Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

checkVisibility comparison fixes #361

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 5, 2024

Conversation

rekterakathom
Copy link
Contributor

When merged this pull request will: Remove all instances of checkVisibility being compared against zero

  1. Describe what this pull request will do
  1. Each change in a separate line
  • Remove all instances of checkVisibility being compared against zero.

checkVisibility must not be compared against zero because checkVisibility won't return zero when intersecting with vision blocking particles, a very very tiny number is returned instead
@diwako
Copy link
Collaborator

diwako commented Jul 25, 2023

Thank you for the continued pull requests. Currently all authors are really busy with their real lives hence why things are slow

@jokoho48 jokoho48 added this to the 2.6.1 milestone Oct 4, 2023
@nk3nny
Copy link
Owner

nk3nny commented Oct 21, 2023

Great stuff!

@nk3nny nk3nny self-requested a review October 21, 2023 14:55
@nk3nny nk3nny self-assigned this Oct 21, 2023
@nk3nny
Copy link
Owner

nk3nny commented Feb 19, 2024

This was a little delayed in getting approved simply because I wanted to play around about with the logic itself. I think you are on to something on how building positions should be cleared.

When testing this was done in a rather sterile environment, without any smoke disrupting LOS. I wonder if we want them to check extra carefully (not just disregard corners) as currently when there is smoke. Regardless. This is good.

@nk3nny nk3nny merged commit 571d80a into nk3nny:master May 5, 2024
4 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants