Author Topic: Easier way to stack! (Read 1935 times)

Gazea2 · « **on:** July 18, 2010, 04:04:22 AM »

I've found out on some of my bots that the blacks can sometimes be hard to stack. Then, a couple of days ago, I exited the game and loaded it up again and, to my surprise, I managed to stack the blacks 3 times!

Now, whenever I exit the game, the blacks are easier to stack. Also, if I take the black out and put it back in, it becomes easier to stack as well.

Have I made a break-through?

JoeBlo · « **Reply #1 on:** July 18, 2010, 04:41:36 AM »

sounds more like a coincidence.. I could be wrong but sounds a bit far fetched to depend on game load up. sorry, (just my opinion)

System32 · « **Reply #2 on:** July 18, 2010, 04:43:19 AM »

eh, I'll agree with the load up theory.

I mean, sometimes anchors won't stack at all for me...

Gazea2 · « **Reply #3 on:** July 18, 2010, 04:44:00 AM »

@JoeBlo - I know, it's kinda random but it does seem to help.

Pwnator · « **Reply #4 on:** July 18, 2010, 04:49:18 AM »

I don't really have enough spare time to verify this, though this might sound feasible.

All I know is that it's easier to stack on a large chassis than a small one.

Gazea2 · « **Reply #5 on:** July 18, 2010, 04:52:53 AM »

Quote from: Pwnator on July 18, 2010, 04:49:18 AM

I don't really have enough spare time to verify this, though this might sound feasible.

All I know is that it's easier to stack on a large chassis than a small one.

I've found that as well.

This thing happened on my scissor-popup in my showcase. I couldn't stack the black (it was in the middle of 2 snapper IIs and 2 DDTs) so I decided to quit the game. Then I came back and stacked it straight away.

I was like "WTF?" so I quit the game again, went back into it and managed to stack a third one. I deleted the third one because I only needed two but it was really cool.

JoeBlo · « **Reply #6 on:** July 18, 2010, 07:06:21 AM »

unless you stumbled on a good angle to stack and then repeated it ?

im not trying to down your theory but I dont think its a logical change by just loading up up the game a second time on your computer

Somebody · « **Reply #7 on:** July 18, 2010, 08:09:58 AM »

I've had a theory for a while now that the way stacking works is that if RA2 worked correctly, nothing could stack, but every time the bot is loaded or you select a part to place, minimal inconsistencies arise. This explains why two blacks won't stack in the same place every time. There could be more inconsistencies right when you start the game however, which could lead to this.

ACAMS · « **Reply #8 on:** July 18, 2010, 08:31:52 AM »

Quote from: Gazea2 on July 18, 2010, 04:44:00 AM

@JoeBlo - I know, it's kinda random but it does seem to help.

I do that sometimes, and thought it helped.....but I never share my secrets

Scrap Daddy · « **Reply #9 on:** July 18, 2010, 05:53:45 PM »

Turn the quality on low and it gets easier.

Sparkey98 · « **Reply #10 on:** July 18, 2010, 05:57:20 PM »

Lower quality=bigger pixels=easier stacking, soo...............

lets put the quality on 1

Sage · « **Reply #11 on:** July 18, 2010, 06:03:59 PM »

Does resolution make a difference? That's something I've always wondered.

somestrangeguy · « **Reply #12 on:** July 18, 2010, 06:12:41 PM »

Bigger resolution = more pixels, so it should be easier to stack with bigger resolution.

Madiaba · « **Reply #13 on:** July 18, 2010, 10:57:56 PM »

Quote from: ACAMS on July 18, 2010, 08:31:52 AM

Quote from: Gazea2 on July 18, 2010, 04:44:00 AM
@JoeBlo - I know, it's kinda random but it does seem to help.

I do that sometimes, and thought it helped.....but I never share my secrets

I think several have building technics that they've never shared....

Sparkey98 · « **Reply #14 on:** July 18, 2010, 10:59:26 PM »

I don't...................................at all

I'll never teeeeeeeeeeell.

Sage · « **Reply #15 on:** July 19, 2010, 01:06:13 AM »

Quote from: somestrangeguy on July 18, 2010, 06:12:41 PM

Bigger resolution = more pixels, so it should be easier to stack with bigger resolution.

Wouldn't less pixels make it easier?

Pwnator · « **Reply #16 on:** July 19, 2010, 01:15:16 AM »

Less pixels would mean having less possible locations to stack (though if it was stackable, it would be very, very convenient). Having more pixels would mean having more possible locations to stack (but since the 'stackable' areas are so small, it will take a whole lot more time to stack).

Not sure if that's the way it works, though.

Sage · « **Reply #17 on:** July 19, 2010, 01:19:00 AM »

do components really move by pixels, or by some segment of movement unknown to us?

I was thinking lower rez = less pixels = more space for the pixels to slip inside each other and stack, but that could be wrong as well.

Gazea2 · « **Reply #18 on:** July 19, 2010, 01:26:54 AM »

Quote from: Madiaba on July 18, 2010, 10:57:56 PM

Quote from: ACAMS on July 18, 2010, 08:31:52 AM
Quote from: Gazea2 on July 18, 2010, 04:44:00 AM
@JoeBlo - I know, it's kinda random but it does seem to help.

I do that sometimes, and thought it helped.....but I never share my secrets
I think several have building technics that they've never shared....

Whoops. :P

Madiaba · « **Reply #19 on:** July 19, 2010, 09:29:06 AM »

IMHO, from my observations,
I think that the component placement isn't actually determined by the vid card's/monitor's pixels/resolution, but in the software.
Therefore, I think that when you move your mouse to adjust placement slightly, that, though it actually is moved slightly(software), the card/screen resolution may not be able to reflect the movement; thus you do not even know there was movement. So you move it more... until it finally is manifested on the screen; but the component was moved several places over by that time.
IOW: From my experience, the distance between placement points you end up seeing,... may not reflect what the software makes available. So a higher resolution would help detect smaller movements, and thus enable the User to see and take advantage of what the software makes available.

BTW: I have a 'regular' comp, and also a 'fast' comp which has a 28" monitor, with 512mb Radeon...vid card, bla bla...; and it's from comparing these that I assume the above. And time limits checking it out more thoroughly.

Input is appreciated here, because I am assuming based upon only some evidence.

Serge, may know...