I have always been kinda mystified about the general conclusion that "bc(Y)" is a(and only a) "offset" and "bs(Y)" is a(and only a) size.
Is that conclusion still uphold ?
Looking at the new Yew tree res data ... I think that conclusion is wrong (at least for tree's that is).
- Code: Select all
01.res\neg #bc(Y) 0 #bs(Y) 0
02.res\neg #bc(Y) -4 #bs(Y) 4
03.res\neg #bc(Y) -4 #bs(Y) 5
04.res\neg #bc(Y) -5 #bs(Y) 5
05.res\neg #bc(Y) -9 #bs(Y) 9
06.res\neg #bc(Y) -9 #bs(Y) 9
The data change from res "03" to res "04" would mean that only the "offset"/position of the tree hitbox is changed. Which seems to have no good reason for doing that.
I think ... that bc(Y) is the size(or point-offset if you like) of the Top (triangle)part of the hitbox diamond. And "bs(Y)" is used for the size of the bottom part. (Size being here the distance of the Top/Bottom corner of the hitbox diamond from the objects center point.)
Looking at the (auto generated it seems) changes between res "03", "04" and "05" this system makes more sense to me. CQ: The Tree hitbox is growing one unit in size, but as the hitbox is a mirror like shape, its done by just increasing one side(triangle) of the hitbox when needed.