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

Using FLUDD doesn't change the player's animation #228

Open
Koopa1018 opened this issue Aug 25, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

Using FLUDD doesn't change the player's animation #228

Koopa1018 opened this issue Aug 25, 2023 · 1 comment
Labels

Comments

@Koopa1018
Copy link
Collaborator

Koopa1018 commented Aug 25, 2023

Describe the bug
The player's animation doesn't change when FLUDD hovering. When starting a hover, the player enters a jump animation if grounded, but otherwise remains in whatever animation was already going. Thus, hovering looks different if started when rising, when falling, or even when double jumping.

In most cases, this behavior doesn't cause problems--no jump animation looks wrong when hovering--but by hovering around the sides of T1R4's rotating blocks, I can get the player hovering in a walking animation. Leaving the animation to luck will let a lot of other wrong animations creep in too, if given the chance.

(Also, some of the jump animations look more or less connected to the hover action than others. IMO the double jump animation looks best, jump B looks worst. That's a subjective matter, though.)

To Reproduce

  1. Use FLUDD while grounded, or during the rising half of a jump. Observe Mario's pose.
  2. Use FLUDD while falling. Observe Mario's pose.
  3. Use FLUDD during the rising half of a double jump. Observe Mario's pose.

Expected behavior
Mario's animation logic accounts for hovering in some way. (It'd be cool if there was a specialized animation set for hovering, but hardly required.)

Screenshots
Repro cases 1, 2, and 3, in order. Note the well-established water trail.
image

System Information

  • OS/Browser: Windows 10
  • Game version: 0.1.6.alpha
  • Other specs: N/A

Additional context
N/A

@Koopa1018
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Hmm. Good that I actually got this post made, but dang--self-consistent it ain't.

Not sure this even qualifies as a "bug"--more just a "thing we need to consider at some point."

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant