@daenim said:
I'm using that thread as an example of
a) How I struggled with something for some time, came up with a solution (after looking in the source code) and posted some feedback.
b) How your first assumption was that I didn’t understand or read the documentation
that’s all. That’s the basic attitude I’m complaining about.
Again, we are not on the same ground at all, in my opinion I masterfully managed to make sense of what you say and gave you lots of information about the engine and its workings. If we were to continue on this discussion trail I would suggest to you that you should think about the fact that the world looks to you as you look at it. But don’t take that seriously – please post the example answers so we can enter common ground first.
@daenim said:
I'm using that thread as an example of
a) How I struggled with something for some time, came up with a solution (after looking in the source code) and posted some feedback.
You provided none of that information. You ask a question and then we are supposed to do research into your background? Ridiculous.
@daenim said:
b) How your first assumption was that I didn't understand or read the documentation
that’s all. That’s the basic attitude I’m complaining about.
It’s not an attitude. 99.99999999999% of the time when someone asks a question here, a link to the documentation is all that’s required. Especially if their question contains nothing more than “How do I do X?” I post links to javadoc so often that I just keep the page open.
So, here’s how the thread can be summarized:
Q: How do I do this very basic thing? By the way, I will provide no information on what I’ve tried or what I’ve already looked into but I will ask a very basic question and hope that you can guess I’m smart enough to already know all that.
A: Look at the docs.
R: Stupid
R: Here are the specific docs. Fix your attitude.
…then never once an apology for overreacting or anything.
You are a joy to work with.
But to be fair, next time I will assume you already know everything and don’t need a response.
Actually, I’m kind of starting to think you did this on purpose to just provoke some kind of argument. Why else would you ask the wrong question and then jump all over us only to articulately explain your position later?
a) that thread shows that I can read documentation and come up with my own solutions.
b) that thread was respectful towards each other.
c) I did not like the “scenegraph for dummies” remark, because I had tried a lot of different things to get my collision shapes just right.
Maybe we can agree on a and b?
c is off course personal, but that is the basic attitude that grates me.
As I reread that thread, I had difficulty getting the point across that a bounding box with a pivot point that is not equal to the origin in model space requires some work arounds with the existing collision shape methods.
a) that thread shows that I can read documentation and come up with my own solutions.
b) that thread was respectful towards each other.
c) I did not like the “scenegraph for dummies” remark, because I had tried a lot of different things to get my collision shapes just right.
Maybe we can agree on a and b?
c is off course personal, but that is the basic attitude that grates me.
As I reread that thread, I had difficulty getting the point across that a bounding box with a pivot point that is not equal to the origin in model space requires some work arounds with the existing collision shape methods.
Asyou refuse to give me the examples I need to take anything you say seriously I will just agree with pspeed here and assume you are trolling. I explained in the thread how it works and you still didn’t understand it it seems.
I think you must admit that we shouldn’t have to research every user’s posting history before responding to a simple question with a simple answer. Yes?
In this thread, you asked a question in a way that the first two or three answers would not have been what you are looking for.
P.S.: The “Scenegraphs for Dummies”, “Math for Dummies”, etc. links are good tutorials that everyone should read… the “for Dummies” thing is a common meme and if you take it personally then there’s a whole series of books that will probably enrage you.
@pspeed said:
P.S.: The "Scenegraphs for Dummies", "Math for Dummies", etc. links are good tutorials that everyone should read... the "for Dummies" thing is a common meme and if you take it personally then there's a whole series of books that will probably enrage you.
Plus to me personally they are things that I spent hours if not days of work on.
<cite>@normen said:</cite>
Asyou refuse to give me the examples I need to take anything you say seriously I will just agree with pspeed here and assume you are trolling. I explained in the thread how it works and you still didn't understand it it seems.
No, I explained to you how the default factory method worked and how my solution worked, you just confirmed what I said in that thread. There is no hope I see
I shalln’t be using the forums no more, good luck on the engine, it is a great piece of work (with some warts).
@daenim said:
No, I explained to you how the default factory method worked and how my solution worked, you just confirmed what I said in that thread. There is no hope I see :)
I shalln’t be using the forums no more, good luck on the engine, it is a great piece of work (with some warts).
I don’t know if I should thumb that up or down actually xD
No-one here needs to show whether they are a superior programmer or not, the evidence speaks for itself.
jME3 is not a commercial project, it’s an open source collaboration between people spending their spare time working on something. It doesn’t need “customers”, particularly ones with a false sense of entitlement. Users, particularly users doing cool things with the engine or feeding back contributions are very welcome. You though are not contributing anything except your false sense of entitlement.
We’ve got plenty of that, don’t need any more thanks.
Welcome to open source… where no-one cares how important you think you are.
If having issues with RTFM answers is a sense of entitlement, then yes I feel entitled. Such answers should not be posted on a forum dedicated to helping users (and yes I am a user). I suggest you deal with the more advanced questions that are worthy of your intellect.
Secondly, it is only logical that a KeyTrigger class also provides functionality trigger on meta keys (because somewhere else in the source code there is also support to detect CTRL or ALT down).
@daenim said:
If having issues with RTFM answers is a sense of entitlement, then yes I feel entitled. Such answers should not be posted on a forum dedicated to helping users (and yes I am a user). I suggest you deal with the more advanced questions that are worthy of your intellect.
No, your sense of entitlement is that you expect us to piece together a real question from the wrong question, research your background so that we know you should know better, etc… rather than providing the simplest answer available given the question asked. “Read the fine manual” is a fine response when you ask a question in a way that provides no additional information. The fact that you expected more is “entitlement”. You expect (feel entitled to) us doing extra work to help you when we have no idea if you helped yourself at all and our only evidence is your question.
…which could have been interpreted in one of a few ways:
a) you don’t know anybetter = link to docs a good idea
b) you do know better but have asked the wrong question = link to docs is usually still a safe idea to help you at least frame your question better.
See, your question wasn’t “How do I intercept two keys at once?” Your real question was “How do I intercept to keys at once in the non-obvious way?” But that’s not what you asked. So you were given answer #1 to the first question. Answer #2 to that first question might have been a code example showing how to track both key presses… which also would have been wrong and might have resulted in more insults. I don’t know how far the sense of entitlement stretches and you may not be self-aware enough to know either.
@daenim said:
Secondly, it is only logical that a KeyTrigger class also provides functionality trigger on meta keys (because somewhere else in the source code there is also support to detect CTRL or ALT down).
You can key on whatever single keys you want and chord them in whatever way you want. This is a game engine. There is no such thing as “simlpe” key combinations. Order could be important, length of time pressed important, etc… It’s way easier to let coders deal with this themselves than to try to come up with a “core” approach that handles them all… and anyway there is a sample combo class that helps.
Now, should a UI handle things like ctrl-Z? Absolutely. But that’s more of a nifty question in this context… or if this is really an SDK question (from the category posted) then it’s a “Standard Swing or Netbeans” question. Are you also entitled to us randomly guessing (through insults) until we get it right?
Most users are nice and get appropriately nice responses. Occasionally we get folks who expect a deeper service for free and feel entitled to demand it. Few of them go so far as to call us stupid for trying to help.
That’s where you are wrong. If I don’t get an answer to my question in a couple of days (or never) that’s fine with me because I know it’s all volunteer work. However, if you feel compelled to give a RTFM answer don’t do it. If somebody gives an RTFM answer, other users feel less inclined to answer, because “it has allready been answered”, hence my strong reaction.
Secondly, I don’t know how CTRL + Z is vague, it is the standard notation for combined keypresses.
Last, I played Everquest where the default keypress to triger spell 1 was ALT+1.
Because, and this may shock you to hear, more than half the people asking questions here haven’t RTFM.
So if you ask a vague, unclear, or simple question then the answer will be RTFM. In a good number of questions the next response is then “oh, thanks - I’ve got it working now”.
Of course you then have the other people where the manual doesn’t help. You will find many examples of people in the forum going “thanks, but actually what I meant was X Y and Z”. You see, entering into a dialogue.
What is rarely useful is insulting people, threatening to leave the forums (you are still here I see), and generally acting as though we somehow owe you something. That just gets people who are bored at the moment poking you in the threads to see what interesting noises you make.
You keep saying that I feel somehow entitled, that is not the case. I’m OK with:
a) no answer
b) a request for clarification
c) a quick link to the answer and mentioning that the answer is somewhere in there.
d) an actual answer (ideally)
