[Fixed]: Graphics.getheight / getwidth

[OddChild]

I have noticed just now that the getheight doesnt work if the image is scaled.. it gets the height of the originial image...



sub main()

if (graphics.initialize <> True) then exit sub

graphics.setTitle "Demo - Sphere Collision - press [ESC] to exit"

key.initialize

Font1 = graphics.createFont ("System", 14)

image1 = graphics.loadimage("object1.bmp", &HFFFFFFFF)
image2 = graphics.loadimage("object2.bmp", &HFFFFFFFF)

graphics.setscaleX image1, 2
graphics.setscaleY image1, 6

With graphics
.setX image1, x
.setY image1, y
.setX image2, 200
.setY image2, 200

End With

do while bRunning = True

if key.pressed(1) or key.pressed(0) = True then bRunning = False
if key.pressed(200) = True then y = y - .15 : graphics.sety image1, y     ' move Up
if key.pressed(208) = True then y = y + .15 : graphics.sety image1, y     ' Down
if key.pressed(203) = True then x = x - .15 : graphics.setx image1, x     ' Left
if key.pressed(205) = True then x = x + .15 : graphics.setx image1, x ' Right    

' this is the simple example
ret = graphics.GetCollisionCircle(image1, image2)

   graphics.clear 255
    graphics.settext graphics.getheight (image1), 10,10,Font1
    If ret = true then graphics.settext "Collision Detected", 10,30,Font1
    graphics.setimage image1
    graphics.setimage image2
   graphics.display
loop

key.terminate
graphics.terminate

end sub

Call Main



paste into collision example

[Guilect]

Fixed.

for now since you are setting the scaling and know the scaling just multiply the scaling by the .getheight or .getwidth values.

[u9]

Gulp... of course now I have to go fix my code that used scaled images but no worries, this is better.

[Guilect]

I had always thought that the getwidth of an image should return the actual width of the image and if you scaled an image you could use GetScaleX and multiply that by the returned width.

And I assume that is what U9 did.

Now by changing the behavior to report the image width including scaling it breaks his code.

But now this way makes things simplier and code a bit cleaner.

I just don't consider it a bug, but rather a request for a change in the behavior of a command that works.