center_z and size_z scaling? 
Submitted by Sean Bartell on Tue, 2004-07-13 12:04

In trying to make an expdef that has the number of steps off the ground as a
fitness, I figured the easiest way to see if it was off the ground was to
see if center_z-(size_z/2) was more than zero (for flat ground). However,
size_z doesn't seem to use the same scale as center_z. Is it possible to
change one of them to the other's scale?

Forums: 
Users
Maciej Komosinski's picture

Submitted by Maciej Komosinski on Wed, 2004-07-14 15:04

> In trying to make an expdef that has the number of steps off the ground as a
> fitness, I figured the easiest way to see if it was off the ground was to
> see if center_z-(size_z/2) was more than zero (for flat ground). However,
> size_z doesn't seem to use the same scale as center_z. Is it possible to
> change one of them to the other's scale?

size's, center's and pos's should all have the same scale...
although, once we noticed a strange situation where the

center belongs to [pos, pos+size]

did not hold (and it should always hold). If you noticed
such situations, let us know how they can be achieved.

MacKo

Submitted by Sean Bartell on Sun, 2004-07-18 21:00

I'm still confused, but it looks like checking position.z for being less
than -1 will work.
"Maciej Komosinski"
wrote in message news:cd46jv$627$1@cancer.cs.put.poznan.pl...
> > In trying to make an expdef that has the number of steps off the ground
as a
> > fitness, I figured the easiest way to see if it was off the ground was
to
> > see if center_z-(size_z/2) was more than zero (for flat ground).
However,
> > size_z doesn't seem to use the same scale as center_z. Is it possible to
> > change one of them to the other's scale?
>
> size's, center's and pos's should all have the same scale...
> although, once we noticed a strange situation where the
>
> center belongs to [pos, pos+size]
>
> did not hold (and it should always hold). If you noticed
> such situations, let us know how they can be achieved.
>
>
> MacKo
>