Author Topic: Applying Emitters to Blockheads  (Read 829 times)

i'm still waiting for an addon that can apply emitters to blockheads without being overly convoluted
too bad that's supposedly extremely hard if not impossible

just wondering if this is possible, could maybe use emitters for JakeBlade's hats. Dunno. What do you guys think?


Extremely hard if not impossible?

/hate

Then again, I don't know how that works, exactly. It may not be easy to keep it consistent, like a normal emitter, you might need to keep refreshing it. Maybe that's the "overly convoluted" part, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone could work it out pretty easily.

Oh, and don't forget about burnPlayer
« Last Edit: April 09, 2014, 06:57:00 PM by Eksi »

Don't emotes just create empties above the player with emitters attached to them?

Don't emotes just create empties above the player with emitters attached to them?
then do this?
Or just spawn harmless explosions, though it won't work with existing emitters.

Don't emotes just create empties above the player with emitters attached to them?
Pretty sure the emote spawns an explosion or a projectile.

There is no way to directly attach an emitter to a player (I assume you want the emitter to move around with the player too). You can, however, attach an image to a player and have an emitter on that. Then it will move around with the player. Many add-ons already do this.

The problem, however, is that you can have only 4 images on a player at the same time. That means, if another add-on also wants to add an image to put an emitter (or a default function) then your emitter is gone.

Another way I can think of would be to create a new AIPlayer (maybe even create a custom playertype with an empty model and just one mount node), make it invisible, mount it to the player at the node where you want it at and then attach the image to that. As long as nothing is controlling the AIPlayer, it will have the same rotation as the node it is mounted on.

So, it is possible, but it will be a very hacky implementation.

So, it is possible, but it will be a very hacky implementation.
Someone should make something like Support_GhostPlayer, so add-ons using the technique don't take up multiple datablocks for the same thing.

Someone should make something like Support_GhostPlayer, so add-ons using the technique don't take up multiple datablocks for the same thing.
It would take only one datablock for the playertype, you don't need any animations etc

You could even use the default playertype for it and then just make it invisible, but I'm not sure what the performance gain of using an empty player with just a mount node vs an invisible default player would be.

An invisible player isn't going to solve the problem here. With 100 emitters and 10 nodes it would take up 1000 datablocks.

An invisible player isn't going to solve the problem here. With 100 emitters and 10 nodes it would take up 1000 datablocks.
How would it take 1000 datablocks for 100 emitters ...?

Let's see what you need for an emitter:

1 ParticleData
1 ParticleEmitterData
1 Image (whatever the datablock is called)

So, it more likely uses 300 datablocks... which is reasonable for 100 emitters, no?

You need one image for each individual emitter you want to mount to a particular node. For 10 nodes and 100 emitters, that's 10 * 100 datablocks.
This is not regarding defining the emitters (ParticleData and ParticleEmitterData don't count), purely regarding mounting them on a player.

You need one image for each individual emitter you want to mount to a particular node. For 10 nodes and 100 emitters, that's 10 * 100 datablocks.
nonononono. You mount an invisible player on the node where you want the image. You can mount only 4 images - but there is no restriction on how many players can be mounted to a player. You can use the default player for this. The image with the emitter then goes to the root node of this player.




3 datablocks for emitter and mounting. Don't see your problem?
« Last Edit: April 10, 2014, 10:39:04 AM by Zeblote »

Jakeblades unusual hats.
Huh that actually sounds cool