Thank you so much for the response! Considering how basic my physics are as is, I don't think it should be too hard to append my systems onto the Maria engine or vice versa, so long as it's easy to tell what's dependent on what. I do worry about the matter of scope, as you mentioned, however; I'm hoping to add on a lot of unique setpieces that would be hard for any pre made engine to account for, so I'm going to try messing around with what I've already got some more before making any purchases. Again, though, thank you!
4 years ago(+1)
Game Maker's collisions default to rectangles that are pretty simple maths checks, and they're completely unaffected by sprite size, so this shouldn't have any noticeable effect on performance.
4 years ago (+1)
It would need a bit of work, but it doesn't seem impossible. player_inertia_x already sort of supports 1-pixel slopes (to solve edge cases where you could get stuck in jump-through platforms, if I recall correctly). If you replaced this hardcoded code with a loop that checks a range of values, it'd allow for slope support. (My preferred approach is to start the loop at y+SLOPESIZE when you're on ground, y+0 when you're in mid-air, and in both cases sequentially check values until y-SLOPESIZE; this lets you smoothly follow slopes down, but you won't get sucked down at massive speeds if you try moving left/right in the middle of a jump because the game thinks you're on an invisible slope)
Don't forget that you will also need to change the rectangle_free script so that it uses precise collisions instead of bounding box only, and give all slope objects a sprite with a precise collision mask.
As an example for how the improved inertia function would look like, here's the corresponding code from my SoulsVania engine:
4 years ago(+1)
Alright, thanks again for your help! Definitely gonna buy this now, if only because your customer service is so on-point.