Difference between revisions of "Talk:Tutorial:Bounding Box Collision Detection"
m (marking comment by User:Luiji) |
(→Recreation as Snippet: new section) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
2. I am not biased towards [[love.physics]], I meant that if you want complicated stuff like circular collision, this was not the way to go. | 2. I am not biased towards [[love.physics]], I meant that if you want complicated stuff like circular collision, this was not the way to go. | ||
3. I only had five minutes to write this, so I did not have much time to do any explaining. <sup>previous unsigned comment by [[User:Luiji|Luiji]]</sup> | 3. I only had five minutes to write this, so I did not have much time to do any explaining. <sup>previous unsigned comment by [[User:Luiji|Luiji]]</sup> | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Recreation as Snippet == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I'm recreating this topic as a Snippet, and taking into account all that has been said here (don't say "by Luiji" and don't say "if you want even somewhat complicated collisions, use love.physics"). | ||
Revision as of 21:37, 14 July 2010
Opinion about love.physics
The writer seems very biased towards using love.physics, is this permitted? Bartbes 21:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
This isn't really a tutorial is it? This should be replaced with a more robust explanation and collision detection solution. TechnoCat
1. The self-promotion thing was by accident. 2. I am not biased towards love.physics, I meant that if you want complicated stuff like circular collision, this was not the way to go. 3. I only had five minutes to write this, so I did not have much time to do any explaining. previous unsigned comment by Luiji
Recreation as Snippet
I'm recreating this topic as a Snippet, and taking into account all that has been said here (don't say "by Luiji" and don't say "if you want even somewhat complicated collisions, use love.physics").
