+++ DynRPG - The RM2k3 Plugin SDK +++

It's not like every XP/VX user knows Ruby or whatever. They use Tankewhateverblah scripts and premade YanflySpanishFly stuff; so when people start releasing C++ plugins, people will use it the same way.

I'm Chinese. C:

Yanfly Engine Ace - Gab Window


What a manly dog.

Yanfly Engine Ace - Ace Core Engine

There's no icon drawing in Sprite_Battler. The only thing close that line of code you've pasted is within Window_Base. No such code exists within any of my scripts.

To which:

480x320 resolution: No errors.

My conclusion: You've either messed up your own base scripts or you've downloaded some cheesy "full version" of RMVXA.

Yanfly Engine Ace - Ace Core Engine

What are you talking about?

Animate Enemies

Yanfly Engine Ace - Common Event Tiles

The script only runs one common event so yeah, that's the problem.

Yanfly Engine Ace - Ace Core Engine

Oooh, that's much more efficient. Thanks!
REGEX isn't my forte as you can see.

RPG Maker VX or XP?

Fair enough on the abuse part. However, that still doesn't place away the character limit with the entry fields for XP over VX. Noteboxes still maintain the unlimited typing space, which XP lacks, which in turn, despite the initial intentions of the GUI, still plays a major role in determining the accessibility of an engine to resources over another.

And perhaps it's miscommunication, but I thought Prexus was talking about the layer system of VX mechanically considering he put in Swap TX. In your regards, yes, VX does have an "inferior" method than XP. However, it's still not a mile difference that other people suggest to get the similar results in VX that people suggest in XP.

However, the "battles" that people have with the autotiles are often times exaggerations by people who refuse to use the engine and accept it. In fact, of what I've used of VX to make and assist others in several games with, rarely did I have to fight against autotiles. Often times, the auto-tiles are used for ceilings, grass, dirt, and water. Nothing else that would warrant much combat-ing with since the autotiles flow in nicely. But maybe this is because I've come to accept the tools I've been given for what they are and actually work with them.

RPG Maker VX or XP?

The Databases in XP and VX are the same, if you look deep enough. Noteboxes exist in XP through the use of Scripts, and through clever use of the existing fields. Noteboxes themselves even seemed to exist after having taken clues from scripters such as myself creatively using the Description field and Name field of entries in the XP Database (parsing out information using Regular Expressions to add additional fields and such.)

In short, they don't exist. They only "exist" by abusing pre-existing fields, to which, I ask where is the practicality in that? Name fields and description fields both have limited typing space, which generally isn't sufficient enough for the more heavier and complex skills that a single notebox of VX's database can provide. For this event, it's better that you recognize VX's database is superior to XP's.

This is the reason I simply ignored talking about the databases and went onto the Map Editor since that is the key difference between the two. The Map Editor (which is inferior by far) and RGSS2 (which is superior by far) which you mentioned yourself can be ported backwards to RMXP (I believe Dargor and Yeyinde both did this as well as you and I and I am sure many more.)

Due to the existence of the RGSS Editor, RMXP and RMVX are essentially the same. They can both be ported backwards and forwards, they can both be stripped down and recoded (although certain aspects of their respective RGSS dll's are hard to overcome,) and their capabilities in all aspects short of the existing map editor, whether they are innate in the editor or need to be added through RGSS, are the same. The primary difference is the Map Editor, and VX's Map Editor is worse. Hands down. Yes, you can use SwapTX and Panorama mapping, but SwapTX doesn't get rid of the way the layer system works (as far as I know) and the over reliance on Auto-Tiles; and Panorama mapping can be considered more labor-intensive although can also offer much better effects than either map editor is capable of by default.

From my porting of RMVX to RMXP, there's nothing the RMXP DLL's couldn't handle. The audio actually played a bit faster by a couple of nanoseconds, while the graphics loaded a few nanoseconds later. However, the differences there are so minute that they don't warrant going into much detail for.

Also, RMVX's and RMXP's layer system works the same. The only difference is that XP has one extra layer. Auto-tiles aren't a big issue for VX either. They can be turned off completely or not used at all through a few key-shortcuts in VX.

Lastly, it's ignorant to say that the code wasn't simplified from XP to VX. The addition of the base Scene class, the visibility of the Cache, Audio, and Vocab modules, the accessibility of the Sprite Base and Window Base classes, and the removal of multiple headlines for the same script (Game_Battler 1/2/3, Scene_Battle 1/2/3/4) were all attempts to streamline and increase the efficiency of the code.

Cache, Audio, and Vocab were visible from the helpfile (though I don't know if that was the case for the EN version of RMXP).

Sprite_Base, Window_Base, and Scene_Base only made template methods for child classes. The coding structure in it is exactly the same. In fact, the most important of the classes: Scene_Base has little bearing on the child Scene classes since the majority of them would have functioned the same otherwise. This is not ignorance. This is merely observation from what my experiences as a scripter for both engines can say.

Game_Battler 1/2/3 and Scene_Battle 1/2/3/4 when pasted together yield nearly the same structure as the VX counterparts mechanically. Visually they're different obviously. However, little was done in actually streamlining the code.
Pages: first 123 next last