About Invisible Events

[162]

This question has been bugging me for some time. I don't know if what I'd about to write will be understood or not.

Say that you were to set your invisible event on "touch" for activation. Now, to activate the event, do you have to touch the cube itself, or does it create an invisible line that it you touch it at some point in it, it's activated?
Basically, if it helps, it the activation field like this:

(Wall) [Event] (Wall)

or this:

(Wall)<<<<<[Event]>>>>>(Wall)

Nope, probably doesn't make any sense.

[Seraph]

Re: About Invisible Events

This question has been bugging me for some time. I don't know if what I'd about to write will be understood or not.

Say that you were to set your invisible event on "touch" for activation. Now, to activate the event, do you have to touch the cube itself, or does it create an invisible line that it you touch it at some point in it, it's activated?
Basically, if it helps, it the activation field like this:

(Wall) [Event] (Wall)

or this:

(Wall)<<<<<[Event]>>>>>(Wall)

Nope, probably doesn't make any sense.

The "cube" just represents an invisible event. I have done this many times, and the event will take up the ENTIRE square it's on (the curved arrows that represent event position in layout editor), so as soon as you touch any side/corner of the square it will activate.

The "field" of the event is actually larger than the cube which represents it.

Oh, and no, if there is a large enough gap between the event and the wall, your character will just walk past it.

[JPS]

Re: About Invisible Events

Actually you'll have to touch the blue cube to activate it, the field is very small(about how close you have to be to a chest to activate it)

You can also place an event right beside the wall and it will activate by touching it, as long as it isnt over halfway through the wall.

The question mark that you see when you test play it revolvesover the event, but you still have to touch the event to activate it.

*image deleted*

[Seraph]

Re: About Invisible Events

If you want to force your character to activate an event by touch, it's probably best to place the event in a bottleneck type location, or somewhere that they will have to pass over that square in order to proceed.

[Seraph]

Re: About Invisible Events

Actually you'll have to touch the blue cube to activate it, the field is very small(about how close you have to be to a chest to activate it)

You can also place an event right beside the wall and it will activate by touching it, as long as it isnt over halfway through the wall.

The question mark that you see when you test play it revolvesover the event, but you still have to touch the event to activate it.

Are you positive? because I have done this a lot and it always activates the event for me when the outer square is touched.

Edit: sorry for the double post.

EDIT: the diagram you show is what I said. I'm confused now. I think I misunderstood her question.

[JPS]

Re: About Invisible Events

Yeah I realized what I said is the same you said, I didnt see your post til afterwards

And yeah it sucks you need the event in a bottleneck to activate

[Seraph]

Re: About Invisible Events

I meant that the "cube graphic" is smaller than the actual size of the event. When you place it in say a dungeon (dungeon floors are squared tiles) the actual event is the same size as the tiles (and the curved arrows which indicate positioning). I think I just misunderstood what she was asking. Your diagram is what I was trying to say.

[JPS]

Re: About Invisible Events

Really? I never noticed that, I always though it was the same size as the square with a field of activation, just like a standard event has.

Anyways, to finally answer your question 162

(Wall) [Event] (Wall)

is the way it works

[Seraph]

Re: About Invisible Events

You're leading me to question myself JPS.

[JPS]

Re: About Invisible Events

I have RM3 on right now, Ill go check it out and edit this post when I figure it out

OK did some testing and heres what I found



Its actually a bit more complicated then I thought, the chances of running past the event is about 50%, I tested it 8 times, and 4 of the times I ran right past it without activating it.

[Seraph]

Re: About Invisible Events

Yeah! That's what I'm saying! At least, what I was trying to say...
I didn't know about the running though.

I guess this was all a communication error on my part. Sorry guys.

[JPS]

Re: About Invisible Events

Its no problem, I didnt know either, I hardly ever use invisible events, and I wouldnt have guessed about the running parts either but I figured Id test it every way I could

[Wavelength]

Re: About Invisible Events

Just place two invisible events then, and have one Event Transition to the other in order to save coding space. (e.g., the one on the left has the real code, and the one on the right simply transitions to the one on the left. remember that if you're going to switch modes or do display on/off, you need to do it to BOTH of them.)

I'm not sure about the exact "shape" of the Field of Effect around the invisible event. If we assume it's square (which might not be safe, based on other posts in this topic), you can create the widest Field of Effect (over 40% greater span) by rotating the event by 45 degrees (so the edges point to the "walls" of your "choke point"), as such:

=...................=
=...................=
=...................=
=.........E.........=
=.......EEEE......=
=....EEEEEEEE...=
=.......EEEE......=
=.........E.........=
=...................=
=...................=

[JPS]

Re: About Invisible Events

Somebody didnt read the whole topic, considering Ive tested the event fully Im 99.99% positive what I posted is right

Still the transitions are a good idea

[Wavelength]

Re: About Invisible Events

Somebody didnt read the whole topic, considering Ive tested the event fully Im 99.99% positive what I posted is right

Still the transitions are a good idea

I did read the entire topic, bud. Notice how I said "Assuming the Field of Effect is Square" and then noted that it wasn't necessarily a safe assumption due to "other posts in this topic."

It's tough to tell exactly how the Field of Effect works, although your theory does look pretty good based on what I've noticed in the past. I really wish they'd explain stuff like this to us...