I want to make the max size in this…graph? 50. You can only go to 10, the old particle size limit from a while ago. Can we please get this fixed to 200?
11 Likes
Yeah, it’s intentional. You can still construct the NumberSequence manually.
My suggestions for the graph editor:
- Adjustable min/max range
- Time shown on the horizontal axis
- Optional logarithmic scale
1 Like
I would love to see an option to change the max size value anywhere between 1 and 200 on the graph. I mean yeah, you can construct the NumberSequence manually, and that’s great for most of us who code. But for someone who doesn’t understand coding and just wants to use the graph? It makes it close to impossible for them to have animated sizes higher than 10 by themselves.
What was the reasoning? I’m glad we can at least set it manually…
3 Likes
For now, consider sizes above 10 a little bonus for the daring.
3 Likes
Feels more like a cheap cop out for those who don’t program :c I mean even if someone who wanted to dare it, they would still need some form of programming background or find someone who can code to do it for them, which is OK for us developers but we aren’t the only people developing/learning on Studio.
That would require updates to the particle editor widget. That will happen in due time, but would you rather size be locked to 10 again and have to wait to manually set it to 200 until the editor is updated, or have the possibility to manually set size up to 200 and have to wait only for the editor to be updated? If you complain when the latter happens, the staff are more likely to chose the former in the future so no one complains – think about what you complain about.
1 Like
wait, so does this mean 200 is a mistake or 10 is a mistake?
1 Like
Neither is a mistake. 10 was the old max size. 200 is the new max size for particles themselves (intentional update), but the editor hasn’t been updated yet and still only supports up to size 10. If you want to increase the size past 10 up to 200, you need to manually construct the size sequence through Lua code.
1 Like
I’m not going to say I’m not glad we have the 200 max size, and as a programmer myself it’s not difficult to make the sequences I want manually. But what I would have rather seen is when this was pushed, to have had the widget updated along side it, instead of months after. If you’re going to do something, don’t half ass it is all. Not everyone using studio is on the developer forum, and not even using studio can program. So what about them? They may not have access to someone who can program the sequences they need, and they may not have the knowledge to make what sequences they need without the widget being updated, and thus are forced to wait months for a single widget to be updated while everyone else with programmer friends or programming knowledge gets to take advantage of the new update.
tl;dr; My whole point isn’t that they shouldn’t have released the 200 particle size, or that I wish to lock it back to 10. I just wish the update was released with the widget being updated along side it, not however many months later.
1 Like
Okay, so hypothetically they could have withheld the 200 update and instead wait until months later to release both an update to the editor and update to the size at the same time. That means everyone would have still be restricted to the max size of 10 at this moment. Why are you complaining about them releasing part of a feature early? As maxvee said literally here:
There are plenty of things a builder/designer/etc can’t do that a scripter can do already (for example, scripting anything at all), I don’t see how this is a significant issue on top of that.
I also don’t see how having access to 200 size particles gives you a significant market advantage.
1 Like
TIL IceTaurus is apparently more knowledgeable at prioritizing features than ROBLOX
1 Like
A single person isn’t all of ROBLOX.
This isn’t about how a programmer can script anything that a designer can’t do. This is about someone who is a designer with no coding knowledge or access to a coder is forced to wait months for a widget to be updated while everyone else with said advantage gets the golden ticket to design as they please.
I’m not going to say I know exactly how much work they would have to put into the widget to allow the max size to be interchangeable, but I highly doubt it would take months to do so. And if so, then so be it. Throw it out half complete and please part of the community, leaving some disappointed, or please everyone by taking some extra time to finalize the feature for all? It seems like an obvious choice.
1 Like
The main reason I chose to not touch the editor, is because if you just make the limit 200, it would be extremely hard to edit small sizes, where precision is most needed: a difference between 0.1 and 0.5 is much more apparent, than between 20 and 25.
A logarithmic scale may look like a solution, but it’s not all that great when you start thinking about it. For starters, the editor will have to plot curves instead of segments, which will likely case quite a few WTF moments.
So for now, it’s one of that “maybelater” category.
1 Like
What if you dynamically change the range of the editor, i.e. the maximum is max(10, maximum data value) at any point in time?
I don’t really know if precision is such a problem in the way you describe, especially if you made the range dynamic (see previous sentence). I could understand it’s a problem if we only could drag the points, but we have the labels underneath the display which show the exact values and we can edit those. I can easily change a value of 0.100 into 0.101 using those labels, for example, no matter what the extents of the graph would be.
1 Like
Well, that’s what I’m trying to tell: proper zoom/pan support is needed, but at the moment there’s no one available to actually implement this. We’re all too busy with other things at the moment.
2 Likes