Archive: 13 posts

---

this problem occurs in a part of my level where i want players to move from right to left. if player A stands still while the other sackpersons (B,C,& D) walk to the left (towards the objective), the game camera stays with player A. that makes players B,C,& D go-off camera & time-out. i've tried various cinematic camera tweaks. nothing seems to reverse it :-/ any suggestions?

2010-08-17 10:26:00 Author: sellfcon Posts: 79

---

Writte"1Player only" in the description.

2010-08-17 10:34:00 Author: Silverleon Posts: 6707

---

Writte"1Player only" in the description. 1 Player only=broken level. From this thread (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=31303-Solved-Camera-Following-Issue): Yeah. I don't entirely understand it either. Its purpose is to make it such that if one player drops behind, or goes AFK in a multiplayer game, it doesn't prevent the other players from completing it. It's something like: when the camera zone isn't large enough to show all players, then focus will go to one of... The player who is furthest from the currently activated checkpoint. The player who is closest to an inactive checkpoint. The player who is closest to the inactive checkpoint which is closest to the currently activated checkpoint. ...or something like that, so you could probably also work around it by activating other checkpoints with a sensor switch as you progress through the level. It seems that the camera system sort of guesses where its priority should be based on where the checkpoints are. If the camera is favoring player A, who's on the right, then you probably have a checkpoint over to the right somewhere that isn't triggered, so the game thinks that he/she is closest to the next objective. Try moving the nearest checkpoint, or even try adding a "dummy checkpoint" out of sight somewhere to trick the game into favoring the other direction.

2010-08-17 10:58:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188

---

Wow, it amazes me how much there is still to learn about this game! And how some people here seem to know everything already.

2010-08-17 12:05:00 Author: Rogar Posts: 2284

---

And by "some people," you of course mean Aya. It always amazes me what stuff he just knows somehow... like this camera thing. It had never even occurred to me to look into checkpoints and here he comes with the answer, and I'm all like, "How the heck did you know that?!"

2010-08-17 20:02:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188

---

And you, both! It seems every post I see of you two contains something new. Is it possible to subscribe to people?

2010-08-17 22:10:00 Author: Rogar Posts: 2284

---

And you, both! It seems every post I see of you two contains something new. Is it possible to subscribe to people? Not exactly but it is possible to subscribe to threads by thread tools at the top of the page

2010-08-18 00:47:00 Author: AssassinatorRFC Posts: 715

---

And by "some people," you of course mean Aya. TBH, you're quite a font of useless information top tips about LBP yourself. It had never even occurred to me to look into checkpoints and here he comes with the answer, and I'm all like, "How the heck did you know that?!" It was actually from something comphermc said, in response to me complaining about the lack of checkpoints in Roller INC (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=27766-Roller-INC) (a truly evil level). He touches upon it briefly here (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=27577-New-Level-by-comphermc-Roller-Inc&p=481605#post481605), but I think we chatted in a bit more depth over MSN. There was one particular section where the checkpoint seemed unnecessarily far back from the start of a particularly nasty section of the level, and when I asked him why he wouldn't move it closer, he basically alluded to it messing up the camera tracking in multiplayer (yeah, like anyone would be insane enough to even attempt that level multiplayer ). The rest was just speculation on my part, i.e. that the rationale for checkpoints having an influence in multiplayer tracking was to help prevent irritating people from ruining your online experience (after all, certain prize bubbles can only be collected with more than one player, and this would've almost certainly come up in playtesting), and the implementation would work in such a way as to always make it possible for the player who's legitimately trying to complete the level, by moving from one checkpoint to the next, isn't held back by those who are just messing around. So I suppose most of the credit in this case goes to comph, since I didn't even notice the influence of checkpoints on player tracking until he pointed it out.

2010-08-18 00:53:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870

---

It was actually from something comphermc said, in response to me complaining about the lack of checkpoiints. There was one particular section where the checkpoint seemed unnecessarily far back from the start of a particularly nasty section of the level, and when I asked him why he wouldn't move it closer, he basically alluded to it messing up the camera tracking in multiplayer 'checkpoints having an influence in multiplayer tracking' So I suppose most of the credit in this case goes to comph, since I didn't even notice the influence of checkpoints on player tracking until he pointed it out. rearranging checkpoins will be tricky, but i'll try that. this part of the level is designed to shake & tilt, then be destroyed with players teleported to the scoreboard. any checkpoints nearby could complicate things. hhhmm.... this will take a few experiments to make it work. a dummy checkpoint may be placed nearby. if it's made very small, it won't activate, but would one that small be able to influence the multiplayer tracking? also, i'll place standard size checkpoints in various places (one at a time) & observe their influence on tracking. just thought of another worthwhile experiment. that area of my level can be turned about face (temporarily for the duration of the experiment), so players must walk right to reach the objective. pre existing checkpoints will move in the 'about face' thus retaining their relative positioning to that part of the level. player tracking can then be observed for any bias towards the right of screen. anyway, i betta go try all that now.

2010-08-18 06:51:00 Author: sellfcon Posts: 79

---

Remember the dummy checkpoint doesn't need to be on screen or even near the floor. You can anchor it to dark matter and put it up out of the players' reach. You could even stick it on a sack tracker so it's always to the left of the sackboys... but I would think that'd be overkill--you can probably get away with just emitting it off to the left somewhere when it's time for the players to go left.

2010-08-18 09:05:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188

---

Not exactly but it is possible to subscribe to threads by thread tools at the top of the page Yeah, but these people post all over the place. Maybe it's all about a good memory. I was just reading an old thread, read an interesting post, scrolled down to thank it, and saw that I had already done so before.

2010-08-18 12:46:00 Author: Rogar Posts: 2284

---

ok, i tried all those , & the dummy checkpoints are working great even works with smaller (glitched) checkpoints. only goes wrong if all players backtrack too far. so i added one-way doors to stop them. now the area is close to 'foolproof'

2010-08-23 07:24:00 Author: sellfcon Posts: 79

---

Awesome! Glad it worked out for you.

2010-08-23 08:40:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188

Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

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.