LittleBigPlanet 1 - PSP - Tearaway -Run Sackboy Run #1
Theck, Thack and Sackboy tracking
Archive: 54 posts
| Hey everyone, I am working on a level with a cliff portion and had a neat concept that I'd like to implement. I'm just not sure if it's doable. The basic premise is that sackboy is climbing up this cliff and comes to a spot where the ledge is thin, so the player has to move slowly and "put their back against the wall" to get across the ledge. The idea is to use theck or thack to make the cliff ledge look noticibly thinner than the thick layer. A speech bubble will cue the player to walk slowly, thus making sackboy use the sideways stride animation and appear to be traversing the cliff with his back to the wall. If the player moves too fast (i.e. runs) a cliff portion falls out from under sackboy (demitted?) and he falls down to the thick layer below. Thing is, I've never worked with theck, thack, or invisible layers. Additionally, to determine the speed of sackboy, I believe I'll need to use a sackboy tracker (which is in the LBPC Logic Pack or one of rtm's levels, I believe, yes?) to ensure he walks slowly. Some concerns: 1) If I demit or dissolve a part of the cliff so that sackboy falls, I'll need to figure out how to "reset" this. I'd also like to make it so that if sackboy gets to a certain point, he won't have to go all the way through again. I can handle the logic on this with a prox switch hooked up to a checkpoint, it's more of the part about "resetting" the cliff after sackboy falls that has me scratching my head on how best to implement this. Set/reset switch with demitters? 2) Following up on the last point, how can I best implement this with multiplayer in mind? If player 1 falls at a place in the cliff ahead of player 2, will I have to force player 2 to fall back down to reset the cliff face? Is there some other way of making this work that I haven't thought of? Does a sackboy tracker even work with more than one player? If not, I can probably make a shortcut for 2 or more players with a different gameplay mechanic in mind. 3) Will theck or thack suffice for a thin cliff face? In other words, can you walk on top of either? Or will I have to combine it with some invisible mats? 4) Is there anything similar out there that I can play or view in create mode to see how it works? Thanks in advance! | 2010-07-22 18:08:00 Author: schm0  Posts: 1239 |
I may not be able to help much, I more of a visual learner, but I felt I should just say, you don't actually need a sackboy tracker to ensure a player is moving slowly. A few sensor switches hooked up to a off screen logic system would work. And you were right, the logic system you'd need for it is in one of RTM's levels, but it would n have ba eed a little adjustments. And I'm like 90% sure the system is multiplayer friendly, so there ya go.  | 2010-07-22 20:52:00 Author: srgt_poptart  Posts: 425 |
| 1. Yes, you can use a demitter/re-emitter combo. Rtm has done some impressive work (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=11861-Demitters-New-demitter-switch-added!!!-2010-03-10) with these. In your case, I would have invisible thack dissolve in front of the theck ridge. Break it into sections so that a failure by one player doesn't result in a failure for both. 2. Multiplayer is indeed tricky but it IS possible. I did a demo level of a motion sensing searchlight (meaning the mgs searchlight will only sound an alarm if the sackboy is moving while the light is on him) that works for two players by using two trackers. You'll need to make the left sensor on one track require all and the right sensor on the other require all. This will result in one tracker following which ever player is furthest to the right and the other following the player furthest to the left. There's a bit more to detecting movement than that and I can't recall all the particulars, buy my demo level is copyable so you should be able to work out from it how to make it work, or you can check out Rtm's stuff. There are two caveats to a double sack tracker rig. First, it will ignore any players between the far left and far right players: in this case the player on the far left will have to inch along and so will the one on the right, but the two in the middle can run around freely as long as they don't pass the other guys. It's annoying but it's unlikely most players will notice, and you can still have jump sensors on each dissolve block to trigger a failure for any player that jumps. Second, if for example, the checkpoint is to the right and is onscreen, and the player on the left dies and respawns, both trackers will detect both players as being outside their zones and trigger a failure. You'll need to rig some sort of fail-safe logic to counteract this: perhaps when a player fails, the tracker attached to him disables until it's centered on another player and if a sackboy is detected at the checkpoint, the tracker closer to it disables until it's centered on the furthest right player. There will be a lot to do to cover all your bases, but it's very possible, and since players won't be able to see the trackers, they almost certainly won't be aware of those brief moments of vulnerability in the system so the play experience should be unaffected. 3. You can walk on top of thack but not theck. Keep in mind that some sackboy's can pass through theck material (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=29506-Theck-Layer-Beware!) so make sure there is a thick or thin wall behind it. 4. I've never heard of anything exactly like what you're going for, but Rtm's "Subterranean Setbacks" (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=14878-Subterranean-Setbacks-**-Sackies-2009-Nominee-Best-Level!-**) has a segment where you have to creep along slowly to avoid waking a rat, and TheAdipose's "Discworld..." (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=23276-Discworld-Thieves-of-Ankh-Morpork-Released!) has a segment where you must sneak in and out of a jail without waking the guard. (both of those are extremely well made levels and worthy of anybody's favorites list). I find this idea intriguing and I hope you pursue it and include it in your finished level. If you need any help building the tracker logic, add me in psn (I very rarely accept friend requests and this is the first time I've made an offer like this: I'm that excited about your idea) and I'll help as much as I can. | 2010-07-22 21:34:00 Author: Sehven  Posts: 2188 |
| The effect with thack is not as convincing as I'd hoped it would be, but theck with invisible material works like a charm. I could probably just make small, thin sections of dissolve and simply have the floor fall out from underneath the player if they move too fast. Lots of short prox switches should do the trick, but I'm still confused as to where to find the player tracker... 19771 | 2010-07-23 02:24:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239 |
| You'll find the Sack Tracker in the intermediate Logic Pack - and in the corresponding gallery level (Which you'll want to copy to your moon for full potential, and then just capture the items you want) | 2010-07-23 02:34:00 Author: standby250  Posts: 1113 |
| Well, one of the new problems I'm facing is that dissolve, when made invisible, is no longer dissolvable. I thought that motor bolts might work on shorter segments of the invisible material, but you can't get theck or thick to go anywhere but up, thus launching the player into the sky... The only other idea is to emit gas or some other similar method of killing the player, but having them simply "disappear" and die for running along the cliff edge takes the whole realism out of the idea. I think I'm stuck. | 2010-07-24 18:22:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239 |
| So if I understand correctly, you want Sackboy to walk at a slowed speed (detected with a slow sackboy tracker) otherwise he falls down off of whatever floor he was standing on? Have you thought about using invisible floor sections with wobble bolts that "drop" Sackboy if he moves too fast? | 2010-07-24 18:40:00 Author: Gilgamesh  Posts: 2536 |
| Dissolve can still dissolve when it's invisible, but you have to hook the wire up to it before you make it invisible. So just make it bigger until it barely becomes visible, hook the wire, then shrink it. Or instead of dissolve, use emitted invisible dark matter and have it demit instead of dissolve. You're going to run into a problem setting up the emitters: thack doesn't want to emit in front of theck. You can get around this, though, if both of them are dark matter or anchored by dark matter (see rtm's emitter blocking blog), but you'll have to move the theck ridge out of the way while you configure the emitter. I haven't been on lbp much lately, but I'll try to get on some time today. What time do you usually play? | 2010-07-24 19:07:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188 |
| So if I understand correctly, you want Sackboy to walk at a slowed speed (detected with a slow sackboy tracker) otherwise he falls down off of whatever floor he was standing on? Have you thought about using invisible floor sections with wobble bolts that "drop" Sackboy if he moves too fast? Yes, but the method won't be compatible swinging down with theck in the way (read below). Dissolve can still dissolve when it's invisible, but you have to hook the wire up to it before you make it invisible. So just make it bigger until it barely becomes visible, hook the wire, then shrink it. Or instead of dissolve, use emitted invisible dark matter and have it demit instead of dissolve. You're going to run into a problem setting up the emitters: thack doesn't want to emit in front of theck. You can get around this, though, if both of them are dark matter or anchored by dark matter (see rtm's emitter blocking blog), but you'll have to move the theck ridge out of the way while you configure the emitter. I haven't been on lbp much lately, but I'll try to get on some time today. What time do you usually play? What I've been doing has been using a really thin normal layer just barely above the lip of the theck layer, thus making the "floor." It's invisible, so it doesn't really matter which it is (thack vs. thick). The effect (shown above) is fairly convincing, at least until you start running.  And I'll definately try hooking up a wire before-hand, thanks! I never knew about that! As for the multiplayer challenges, I am fine with putting a speech bubble in there that says "looks like it's just wide for one person at a time to cross" or something like that. There's also the option to make a 2x+ section traversing the same section, but in a different way. I'm haven't even thought enough about how to implement a dual option and still keep the atmosphere. Right now I've been focusing on implementing the mechanics of this idea, then making it look pretty. And now that I've located the player-tracker, I have to figure out the resistance (the bottom piston, I believe) to make it such that it extends only as fast as a sackboy can walk doing the "side-straddle" animation. | 2010-07-24 20:01:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239 |
| Well, one of the new problems I'm facing is that dissolve, when made invisible, is no longer dissolvable. I thought that motor bolts might work on shorter segments of the invisible material, but you can't get theck or thick to go anywhere but up, thus launching the player into the sky... The only other idea is to emit gas or some other similar method of killing the player, but having them simply "disappear" and die for running along the cliff edge takes the whole realism out of the idea. I think I'm stuck. Dissolve material will still dissolve when it it invisible. You have to wire it up first and then shrink it to fit. You could always add and cut from the dissolve too. You could try using the cow glitch for some of it, although then the whole block just then dissolve leaving the section looking a little sub-par if looks out of place. If you decide to go with the invisible dissolve with rock underneath that crumbles or some similar effect you could always place an inverted mag key/switch combo on the emitted rock/dissolve. Acting like a dissolve-able permanent switch, when the top layer gets dissolved then the bottom rocks also fall. I think you should eliminate the theck/thick dropping because that seems more complex than dissolve or gas. If you do choose to do it this way you would have to somehow eliminate all other materials in the way by demitting so that the theck/thick could go down using a emitted piston? I am completely sure of what you mean by this method but all in all it could work but is most likely the most complex way. You could probably pull the gas idea off to, but i don't want to go into detail about that as it would still not look as good as the other ideas. I don't think your stuck it is just going to take lots of planning and thinking. Sehven had some very good ideas for the tracking although I think there is a way to make a multi-sack-tracker that takes up less thermo than the way he described. I will have to check into it for you, a friend showed me it once and I could try to recreate it from memory. It may have less functionality though so if you are willing to sacrifice a better clef for less thermo... You could also add me and I could show you more of my ideas I have had (and probably thought of after I posted this). Good luck! Cheers! | 2010-07-24 20:45:00 Author: tanrockstan34  Posts: 1076 |
| I'm trying to build one of these now to see if it would work the way I thought, but I have to admit I'm a bit stumped about what to do if one of the players dies. I've got a multi-sack tracker and it's set to trigger the killswitch if a sackboy moves too quickly to the left or right or jumps. The problem is if a player dies and respawns, it can screw everything up. Example: player 1 is to the left of player 2. The checkpoint is to the right of player 2. Each player is being tracked individually by their own tracker. Player 1 fails, falls, dies, and respawns, which means now he's the player on the right. Player 2's tracker will now track player one (it tracks the player on the right) which means it'll leave player 2. Player 1's tracker (the left one) will track player 2 now, but it'll take a few seconds to get to him, during which time he'll fall and die, starting the whole thing over again. The whole problem can be avoided by not having a checkpoint onscreen, but that's an annoying limitation, especially in multi-player where you have to wait for the other player to make it across or die. | 2010-07-24 22:09:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188 |
| Dissolve material will still dissolve when it it invisible. You have to wire it up first and then shrink it to fit. You could always add and cut from the dissolve too. You could try using the cow glitch for some of it, although then the whole block just then dissolve leaving the section looking a little sub-par if looks out of place. If you decide to go with the invisible dissolve with rock underneath that crumbles or some similar effect you could always place an inverted mag key/switch combo on the emitted rock/dissolve. Acting like a dissolve-able permanent switch, when the top layer gets dissolved then the bottom rocks also fall. The last recommendation would work, but I'd have to demit and re-emit each segment for subsequent attempts. It would be kinda weird for the rocks to fall and re-appear each attempt. I'm most certainly going to have to have a thin layer of invisible dissolve, re-emitted each time the player dies and restarts the cliff sequence. Has anyone tried capturing and emitting invisible mats? I think you should eliminate the theck/thick dropping because that seems more complex than dissolve or gas. If you do choose to do it this way you would have to somehow eliminate all other materials in the way by demitting so that the theck/thick could go down using a emitted piston? I am completely sure of what you mean by this method but all in all it could work but is most likely the most complex way. You could probably pull the gas idea off to, but i don't want to go into detail about that as it would still not look as good as the other ideas. I don't think your stuck it is just going to take lots of planning and thinking. Sehven had some very good ideas for the tracking although I think there is a way to make a multi-sack-tracker that takes up less thermo than the way he described. I will have to check into it for you, a friend showed me it once and I could try to recreate it from memory. It may have less functionality though so if you are willing to sacrifice a better clef for less thermo... You could also add me and I could show you more of my ideas I have had (and probably thought of after I posted this). Good luck! Cheers!Thanks, I'll look into adding you this evening! I'm trying to build one of these now to see if it would work the way I thought, but I have to admit I'm a bit stumped about what to do if one of the players dies. I've got a multi-sack tracker and it's set to trigger the killswitch if a sackboy moves too quickly to the left or right or jumps. The problem is if a player dies and respawns, it can screw everything up. Example: player 1 is to the left of player 2. The checkpoint is to the right of player 2. Each player is being tracked individually by their own tracker. Player 1 fails, falls, dies, and respawns, which means now he's the player on the right. Player 2's tracker will now track player one (it tracks the player on the right) which means it'll leave player 2. Player 1's tracker (the left one) will track player 2 now, but it'll take a few seconds to get to him, during which time he'll fall and die, starting the whole thing over again. The whole problem can be avoided by not having a checkpoint onscreen, but that's an annoying limitation, especially in multi-player where you have to wait for the other player to make it across or die. Exactly, which is why an alternative route for more than one player is probably going to be in the works, well ahead of the cliff section to entice parties of two or more to take the bait. The single player will have no option but to stray from the beaten path, so to speak. Or I could just put "1P ONLY" on my level description, but I'd rather not exclude people from playing the level. I'm thinking if I just make it so the whole floor falls out from the entire "cliff" sequence, this would be a sufficient deterrent for anyone trying to take more than one person across. This would be sooo much easier in LBP2. | 2010-07-25 00:14:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239 |
| This would be sooo much easier in LBP2. Yeah, you got that right! You could always try something for multiplayer like one - three people go below on a ledge (without the risk of falling) while the other lone player does the ledge and if they fall, they will hope to be caught by a spotter. | 2010-07-25 02:11:00 Author: tanrockstan34 Posts: 1076 |
| I could actually semi-solve the problem with a couple of SR latches. If a player appears at the checkpoint, both of the trackers' killswitches would be disabled and they wouldn't re-enable until they were locked onto a sackboy. I'm just trying to think of a more efficient way of doing it: at the minimum, two sr's will need three emitters (using Rtm's mutex design) and there'll need to be a relay with a slight delay when it detects a sackboy just to be sure that it's actually locked onto him. For that extra bit of polish, the checkpoint would probably need a death detector instead of a regular sensor (a death detector is a logic device I came up with for the "you suck meter" in a couple of my levels: it can tell the difference between a player spawning and a player just walking/running/falling past the checkpoint). So we're not talking about a huge burden on the thermometer, but it's still pretty bulky logic for a simple game mechanic: I'm sure there's got to be a more efficient way of doing it. And yeah, you could do the "one player only" thing, but imho any level with a one player limit is broken (unless it's something like pinball or whatever where only a single player can operate the controls). I'm not sure how much my opinion counts, though, 'cuz some great creators have done single player levels. Also I'm a bit of a hypocrite 'cuz my mech levels and Starfighter level don't allow for more than two. | 2010-07-25 05:53:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188 |
| Another way of making the player fall through the invisible layer is the gravity glitch (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=16733-Gravity-Manipulation). By replacing one of the rods with a piston, you can control when to pull a sackboy straight through a material and out the other side. It's still in one of my levels, so I could get you the exact configuration if you're interested. | 2010-07-25 11:21:00 Author: Rogar  Posts: 2284 |
| Another way of making the player fall through the invisible layer is the gravity glitch (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=16733-Gravity-Manipulation). By replacing one of the rods with a piston, you can control when to pull a sackboy straight through a material and out the other side. It's still in one of my levels, so I could get you the exact configuration if you're interested. Does sackboy do his normal "falling animation" or is he stuck to the material when he's "pulled"? I'd prefer the former. I'm also wondering if instead of one big piece of dissolve, I could use smaller pieces with mag switches and emitters. Sackboy walks too fast, a mag key is emitted near the switch (which is on the detector) and demits/re-emits the invisible section. This is starting to make my brain hurt. | 2010-07-25 22:51:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239 |
| Oh, I thought that if you dissolve that it was going o be in sections to begin with. It will give you more flexibility when you work with it. One piece would take up less thermo though because there would only be one emitter. Plus, if you were to do two + players on the cliff at once you need multiple sections of everybody would just fall to their death. I am going to experiment with the technique Rogar suggested and see if I can get a combo of ideas to work. I am wondering about the animation too. BTW what is going to be under the cliff? I would naturally be thinking gas but have you ever thought to use invisible spikes? You could a river with jagged rocks or something underneath. @Sheven... As for the thermo problems that may be encountered with all the SR latches, Schm0 could always just use Aya's thermo cheating technique to emit the whole cliff section. I may not be on LBP for the next week because I just lost a lot of work in the Sims3. Yes, I <3 The Sims!!!  | 2010-07-26 00:36:00 Author: tanrockstan34 Posts: 1076 |
| Well, it doesn't eat into the thermo too badly if you're efficient with your logic. Mostly I keep thinking there must be a more elegant solution, but I haven't come up with one yet. My current solution requires two sack trackers, two OR gates with three inputs each (left, right, and up so if the player wanders off too fast in either direction or jumps, it triggers the switch), two SR latches that will act to disable the OR gates, and a death detector to prevent the SR's from being tripped by a player walking in front of the checkpoint. It's a big logic mess. Actually, I just had a thought that I'll have to try when I get a chance. Might be able to cut the death detector and one of the SR's. | 2010-07-26 00:50:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188 |
| Just one question, won't Thec-X-Men (as now called by many) just fall behind or be affected differently by all this THeck-Thack layout? | 2010-07-26 01:07:00 Author: Silverleon  Posts: 6707 |
| Just one question, won't Thec-X-Men (as now called by many) just fall behind or be affected differently by all this THeck-Thack layout? No, I'm only using theck to represent the ledge, no thack involved. The invisible "floor" will be a normal thick layer. That's what's shown in the screen shot on the first page, it's just not hooked up to an emitter and is sans sacktracker. @the rest: I'm thinking of the most simplest solution possible. If a group of 2 or more people want to go ahead and try out the 1p section, by all means, they can try. One sacktracker = first player to cross will still have to walk slowly. My plan is to make some sort of shiny "Oooh, what's this?" door or some other enticing thing to lead groups of 2 or more through a different path. Here is a very, VERY rough sketch of what I had in mind I tossed together in MS Paint: 20122 A - (The Cliff) A sackperson activates the checkpoint. An emitter/de-emitter lies in the back thin layer and is activated by proximity switch directly below the checkpoint. So, the cliff floor is emitted once the player reaches the checkpoint. If the player dies (and re-appears) the prox switch is triggered. The proximity switch is hooked up to an OR gate, in addition to a proximity switch on the sacktracker. This second prox switch (also hooked up to the OR gate) is for when the player gets X units ahead of the tracker. Either one will demit the "floor" of the cliff and re-emit it back into place. If the player is on the cliff portion and goes to fast, the floor demits underneath him and he falls below into some gas. Thus, no dissolve necessary. B - (The Lower Path) The group takes the bait. This area will be below the cliff portion and have a very simple puzzle requiring at least two people. The goal will be to have the players hold two switches, thus opening a door on the other side and allowing the group to go across. C - (The Platforms) These will be emitted only when all players have entered the multiplayer zone. This is to prevent sackboy from falling onto one of them in the 1-player zone. I am hoping that the single player will not try to enter this zone. D - (The Risers) Once both switches are pulled, the door leading back up will open and these will rise from the gas making it less annoying to cross. E - (The end of the beginning) The mountain shrine entrance will start here. | 2010-07-26 03:14:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239 |
| Haha, that is a lot more simplistic than Sehven and I were thinking... You should be able to easily create that without many problems... Logic shouldn't be too heavy. Although, simple is not always too good. | 2010-07-26 03:19:00 Author: tanrockstan34 Posts: 1076 |
| Ah well, I wasn't getting anywhere with the multi-tracker anyway. There actually was an easy solution: don't put a checkpoint on screen. I could do a 2 player rig perfectly as long as I didn't have to worry about any players respawning. Glad you've got a solution you're happy with--I guess I do tend to over-think these things sometimes. | 2010-07-26 03:26:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188 |
| Haha, that is a lot more simplistic than Sehven and I were thinking... You should be able to easily create that without many problems... Logic shouldn't be too heavy. Although, simple is not always too good. Well, it solves nearly all of the problems with complexity, and although it's not perfect, it certainly provides the right sticks and carrots to lead the player(s) in the right direction. Ah well, I wasn't getting anywhere with the multi-tracker anyway. There actually was an easy solution: don't put a checkpoint on screen. I could do a 2 player rig perfectly as long as I didn't have to worry about any players respawning. Glad you've got a solution you're happy with--I guess I do tend to over-think these things sometimes. No worries. I'm still a noob at all of this, and this is still just a plan... I haven't implemented anything yet, so as simplistic as it may seem this is the most complex logic I've had to deal with to date. | 2010-07-26 03:26:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239 |
| If you're still interested, I just created a tracker that is multi-player friendly for my latest level. I think it's very similar to rtm's tracker, but might be a bit lower thermo in terms of the external logic. The reset and initializing mechanic is a bit different as well, which might make it easier to handle group deaths. I'll show you next time we're both on and you can decide if you're interested. | 2010-07-26 11:41:00 Author: comphermc  Posts: 5338 |
| My current solution requires two sack trackers, two OR gates with three inputs each (left, right, and up so if the player wanders off too fast in either direction or jumps, it triggers the switch), Did you solve the issue of the players getting close to each other and triggering each other's trackers (if they get close to each other, that would be the same as the other player moving too far to the side? Your description sounds like it doesn't, but I can't tell... I've got a 2-player safe sneak detector knocking about that handles most things other than death... although I never considered this an issue as in a sneaking scenario, the only likely death would be pointless suicide and considering my application is supposed to be sound-triggered, I copped out and decided popping oneself would be a noisy activity I do like the idea of disguising the multiplayer path as a bonus section. Personally I'd just have the bonus section as a fully alternate route, and hopefully disguise the fact that the single player section exists at all from them | 2010-07-26 13:14:00 Author: rtm223  Posts: 6497 |
| Hey Rich, refresh my memory... What logic does yours entail? I've set mine up using only one moving part for the external logic: A Set Reset switch, with lots of inputs per either side. I did a lot of work with connector strengths to get it to work reliably. There are still two trackers, and there are 5 actions which "Set" the alarm. Then there is a sensor near the checkpoint (and after you reach the safe point) that "Reset" - or more accurately prevent a Set. The big difference is the way that the tracking is initialized. There is a sensor at the starting area (you drop in from above, as per usual). The logic is unable to "Set" whilst a player is in this sensor area. Once all players drop in, this sensor is moved so that it can no longer be activated, and tracking begins. I'm sure that was a terrible explanation, but it works very well. In conclusion: 2 moving parts (one logic piece and the sensor that moves), 14 sensors, a mag key, a mag key switch, and 14 connectors (<--- that number can be cut down, but I was lazy, doesn't include the 4 connectors for each tracker). The trackers are also made from thin gas, so they don't need their own layer. (Sorry to highjack your thread, schm0, but it does have sackboy tracking in the title. ) | 2010-07-26 13:26:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338 |
| Hey Rich, refresh my memory... What logic does yours entail? I don't know  So what, is yours multiplayer or single player? Because your description seems to conflict on that account.... | 2010-07-26 13:40:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497 |
| I do like the idea of disguising the multiplayer path as a bonus section. Personally I'd just have the bonus section as a fully alternate route, and hopefully disguise the fact that the single player section exists at all from them Yeah, this is going to be intent. I got started on building this last night but lost my creative mojo in the process. Everything I was creating was along the lines of "meh." I'm thinking of placing the entire concept inside an ice cave, which is still workable. I'm thinking an ancient looking door with a magic mouth "inscription" will be enough to entice the group to take the bait. But yes, it is intended to be a fully alternate path. I'm thinking downward-retracting steps should do the trick, thus preventing a multiplayer group from even seeing the single player route. (Sorry to highjack your thread, schm0, but it does have sackboy tracking in the title. )*yells forum equivalent of "Hey you kids, get off my lawn!!!" and runs* I'd still be interested in learning how the multi-tracker works... I was waiting for you two to show up in this thread. | 2010-07-26 14:56:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239 |
| So what, is yours multiplayer or single player? Because your description seems to conflict on that account.... Both. Did I conflict? I don't know - I wrote that in a rush. It's multiplayer friendly. | 2010-07-26 20:13:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338 |
| Did you solve the issue of the players getting close to each other and triggering each other's trackers (if they get close to each other, that would be the same as the other player moving too far to the side? Your description sounds like it doesn't, but I can't tell... We had this conversation before and I still have no idea why you think this would be a problem. We must have our wires crossed on exactly how the thing works, 'cuz there's no conflict at all between the two sackboys and their trackers. For the left tracker to be triggered on its right side, ALL sackboys must be on the right side, so the player on the right can dance around like crazy, including running into the middle of the tracker and back out, and never trigger it. Of course, there's a tracker for the guy on the right too, so if he went crazy, he'd trigger an alert on his own tracker. Maybe a pic would help: http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=20174 So there's two sack trackers here. Both are thin gas so they're invisible and they have five sensor switches each. The two closer to the middle of their respective trackers are the ones that handle the actual tracking. The other two are for detecting if a sackboy passes out of the middle of the tracker, and the last one is for detecting jumps. All are set to 180 degrees. The inward facing sensors are set to require all. Optimus (left) and Megatron (right) each have a tracker following them, while Jazz (middle) is being ignored. If Op and Megs stand still, Jazz can run around all he wants and never trigger an alert as long as he never moves past either of the other guys. If Jazz creeps to the left and passes Optimus, the tracker will start following him and Op will be ignored. If there were only one player, both trackers would follow him. If Megatron were to quickly move to the left, the "require all" alert sensor would detect all three sackboys and an alert would be triggered. If Jazz were out of the picture and it were only Op and Megs, and Megs they were to creep past each other, the trackers would follow them to the middle and then they'd switch: the right tracker would follow Op as he continued to the right and the left tracker would follow Megs as he continued to the left. The problem with this setup is that if one of the outside players dies, the require all sensor facing the others will be satisfied and will trigger an alert. That could be semi-remedied by adding an SR latch to it which disables the alert if no sackboy is detected near the tracker and re-enables it once a sackboy is detected at its center, but that still leaves the problem of what happens when a player respawns in range of the trackers. @Rtm, I'm sure I didn't need to explain in this much detail for your benefit, but I figure there will be others here who have a hard time following it. | 2010-07-26 21:29:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188 |
| Does sackboy do his normal "falling animation" or is he stuck to the material when he's "pulled"? I'd prefer the former. Oh, never mind. I just checked, and while the falling is pretty normal (except rare cases where you bounce once before dropping through), I can't get rid of the continuous jumping when the switch is set the other way. | 2010-07-26 22:30:00 Author: Rogar Posts: 2284 |
| Son-of-a... I just optimized my tracker down as far as I could handle and set it up for some pictures. I decided to turn off my secondary controller b/c the extra sack was bothering me. I definitely selected 'Turn off System' instead of 'Turn off Controller.' Sigh. Edit: Remade it. I was able to cut it down a bit from my previous version, and I'm not sure it can be reduced much further. It works on the same principle that Sehven described on the last page, but I predict that it simplifies the logic involved: http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/4643/tracker.jpg The tricky part there is the [require all] sensor right under the tracker. It causes the piston on the top to retract, thereby removing the upper SAFE zone, which points back to the left. It had to done this way, serving as an initializer, in case one person started moving before the other. The logic, as should be clear to anyone who's worked with it before, is a Set-Reset. If that poly block moves to the left (by receiving any of the ALERT actions), then whatever your output is will fire. You should also note that when the SAFE zone on the far right is reached, the logic is no longer able to SET. I don't think anyone but Rich or Sehven are paying attention anymore, so I will presume you get how this works to a certain extent. The Set-Reset connector strengths are important: All winches on the left - 4.5 strength All winches on the right - 10 strength Piston on the top - 2 strength (receives input from the output, which is an rtm trick). Note: I've changed the trackers to cardboard so it could be more easily seen in the picture, but I would normally use thin gas. Also, by setting it up so the players drop from above, instead of walk from the left, you just need to set the initializer to point down, to catch all sackboy when they reach below a certain point. That made no sense, I'm sure. | 2010-07-26 23:09:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338 |
| Very nice. The only problem with having everything run on one SR is that a failure by one player will kill both. My thinking was that if one player falls off the cliff, the other(s) ought to be able to continue. I mean, if this was a sneaking sensor then a failure for one would be a failure for all, but this is supposed to be a balance game. I like the safe zone device, but I'm not sure why you need it. Of course, I'm thinking that the trackers would start tracking you before you're on the dangerous part of the cliff so an alert wouldn't result in a death. What are the winches on the trackers for? Are they strong enough to overpower the pistons and fast enough to reset the trackers? [edit: Just looked again, and I can tell that that is indeed what they're for] That's probably a good idea. Mine would take a while to reset. I still can't think of a way to kill one player without screwing everything up for the other guy, though. Well, I can't think of a thermo-efficient way: I could always give the trackers "require all" sensors pointing in both directions along with the non-require all ones, add a disabler to the trigger mechanisms and run everything through s'more logic gates. Essentially, if the player on the right dies and respawns on the left, the left tracker will convert into a right tracker (so it doesn't move away from the now-right player) until the actual right tracker overlaps it. The trigger mechanism on the right tracker will disable until it overlaps, at which point the trigger mechanism on the left will disable until it gets to the now-left sackboy. But that would be a huge pain to set up and I imagine it'd eat up more thermo than you'd want to dedicate to something like this. | 2010-07-27 00:54:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188 |
| Very nice. The only problem with having everything run on one SR is that a failure by one player will kill both. My thinking was that if one player falls off the cliff, the other(s) ought to be able to continue. I mean, if this was a sneaking sensor then a failure for one would be a failure for all, but this is supposed to be a balance game. ...I still can't think of a way to kill one player without screwing everything up for the other guy, though. Oooh! Time for me to jump back in. While the logic is a little over my head, I am grasping most of what is said here. It would definately help more if I saw it in action (*cough*). Meanwhile, my workaround solution will still allow both the single player and the group to have a unique experience and enjoy the level. Don't worry about hijacking the thread, I am interested to see if this might work. (Edit: My pathetic attempts at offering a solution have come up a bit short.  )I have a feeling the problem with this, ultimately, is that if two players are standing on the same section of material, they'll both fall anyways. Maybe an invisble thick section strung between players? | 2010-07-27 01:11:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239 |
| I just though of something that may require no logic at all! I am going to test it right now. My idea was that if you emit invisible pieces of material with sensor switches so that if sackboy walks slowly it will emit but if he walks/runs to fast it won't have time to emit and he will fall to his doom! MUWHAHA! I will get back to you if it works and maybe if you are online sometime I could show you. | 2010-07-27 02:06:00 Author: tanrockstan34 Posts: 1076 |
| I actually toyed with that idea a bit Tan, but with two trackers, that would only work for 1-2 players. If there was a third and fourth, then only the players farthest to the left and right would have anything to stand on. For the emitted floor idea to work, a whole new method of detecting movement would be needed. Hm.... actually there might be something to that. When I made a death counter, it used two sensors with different radii. Each was connected to a piston with different speeds. The switch with the smaller radius hooked to the faster piston and the bigger one hooked to the slightly slower one. The two pistons held blocks of an old fashioned AND gate (the switch on one block and the key on the other). If the player approached from the side/above/below, the larger radius switch would trigger and retract its half of the AND gate, preventing it from being triggered. If the player spawned from the checkpoint, both would be triggered, but the center switch would move its block in faster than the outer switch would retract, so the gate would be triggered. If the cliff were made of several chunks of emitted dm, and the logic on the death detector were reversed and the timing tweaked a bit, it could be rigged so that if the player approached too quickly, the gate would be triggered and turn off the emitter, sending the player to his death. It'd be a thermo heavy solution depending on how big the cliff is, but it would work for any number of players. I think I might have to try building that. [EDIT] Tried it and it worked! Instead of reversing anything with the death sensor, all I had to do was tweak the timing. I rigged it so that if the inner sensor is triggered within about half a second of the outer one being triggered, it completes the AND gate which will activate the killswitch. The switches use very small radii so there won't be a problem no matter how many players are present. Sure a player could essentially "hold the door open" for another player but that would only allow him past a very small section of the cliff before he ran into another sensor: we're talking two small grid units per sensor. Unfortunately, that means for every two small grid units, you need three sensor switches (two for the speed detector and one for a jump sensor), an AND gate coupled with an OR gate (so the jump sensor can trigger a fail even if the AND gate has been disabled) and an emitter for its section of the cliff. Still, it shouldn't be too thermo intensive unless there are huge cliffs, and Rtm can probably think of a way of making it more efficient. As it is, with nothing but a single sensor and the entrance checkpoint in the map, one bar of thermo is taken up. It stays that way with 20 of them, but when I took it to 30, it jumped to two bars, but that's with each sensor array being on its own block of dm, and each of the logic gates being on their own block. | 2010-07-27 06:42:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188 |
| I have a feeling the problem with this, ultimately, is that if two players are standing on the same section of material, they'll both fall anyways. Maybe an invisble thick section strung between players? I wouldn't see that as a problem. When you mess up while passing another player, you're likely to unbalance him and drag him down with you. | 2010-07-27 10:05:00 Author: Rogar Posts: 2284 |
| Sehven... You did say you tend to over complicate, right? I tested out a basic idea last night with Schm and it works fine with just one sensor switch wired to an emitter! The only problem is getting thack to emit over theck. If we could shrink a piece of dark matter small enough we could place it right above. You will have to join me/us sometime because we still need to figure out the thack/theck problem. | 2010-07-27 11:38:00 Author: tanrockstan34 Posts: 1076 |
| Sounds like fun. I'm not on much lately, but I'll try to meet up. I have no idea how a single sensor switch could solve the problem, so that'll be interesting to see. As for the emitter thing, theck and thack are both considered by the game to be thick so they block each other from emitting, but you can get around that if the emitted part and the blocking part are both dm or glued to dm. You just have to set up the emitter away from the blocker and then move it (see Rtm's blog on emitter blocking). Anyway, after a bit more experimenting I found that the sections I was working with were too small. They let sackboy inch across and they'd kill him if he moved too fast... unless he went at a dead run. At full speed, he would make it to the next section before the one he was standing on disappeared. So yeah, they'll need to be bigger (I didn't experiment to find out exactly how big, but I figure 3 to 3 1/2 small grid units would do it: big enough that sackboy doesn't have time to move off the block before it disappears. It also has the benefit of reducing the number of switches/emitters needed for a given length of cliff. All of that may be a moot point if you've managed to do it with a single sensor--you'll have to forgive my skepticism on that--I just can't see how you could possibly rig a speed sensitive device with one sensor and have it work in multiplayer as well. | 2010-07-27 12:06:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188 |
| I tested out a basic idea last night with Schm and it works fine with just one sensor switch wired to an emitter! The only problem is getting thack to emit over theck. If we could shrink a piece of dark matter small enough we could place it right above. All of that may be a moot point if you've managed to do it with a single sensor--you'll have to forgive my skepticism on that--I just can't see how you could possibly rig a speed sensitive device with one sensor and have it work in multiplayer as well. Well, hold on there. I joined up with Schm0, and he showed me this "single emitter" technique. No offense, Tanrock, but it's no good. It only works when a player sneaks super slow - as soon as he or she runs (which should result in failure), the emitted bits all pile up. Besides, it doesn't look great. And describing it as requiring only a single sensor is deceiving - it requires lots of them... one for each emitter. Unless you've explained it poorly to Schm0. When we were joined up, however, I pursued the idea of emitting a "track" beneath the player from the tracker. If you just never turn off the emitters, you don't need any sensors to detect moving too fast at all. You just need one emitter (I used two, but it's not necessary) to just emit DM underneath sackboy constantly. Then, just set the tracker to only track as fast as "sneaking." If you go too fast, the tracker lags behind and cannot emit the DM pieces under sackboy. It works just fine. There is nothing to save against jumping, but really that's not necessary based on how he plans to use the tracker. Crap, late for work! | 2010-07-27 12:21:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338 |
| @Rtm, I'm sure I didn't need to explain in this much detail for your benefit. Lol, a little light went off at: For the left tracker to be triggered on its right side, ALL sackboys Yeah, I vaguely remember this conversation now. It was a while ago and I most forgot the details after getting a system that worked well I really wish I had time to play properly though | 2010-07-27 12:30:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497 |
| Well, hold on there. I joined up with Schm0, and he showed me this "single emitter" technique. No offense, Tanrock, but it's no good. It only works when a player sneaks super slow - as soon as he or she runs (which should result in failure), the emitted bits all pile up. Besides, it doesn't look great. And describing it as requiring only a single sensor is deceiving - it requires lots of them... one for each emitter. Unless you've explained it poorly to Schm0. Haha, no offense taken, I know it's not good it was just a prototype. It does need improving upon for sure, but if you can do it with the tracker that would be great. | 2010-07-27 12:45:00 Author: tanrockstan34 Posts: 1076 |
| When we were joined up, however, I pursued the idea of emitting a "track" beneath the player from the tracker. If you just never turn off the emitters, you don't need any sensors to detect moving too fast at all. You just need one emitter (I used two, but it's not necessary) to just emit DM underneath sackboy constantly. Then, just set the tracker to only track as fast as "sneaking." If you go too fast, the tracker lags behind and cannot emit the DM pieces under sackboy. It works just fine. There is nothing to save against jumping, but really that's not necessary based on how he plans to use the tracker. Crap, late for work! Hey Comph, wouldn't it make more sense to instead of emitting constantly, to emit once per X units, say keyed in by mag switch, and demit as you proceed? You'd eliminate the floaty behavior you forgot to mention. *cough* I'm not nearly advanced enough to foresee any problems with this, so I'll let you have at it. | 2010-07-27 16:03:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239 |
| The problem with a tracker/emitter is that it still has the same multi-player problems that the other tracker solution had. If you have two of these trackers, they'll work fine for two players, but a third and fourth player would have nothing to stand on (only the two on the ends would be tracked). Also, there's still the problem of dying/respawning. If the checkpoint is to the left of the two players inching across, and the player on the right dies and respawns, the right tracker will now track the player who was previously on the left and start moving toward him, and the left tracker will now track the player who was previously on the right (but now is on the left 'cuz he respawned). So the guy who was on the left will try to continue inching along, only to find that his platform has moved out from under him. This was the reason I abandoned trackers and went with modified death sensors. The thing I rigged uses a continuously emitting platform, but it doesn't have to: that was just the easiest to build. It could be rigged to demit/remit the floor when it triggers. I didn't build it that way 'cuz it would've been more complicated: the emitter would have to move for the demitter to work, and there would need to be some kind of timer built in so that the platform stays gone for about half a second or so--long enough for sackboy to fall through. I experimented with using the super bubble emitter but got odd results--once you walked onto the first platform, you would lose directional control of sackboy and he would continue across at the same speed until he reached the end. The only way to regain control was to jump. So I went back to a .1s emitter and it seemed to work fine, except that you could run across fast enough to avoid falling. When I get time today, I'll make the segments bigger and that should fix the problem. Yeah, I vaguely remember this conversation now. It was a while ago and I most forgot the details after getting a system that worked well So you have a multiplayer sneak sensor that works differently than the one Comph and I described? How does it work? | 2010-07-27 18:46:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188 |
| The problem with a tracker/emitter is that it still has the same multi-player problems that the other tracker solution had. If you have two of these trackers, they'll work fine for two players, but a third and fourth player would have nothing to stand on (only the two on the ends would be tracked). What about a three-way AND switch, two inputs for either player and another for the third player that attempts to enter the cliff section? Put a little magic mouth saying "The cliff doesn't appear to be stable enough for more than two people to cross at the same time... proceed with caution!" AND switch is triggered, all trackers are reset and floor falls out...? I'm probably adding a layer of complexity here, just wondering if it would work. Also, there's still the problem of dying/respawning. If the checkpoint is to the left of the two players inching across, and the player on the right dies and respawns, the right tracker will now track the player who was previously on the left and start moving toward him, and the left tracker will now track the player who was previously on the right (but now is on the left 'cuz he respawned). So the guy who was on the left will try to continue inching along, only to find that his platform has moved out from under him. This was the reason I abandoned trackers and went with modified death sensors. A conundrum, indeed. The thing I rigged uses a continuously emitting platform, but it doesn't have to: that was just the easiest to build. It could be rigged to demit/remit the floor when it triggers. I didn't build it that way 'cuz it would've been more complicated: the emitter would have to move for the demitter to work, and there would need to be some kind of timer built in so that the platform stays gone for about half a second or so--long enough for sackboy to fall through. I experimented with using the super bubble emitter but got odd results--once you walked onto the first platform, you would lose directional control of sackboy and he would continue across at the same speed until he reached the end. The only way to regain control was to jump. So I went back to a .1s emitter and it seemed to work fine, except that you could run across fast enough to avoid falling. When I get time today, I'll make the segments bigger and that should fix the problem. Interesting... a new technique. So you have a multiplayer sneak sensor that works differently than the one Comph and I described? How does it work. Yeah, come on RTM, show us your goods. | 2010-07-27 19:15:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239 |
| Why is dying an issue? There is no reason for the player to stop and pop... if they do that, then they've already lost the immersion, and have done that to themselves. It's basically a non-issue in my eyes. | 2010-07-27 19:33:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338 |
| What about a three-way AND switch, two inputs for either player and another for the third player that attempts to enter the cliff section? Put a little magic mouth saying "The cliff doesn't appear to be stable enough for more than two people to cross at the same time... proceed with caution!" AND switch is triggered, all trackers are reset and floor falls out...? I'm probably adding a layer of complexity here, just wondering if it would work. How would you do that? The way you make the trackers differentiate between two sackboys is by using the [require all] setting. There's no way to track a sackboy that's standing between two other sackboys (or no way that I know of). One idea that I haven't really begun to tinker with is using varying strengths of winches on a 3way so that the player that's closer to the tracker is the one that gets followed. Unfortunately, that would require at least one extra set of sensors to track him, and another one to detect if he's in the "dead zone" and prevent movement. I'm sure it's possible but it would be tricky to set up. Why is dying an issue? There is no reason for the player to stop and pop... if they do that, then they've already lost the immersion, and have done that to themselves. It's basically a non-issue in my eyes. It's not about popping. If one player fails and falls to his death, it shouldn't kill the other player too. Again, your design is perfect for a sneaking sensor since a failure by one would trigger an alert that would doom everybody, but there's no reason that one player falling from a ledge should automatically make the other player(s) fall too. | 2010-07-27 20:33:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188 |
| Well, regardless... I tried with just a simple tracker-with-emitting-DM and it worked really well. I made it narrow enough that if you run off to either side, you immediately fall, but if you sneak the platform will emit under you. It's probably the simplest solution, and since Schm0 is consider an alternative route for multiplayer, it's probably the best and simplest way to go. | 2010-07-27 22:02:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338 |
| I feel SO freakin' stupid now! Tan just showed me his method and with a tiny bit of tweaking it became the perfect solution. I'll let him explain, but I have to say I did major facepalm when I saw it. | 2010-07-28 02:41:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188 |
| I feel SO freakin' stupid now! Tan just showed me his method and with a tiny bit of tweaking it became the perfect solution. I'll let him explain, but I have to say I did major facepalm when I saw it. Wait, what? | 2010-07-28 03:01:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239 |
| Well, my "no good idea" turned out to be the perfect solution. Where to start... First of all I would like to thank Sheven for helping me out with this, we both had our *facepalm* and lol moments while trying to get this to work but I wouldn't have been able to do it without him. I made an in-game demo to show everybody who wants to see, you can just drop by while I am online. It is even complete with wind and snow.. don't forget the death. I will not post how I did the timings as it would just be easier to show you in-game. Basically, it is four player friendly, will not tolerate jumps, and will not prohibit speeds equal to or faster than walking. I would say the whole thing takes up maybe one half of a thermo bar or less with no snow and one bar or less with snow... (My snow machine is player tracking and you may have it for your level if you want it. | 2010-07-28 03:28:00 Author: tanrockstan34 Posts: 1076 |
| Well, my "no good idea" turned out to be the perfect solution. Where to start... First of all I would like to thank Sheven for helping me out with this, we both had our *facepalm* and lol moments while trying to get this to work but I wouldn't have been able to do it without him. I made an in-game demo to show everybody who wants to see, you can just drop by while I am online. It is even complete with wind and snow.. don't forget the death. I will not post how I did the timings as it would just be easier to show you in-game. Basically, it is four player friendly, will not tolerate jumps, and will not prohibit speeds equal to or faster than walking. I would say the whole thing takes up maybe one half of a thermo bar or less with no snow and one bar or less with snow... (My snow machine is player tracking and you may have it for your level if you want it. Sehven just showed this off, and... it works! Emitting speed and frequency definately did the trick! Comph, there's none of the floaty convulsion stuff either. The demo is exactly what I had in mind when I first posed the initial thread. I won't even have to do a multiplayer zone, either! And I think I actually understand it, to my own amazement! (amusement?) And, it's not too thermo intensive, either. Super awesome bonus points to everyone (tanrock, sehven, comph, rtm) who helped me out with this! I think /endgirlyexcitedschm0 I think I'm going to have to leave a secret thank you message in my level for you guys now! | 2010-07-28 04:48:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239 |
| I guess I'll go ahead and explain how it works for those who aren't interested in joining Tan or I to see it. So the whole track is emitted dark matter in segments about two small grid units wide. Each segment has its own emitter and sensor. The sensor's radius is just a bit more than the size of the dm segment, it's frequency is .3s and lifetime is .4s. The end result is that if you approach too fast, it doesn't have time to emit so you fall and die. Since it's dm, it can emit overlapping and with a slightly higher lifetime than frequency, as long as the sensor stays active, the dm will never disappear. If you turn down the frequency (meaning set it to a higher number) then you'll have to walk slower. It works for any number of players except for the minor quibble that players can essentially hold the door for each other. For example, if you have three players lined up close together on the ridge, the fourth player will be able to run and jump around them all he wants. Other than that, it works perfectly: you don't get killed just because your buddy screws up and you can't get away with running or jumping, but as long as you take it slow, you'll make it across just fine. Also, you can slap your buddy and send him to his death if you wanna' be a jerk like that | 2010-07-28 04:51:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188 |
| I am glad it is what you were looking for and I am glad we found a simple solution! I cannot wait to see how your level takes shape as from what I have seen it looks as if lots of time has been and will be invested. Cheers! | 2010-07-28 12:15:00 Author: tanrockstan34 Posts: 1076 |
LBPCentral Archive Statistics
Posts: 1077139
Threads: 69970
Members: 9661
Archive-Date: 2019-01-19
Datenschutz
Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.