[Suggestion] Expanding on the configurations system and asset packages

Comments

2 comments

  • Devon Mullane

    I was not aware that groups were not included in packages, and yeah I agree that configurations would be good since we can use them with the macros we make.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Kenneth Burkhart

    It's possible that groups to get included with the packages...I don't know.  And there is actually very little documentation on packages that I know of, so I'm pretty sure we would be counting it as "undefined behaviour" which in general we should never depend on.  And, without configurations and the settings to go with those configurations, the groups alone are not nearly as useful.  I imagine for example in my input system package that once you import, you can simply switch configuration to do either the configuration of the input system, or another for the example, and that automatically none of those resources are going to be added to any builds that are any other configurations, and finally that even the starting room changes accordingly, all defined by what I add to the asset package.

    This method of creating a room to configure the input system would be obsolete if we had the IDE plugins, but this is as close workaround as I can get without having to create external software...which wouldn't have direct access to the macros and gml of the user project.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.