I used this line of code to remove an element:
tiles.splice(tiles.indexOf(tiles[i]), 1);
Yet afterwards when I'm checking the value, it's still not null, in fact, it still contains the movieclip it had inside of it.
This worked though:
tiles[tr] = null;
The question is, is it still okay to do it like that?
I have movieclips added and removed to this array and I type removeChild(tiles[tr); before removing it from the array.
I just don't want to encounter some terrible performance in the future,
Thanks.
splice cuts out the element from the Array, and all the above elements move one stept down. Which also reflects in the Array's length.
So the element you are finding is the next element.
Just nulling it will do just that. Leave the rest of the Array as is with an empty position.
Also you dont need to call indexOf if i is already the position you need.
tiles.splice(i, 1)
will do.
Related
I have a child of an object that stays on the scene when the frame changes. So I gotoAndStop(2); and the object is still there. However, when I come back to frame one. The object is on the lowest layer, despite the fact that I originally added it using addChildAt(character, 1); I think this adds it to the first layer? Anyone know how I can fix this issue of keeping a movieclip object on the top layer despite changing frames? Thanks.
In AS3/Flash, the bottom most layer is 0. So doing addChildAt(character, 1) would make your character the second to the bottom layer. addChildAt(character, 0) would make it the very bottom/back layer.
If you want to make it the top most layer, you do any one of the following:
addChild(character); //this is the shortest amount of code
addChildAt(character, numChildren-1); //the is exactly the same as above
setChildIndex(character, numChildren-1); //this is also the same but requires the character already be present on the display list
The latter (setChildIndex) may be preferred IF your character originates on the timeline (eg not created through code). The reason being, if you change through code the parentage of something created on the timeline, it will not go away when no longer present on the timeline.
If you want a way to force something to always be on top, you can do something along these lines:
this.addEventListener(Event.ADDED, bringToTop);
function bringToTop(e:Event):void {
setChildIndex(character, numChildren-1);
}
Doing that, makes it so whenever any other object is added as a child of this, it will set the character to the very top most layer/z-index.
I've really strange behavior and I spent a couple of days to try to figure out what is a problem.
MooTools methods makes my input fields not clickable, and I don't know why.
$$('.class1.class2').makeResizable({
});
Above piece of code needs to make all children of div which has class 'class1' & 'class2' to be re-sizable, and that works perfectly but beside that it also makes input fields not clickable.
Does anybody had the similar problem?
Any kind of help will be appreciate.
Thanks
so the problem is that you have no handle passed in. when you fail to do that, the whole element becomes a listener for mousedown and attempts to click into any child element will not bubble correctly, resulting in weird behaviour.
I also found a bug in the logic for adding handlers, which seems to not evaluate handles correctly
https://github.com/mootools/mootools-more/blob/master/Source/Drag/Drag.js#L66 is wrong on many levels - it expects a collection / array of elements but looks in the global document and not child elements - yet it ends up picking element anyway and ignores passed collections like $$('.class1 .resizer')
i did a small change to accept a string for a child selector and added a resize handler.
http://jsfiddle.net/pbu5uzho/
you should submit this bug to https://github.com/mootools/mootools-more/issues though i doubt it will get picked up.
$$('.class1').makeResizable({
handle: '.resizer'
});
the change I did to make this work was:
this.handles = this.element.getElements(this.options.handle);
alternatively, you can use something like InteractJS to handle this.
I'm not 100% sure but can you try this one
I think you are missing (,)
$$('.class1,.class2').makeResizable({
});
EDIT2: It seems that the big numbers are created because the movieclip doesnt hold any bipmapdata, but Im yet not sure about it, but my real mistake was that I just forgot "this" infront of one "getBounds" ... project size was to big and I couldnt find the bug =)
EDIT: tried to use seperate containers, for the movieclips, and did all this in the root class ... everything worked fine, when I used seperate containers and attached everything to the charakter class it got screwd up again
OLD:
Hey I am making a game right now and I want to get the bounds of the charakter body.
To understand how I did set the whole thing up I explain the hirarchy.
The class of my flash document is "game.as". "game.as" adds a Child of the class Charakter
my Charakterclass has a Movieclip for every body part, for example the "head"
every bodypart has a movieclip which contains the picture of the bodypart, in this case "head".
When I now try to use the getBounds(head.mc) inside the "head" class I get really weird results. ussualy something around x=64001, y=64001, width = 0, height = 0;
I found a way how to solve this problem by simply using the getBounds(head.mc) function not inside the head, but inside the Charakter class .... but this is not what I actually want to do, I would like to use the getBounds(head.mc) function inside the head class.
Any ideas why the results are so weird or what I have to do? Im very thankfull for every opinion, because this doesnt seem logical to me xD
getBounds() is inaccurate. Please read the following posts to understand the issue.
getBounds "wrong" results (Source)
When getting bounds of an object relative to it's OWN coordinate system,
those values will NOT be scaled.
getBounds() returning incorrect height (Source)
From inside head_mc, try getBounds(this.parent); (you may want to test to see if the parent exists first) - this should give you the bounds of your head_mc as its container sees it, which I think is what you want, but called from inside head_mc, as you request.
bitmapdata is right, though - getBounds() can sometimes give some odd results. It looks to me like you might be asking the question before you add head_mc to the stage, and are therefore getting the undefined values for width/height/x/y.
This problem seems very simple to me, but I've been unable to fix it, or find an answer anywhere.
This is in a class constructor for a class called block, block_maker is the object that called the constructor, an instance of level.
this.bitmap = new Bitmap(this.bitmap_data);
this.addChild(this.bitmap);
this.block_maker.stage_foreground.addChild(this);
In level, stage_foreground is added to the stage, but nothing appears. trace(stage_foreground.numChildren); shows the correct count of children, and var temp = (this.stage_foreground.getChildAt(0)); trace(temp.numChildren); correctly but the children OF the children don't actually show up, the stage just stays blank.
When I change the above code to
this.bitmap = new Bitmap(this.bitmap_data);
this.block_maker.stage_foreground.addChild(this.bitmap);
the blocks appear on the stage, as children of level_instance.stage_foreground, but with this method, the bitmaps aren't appropriately positioned, as they have no position data. I can simply give this.bitmap x and y positions, and it works, but I am curious as to why it won't work when just adding the bitmap as a child to the block and then adding that as a child to stage_foreground.
I've tried replacing this.bitmap with a number of other object classes, such as a temporary MovieClip I made, or a Shape, but nothing shows up, so I know it has nothing to do with it being a Bitmap.
As you stated
This is in a class constructor for a class called block, block_maker
is the object that called the constructor, an instance of level.
this.bitmap = new Bitmap(this.bitmap_data);
this.addChild(this.bitmap);
this.block_maker.stage_foreground.addChild(this);
The level class needs to to extend a display object for it to show up.
In other words
"this"
has to be a display object or extend it in some form.
The reason this doesn't work.
this.block_maker.stage_foreground.addChild(this);
and this does
this.block_maker.stage_foreground.addChild(this.bitmap);
Is because "this" is not a display object but "this.bitmap" is.
The DisplayObject class is the base class for all objects that can be placed on the display list.
First of all, even though it's not neccesary, I'd suggest to make a classname start with a capital letter, and vars always start with a lower-case letter. It's a common 'rule' in AS3 that's mainly to avoid confusion.
The problem most likely lies within you use of this; what you're doing is adding this into this. It seems to me it's not a proper way of coding.
Also, since all of the other attempts didn't work; have you tried to make the var you want ot add a public static var?
Lets say i have an Array collection, filled with some elements. If i say
myArrayCollection.addItemAt(object,0);
What exactly happens here? Does all the elements gets shifted rigthwards? or element at 0th position gets replaced with new one?
To summarize, the reason there are two different methods, addItemAt() and setItemAt(), is because one of them adds a new item (not replacing any of the existing ones), and the other sets/overwrites the existing index.
For more info, check out the ArrayCollection documentation.