29 Forum Posts by "Tuwezike"
wait, do movieclips even have scenes? whatever, here is my new code that isn't working.
onClipEvent(enterFrame){
if(_root.hitTest.Test(_root.captured2)==true){
gotoAndPlay("Scene 1",2);
}
}
ya, I tried that one, it didn't work, as far as I can tell it just changes the scene of the movie clip.
whoops, I meant actually movie, not actually movieclip. sorry.
Just to restate: I want to change the scene of the movie from a movie clip.
Using gotoAndPlay(); only changes the frame and scene of the movieclip.
I have a pretty simple actionscripting question (most likely simple). I just want to know how I can change the frame or scene of the actually movieclip. I want to use an if statement similer to something like this.
onClipEvent(enterFrame){
if(_root.hitTest.man(_root.jail)){
if(_root.hitTest.man2(_root.jail2)){
"Here I want it to continue with the movie, by changing scenes specificly"
}
}
}
If you can help me or correct me in any way it would be a great help :)
At 2/18/05 10:54 PM, Tuwezike wrote: I'm sorry for starting something knew, but I don't know where to put this. I just have a few basic questions:
1.) Can you make something like this
In a movie clip, at the end you put this code
it the frame before last you put
kill=1;
then in the last frame put
stop();
Then I got to the movie, which I have stoped in one frame, then I put in a keframe on a blank layer and put
if(kill==1){
play();
}
I want to do this, so that if you die the game goes to a gameover
screen, but it won't work. I know I'm doing something(s) wrong, so can I get help with that...
2.) And number two, what do I do to make a movie clip just dissaper, or would it work best to put a blank frame at the end of the movie clip.
3.) right, and lastly how come I can neverget
_root.movieclip.gotoAndPlay(#); to work but
_root.movieclip.play(); works?
(Kinda a side note, can you put a command in a movieclip that makes the entire movie change frames, and how?)
I'm sorry, I am a really bad at this, but ya know, can you help me?
Just, ya know, because... I kinda could use some help... and... ya... It's a post from like... a page ago... but... umm... ya, and it's kinda being, I'm just taking up space here because it won't let me post...
Come to think of it, I'm not sure how old my profile says I am. I guess in theory I could check, but... anyway.
If your new it would be a good idea to check out one of the tutorials, I belive Ultimate Tutorial 2 was just up on the front page, I found it pretty useful.
Ya I agree, you can make some good flash no matter your age (mostly). Just take a look at some of the animation here and really look at it, because alot of times minor details can make you image/animation look more real/better.
Yes
I'm sorry for starting something knew, but I don't know where to put this. I just have a few basic questions:
1.) Can you make something like this
In a movie clip, at the end you put this code
it the frame before last you put
kill=1;
then in the last frame put
stop();
Then I got to the movie, which I have stoped in one frame, then I put in a keframe on a blank layer and put
if(kill==1){
play();
}
I want to do this, so that if you die the game goes to a gameover
screen, but it won't work. I know I'm doing something(s) wrong, so can I get help with that...
2.) And number two, what do I do to make a movie clip just dissaper, or would it work best to put a blank frame at the end of the movie clip.
3.) right, and lastly how come I can neverget
_root.movieclip.gotoAndPlay(#); to work but
_root.movieclip.play(); works?
(Kinda a side note, can you put a command in a movieclip that makes the entire movie change frames, and how?)
I'm sorry, I am a really bad at this, but ya know, can you help me?
Nope, make sence to me, thanks!
That was pretty vague(?) sorry, basicly that game is just you press the left arrow and you move left, ect. but I don't want the Player moving past the edge of the screen and whatnot.
Ya... I'm kinda very bad at this actionscripting thingamajigger, but I'm trying to do it to get some extra credit in my humanities class. How do I make it so that the player dosen't walk of the screen?
Thanks!
At 9/23/04 09:01 PM, dark_trex wrote: You know, I have nothign against John Kerry, he's a cool guy, but his wife....WTF?? SHe has to be the....witchiest women to enter the spotlight since the Olsens, which wasn't long ago. On the relief aid to Cuba, witch was sending more clothes then food and water:
"Let them go naked for a while, the kids at least".
-Newsweek.
"shove it" ring a bell? how about calling half the country 'scumbags'?
God, 73 percent of people polled siad they would elect Barbara as thier first lady, if they could, over Teresa. I would vote for Bush just to stop this person.
If you are seriously thinking that you should vote for bush becuase you don't like Teresa?
Because she said shove it? I can give you so many things worse taht the PRESIDENT and the VICE PRESIDENT have said.
(If you want me to list some I could)
witchest? do you mean wealthiest?
and if you do, that has very little meaning at all.
I don't understand. You should continue to keep raising the demand for oil and as soon as oil becomes more expensive than another fuel you just switch over to that one. asumming that there will be an alternative, and that that alternative is compatible to the great deal many things taht will now depend on oil. which hurts everyone.
Screw the people.
Screw the enviroment.
The reason those fuel cell hydrogen peices of shit don't sell now is because nobody gives a shit. Gas is still cheap enough for us to use it. If it ever got too expensive then we would start using alternatives. Hmm... so that's how economics work.
Ohhh... I see, so eventualy someone will find a working alternative to fossil fuels so why should I give a damn.
As of now there aren't really any alternatives that will really work, and if this issue is contiuned to be ignored there won't be for a while. Besides, there's more to this than money, there is always the negative impact on the enviroment that fossil fuels cause.
Also... I'm fairly certain that is not how economics work.
At 9/18/04 04:09 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: Really. I think you're confusing the way things should be with the way things really are. I understand that terrorists, if they are well trained, prepared, and disciplined can do a very good job of blending in. I imagine that you wouldn't be able to profile a spy, but I don't think that a suicide terrorist would be as well trained and would probably be pretty nervous.
I think you came close to my point.
Terrorist, as you understand them would be very good at blending in. Now you assuming the terrorist would not be an old lady, and I'm saying that the terrorist could be an old lady.
I'm saying that a terrorist might not, or would not, have a specific look to them. The example dosen't work very well with my point. Say the granny was a insted a clean shaven, nicely dressed businessman. that business man could be a terrorist even though he dosen't fit the sterotype of what a terrorist would look like.
Why is it wrong to try to pick up on warning signs. Do you truly believe that there are no external indications of wrongdoing?
No, not what I'm saying. If there is a clear implication that someone presents a threat than ok, treat them like a threat.
I guess I can sum it up as, sterotyping might assist in identification and such, but saying that can be taken to an extrem and everyone who behaves that way is a terrorist and everyone who dosen't isn't.
(I'm a terrible writer so alot of times my writting is not clear)
Also, I can't spell.
oh... ok, your right, I did misunderstand the meaning of your post.
Yes, I agree with that.
and my point flew right over your head.
Your sterotyping what a terrorist would look like.
A terrorist would proboly be the exact opposite, or at least, look the exact opposite.
And, no matter how much I dislike saying it, anyone could be a terrorist. (But not everybody is)
The granny or the man are just as likely to be terrorist no matter what they look like.
If an arab man named ahmed muhammad walks in...and he's dressed in fatigues, crazy eyed, clutching a black case to his chest, and mumbling some muslim verse under his breath...yes, give him the highest 'danger rating' there is. If an old granny comes in riding a wheelchair...go ahead and give her the lowest 'danger rating' there is.
That is an excelent example of sterotyping right there.
ok.... here is an article that has some statistics in it.
http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/rosellam/Justice2.html
^
though about that, it's the best I could find with a google search
and it's a personal webpage, so it's not nearly as reliable as I was hoping to find. but, it was all I could find.
At 6/25/04 12:09 AM, SKUNKbrs wrote:At 6/24/04 11:49 PM, Tuwezike wrote: Polls are showing this is going to be a very close race..The election is still months away. It's fairly usual for the race to be tighter at this point, but prez elections involving an encumbent are usually big wins/ losses. I doubt it'll be as close as '00.
Interesting... we will see in time then, your right, the polls will proboly change as it gets closer to november. Depending on ad's and current events, or people just getting more excited about the election.
If it's still the same in October, then Nader will be a theat (?) but then again, that obvious
At 6/24/04 06:50 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:At 6/24/04 06:37 PM, grand_retard wrote:I was wondering, what do Americans think of this?I think you don't understand the definition of the word "lie."
A "lie" is a false statement that is made when the truth is known and is the opposite of what is stated.
For Bush, Blair, et. al. to have lied, they must have stated that Saddam had WMD's despite knowing to the contrary. Possession of mere intelligence is not "knowing", as there was intelligence that stated that Saddam did have weapons.
But this resoning only works one way. I.E. the only way they could have lied was to know that Saddam Hussain had wepons and the Bush Administration said they didn't.
What is it called when it was said that Saddam had WMD and was planing on using them, even though they had no proof of this.
So, now, using your logic I can say:
You are a 7000 pound man that can stand up because the sheer weight of your body will crush your legs...
now, this is not a lie because I have no proof to the contrary.
At 6/24/04 10:39 PM, Ovalshine wrote: As if Bush wouldn't lose votes to Nader.
Democrats are trying to use Nader as a scapegoat. If they're worried about him, then that shows what little confidence they have in Kerry.
I want to add to this also..
Nader's\Green Party's politics are much closer to those of Kerry than of Bush. and most people who might normally vote for Nader would vote for Kerry because he would be closer to Nader than Bush would be to Nader.
With all the Slander being throwen around, most of which is coming from bush towards Kerry, left leaning undecideds might chose Nader as a 'lesser evil' because they feel that neither of the major canidates are good for them.
Now here's where that importance comes in...
Polls are showing this is going to be a very close race, 50 50 almost like Al Gore Vs. Bush. if you take 1 or 2 % of the votes and take them from kerry and give them to nader, you have a 48 - 50 race and bush wins...
now even if bush does lose votes from Nader, the number of losses will still be much larger for Kerry. so.. now...
48%-49% for bush. oh corse is this assuming a 50 50 race.. which most recent polls are showing it is going to be.
At 6/24/04 06:26 PM, Proteas wrote:At 6/24/04 06:31 AM, Tuwezike wrote:Oh really? Remind me again, just how many people voted nightly on American Idol?At 6/22/04 05:21 PM, karasz wrote:America isnt a democracy. Its a Republic. If it were a democracy, we would not have REPRESENTATIVES OR SENATORS, the PEOPLE would vote on all issues at hand.The PEOPLE elect REPRESENTATIVES to REPRESENT them, because it would be phisicaly impossible for everyone to vote on an issue.
How many people voted constantly over and over using different methods, or the same, to select the person they thought was the better. what system would be in place to be able to count these votes, keep them accurate, and make sure no one votes twice, or 100 times.
At 6/22/04 05:21 PM, karasz wrote:
America isnt a democracy. Its a Republic. If it were a democracy, we would not have REPRESENTATIVES OR SENATORS, the PEOPLE would vote on all issues at hand.
The PEOPLE elect REPRESENTATIVES to REPRESENT them, because it would be phisicaly impossible for everyone to vote on an issue.
oh, and, Nader, it is his ego, all he cares about is himself, and nobody else, he knows that he is not going to win, but he dosen't care.
The presidential election has an icredible inpact on your daily life. don't take your vote for granted, don't just vote for nader because you can figure out which side slanders the other on better, do some research and find out the canidates stances.
Wait wait please, It's easy to point out lies bush has told, but what lies has kerry told. give me an example.
don't vote green, it's just bad Idea. they won't win, it's wasting your vote.
Vote Kerry.
it's all for Nader's ego, I see no other explaination
At 6/22/04 03:28 PM, Darigaz wrote: Plus he went in to Irak saying he knew were the bombs were,
You spelled Iraq wrong.
their was a war in Irak, and gaz prices were insaly high.
and again.
ok, here I go. Bush is bad, he is a liar. mean not a Clinton sort of lie, but much worse, these lies quite possibly caused an a war. Some of which:
Saddam\Iraq has definite links to Al Quida (spell that right?)
Saddam has neclear weapons of mass destruction
Terrorism has decreased since the war, this one has recently been disproven, turns out it's acctually gone up.
ok, thats what I got.
Mabey... Arnold the Govenor... or the entire state of California.
Not being able to own a gun is not, in my opinon, something that will start a revolution. to ban all guns is just not going to work, to ban no guns would be stupid and dangerous. keep your handguns, keep your shotgun (like the other guy said, grenade_clock I belive) almost all others (in the hands of a civilian) serve no purpose other than to injure or kill another human being.
alot of people are not actually, this stuff will proboly be toned down eventualy, but somepeople are very offended being called a "cripple", a "janitor", "old", or a "crippled old janitor:.
I think this stuff came around in a few lawsuits and now people are scared
No no no, poor is hardly being able to afford school lunchs for you kids, poor is wlaking to work becasue you can't afford a bus, poor is hardly being able to keep a place to live because you can't even get a job better than minimum wage... listening to Rush shout untrue facts about the current state of afairs is not whats called watching the news. Along with that, don't just watch CNN, read the news, from different sorces, don't instantly stop reading/watching something if it dosen't apeal to your OPINON.
Check your facts, quite a few places to do this, do a google search.
