123
-=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- (c) WidthPadding Industries 1987 0|577|0 -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=-
Socoder -> Blitz -> Blitz seems crap at percentages

Thu, 11 Nov 2010, 10:50
steve_ancell
Been trying to get Blitz3D to find a percentage of GraphicsWidth(), based on MouseX(), I know I did it years ago, but that part of my brain seems to have gone rotten.

The real maths should obviously be "(howFar / howWide) * 100" but according to Blitz3D, is it f**k!

Any ideas?


Thu, 11 Nov 2010, 11:02
shroom_monk
The default data type in Blitz for numbers is integers, not floats, so (howFar / howWide) * 100 is interpreted as:

1) howFar / howWide = x; but x is a float, and I want an int! Hence I must round it!
2) *rounds value to 0 or 1*
3) I must now multiply this by 100!
4) *multiplies the 0 or 1 by 100*

There are 2 ways around this. Either multiply by 100 first, then divide, or use floats.

-=-=-
A mushroom a day keeps the doctor away...

Keep It Simple, Shroom!
Thu, 11 Nov 2010, 11:07
Hotshot
here that work but i guess it isnt somethings you looking for


Thu, 11 Nov 2010, 11:07
steve_ancell
shroom_monk I already tried floats, no joy there either. I'll try the first of what you suggested. Cheers Bud

Thu, 11 Nov 2010, 11:11
steve_ancell
@Hotshot

Cheers for having a go but that's not quite what I'm looking for, that just returns the current mouse position.

I'm after something that returns the mouse position as a percentage of the width or height of the screen.
Thu, 11 Nov 2010, 11:22
steve_ancell
@shroom_monk

Yeah, multiplying by 100 first seems to work. It may only reach 99 percent, but that's good enough. Cheerz matey

Here be the codez:

Thu, 11 Nov 2010, 11:23
Jayenkai
Up, THEN down

(a*100)/b

Gets rid of 95% of float vs int issues

-=-=-
''Load, Next List!''
Thu, 11 Nov 2010, 11:30
steve_ancell
@Jay

I think that may be the same as what shroom suggested.

It also seems to work OK without the # sign, here's the revised proggie:

|edit| I still don't get why it maxes at 99 percent though |edit|


Thu, 11 Nov 2010, 11:36
steve_ancell
Actually, I just realized why it maxes at 99, MouseX() never reaches 1280, it reaches 1279. What a plonker do I feel!

Here's how I should have done it:


Cheers for your help guys
Thu, 11 Nov 2010, 12:07
steve_ancell
Just found a simpler way, by use of the Float command. Damn I'm good !


Fri, 12 Nov 2010, 03:30
waroffice
seems like such a simple thing to have problems with doesnt it.

This sort of thing I could spend days figuring out and end up turning my PC off and going to the pub.
Fri, 12 Nov 2010, 08:09
JL235
I'm sorry if this comes across negatively, but this is not that difficult a problem. Shroom also pointed out the solution in his post.

When you use languages which are more explicit about what types your using (like Java or C#) then you tend to become more aware about this kind of issue. You'll end up being able to solve this within 30 seconds of spotting it.
Fri, 12 Nov 2010, 08:26
Jayenkai
I had to completely rethink ALL my maths the day I tried out coding for the ye-olde Windows Smartphone v1 crapola.
It was TERRIBLE at this stuff.
It was mostly due to the ARM processor, and I've since held on to those math rules whilst doing DS stuff, and even on more recent Blitz and iPod dev.

If you go up first, it's SO much better on the processor.
If you can avoid divisions entirely, it's even better..
And if you can wrangle your code to do bitshifting rather than multiply/divide, you're going to find everything running that much quicker.

I know, it's a QuadCore, it shouldn't matter.
But it's the little things that count.

-=-=-
''Load, Next List!''
Fri, 12 Nov 2010, 09:09
JL235
That only matters if it's slow for your PC, or if it's code that will be executed millions of times a frame. Otherwise your writing less readable code for no real performance gain.

Lots of coders claim you should always use doubles instead of floats, but on many modern CPUs doubles are actually faster.
Fri, 12 Nov 2010, 09:29
steve_ancell
JL235 I'm sorry if this comes across negatively, but this is not that difficult a problem. Shroom also pointed out the solution in his post.

I don't see this as negative, it's my own bloomin' fault for not coding regularly. No offense taken Bud
Fri, 12 Nov 2010, 10:11
steve_ancell
Decision made... I will stick with Shroomie and Jay's solution, because the code looks a lot cleaner and easier to remember.