Mark Wieder via use-livecode
In reply to this post by Mark Wieder via use-livecode
On 7/14/17 12:22 PM, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode wrote:
> If intersect looks for existence rather than appearance why does it tale
> transparency levels into consideration?

That just exchanges the dimensions of the object rectangle for the
position of its "visible" outline. It is still checking for
position/existence -- the existence of visible pixels.

The ability to check for the actual position of the object outline is a
newer addition; the original intersect function only looked at the
object rectangle. Likely the addition of the visible pixels parameter,
which is very useful, confuses the concept which is still purely positional.

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     [hidden email]
HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
123
Loading...