Scratch

martianshark · 2009-09-21 00:59:27

Hi. I just wanted to point out that there's no need for <next costume> because it can easily be replaced with <switch to costume[ (( <costume# <+> 1 ))

Last edited by martianshark (2009-09-21 01:00:03)

Chrischb · 2009-09-21 01:30:01

I know that, and so do lots of people. smile
But there's some points I'd like to make,

1. It's fast in animations and such. You just reach into the Looks pallette, and drag a block.
2. New users would easily get tired of having to continuously reach for the required blocks.
3. It's nice having at least one block to use.

You can reply on those points if you like.

martianshark · 2009-09-21 01:35:32

I didn't mean that it was bad, I just meant that there's no need for it.

Chrischb · 2009-09-21 07:08:49

martianshark wrote:
I didn't mean that it was bad, I just meant that there's no need for it.

I know. smile

archmage · 2009-09-21 10:01:19

Yes there is also no need for

<move( )steps>
<go to[
<when[ ]key pressed>
<forever if>
<distance to[

These blocks are all easily replaced by others

The-Whiz · 2009-09-21 16:29:43

archmage wrote:
Yes there is also no need for

<move( )steps>
<go to[
<when[ ]key pressed>
<forever if>
<distance to[

These blocks are all easily replaced by others

I don't see hov <move( )steps> can be replaced.

Last edited by The-Whiz (2009-09-21 16:29:56)

gershmer · 2009-09-21 17:06:39

The-Whiz wrote:
archmage wrote:
Yes there is also no need for

<move( )steps>
<go to[
<when[ ]key pressed>
<forever if>
<distance to[

These blocks are all easily replaced by others
I don't see hov <move( )steps> can be replaced.

Yes... <move( )steps> is not the same thing as <change x by( or <change y by( if your angle, for example is 37. (the direction you're pointing.

archmage · 2009-09-21 17:58:11

Move steps is the same as
change x sin of direction* # of steps
change y cos of direction* # of steps

But like next costume it exists because it is simpler to have move # steps

Last edited by archmage (2009-09-21 18:00:16)

The-Whiz · 2009-09-21 18:01:18

archmage wrote:
Move steps is the same as
change x sin of direction* # of steps
change y cos of direction* # of steps

But like next costume it exists because it is simpler to have move # steps

Yeah, newer members aren't likely to know that.

archmage · 2009-09-21 18:19:33

Newer member aren't likely to know that go to costume (costume# + 1) is the same as next costume either.

Bentheneighbor · 2009-09-21 19:39:45

Like a variable, have "switch to costume ______" and "change costume by ______"

The-Whiz · 2009-09-21 19:51:40

Bentheneighbor wrote:
Like a variable, have "switch to costume ______" and "change costume by ______"

Code:

[switch to costume (1)]
=
[set [costume] to [1]]
[switch to costume (costume)]

[change costume by (5)]
=
[switch to costume ((costume #) + (5))]

Chrischb · 2009-09-22 02:01:39

archmage wrote:
Yes there is also no need for

<move( )steps>
<go to[
<when[ ]key pressed>
<forever if>
<distance to[

These blocks are all easily replaced by others

Even if they're not neccessary, they're still handy... no need to assemble a group of blocks, and some people wouldn't know how to do some of them.

Jonathanpb · 2009-09-22 04:29:10

Shouldn't this be moved to All About Scratch? After all, this isn't suggesting anything. And it isn't telling people "There's no need to suggest this!", because these blocks already exist.

mario8462 · 2009-09-22 20:28:00

there should be a key that does all that costume [removed by Forum Moderator] for you

Last edited by Paddle2See (2009-09-24 02:54:33)

samurai768 · 2009-09-23 11:48:33

I love next costume, its really helpful.

weswesrock · 2009-09-24 18:58:43

archmage wrote:
Move steps is the same as
change x sin of direction* # of steps
change y cos of direction* # of steps

But like next costume it exists because it is simpler to have move # steps

I used that method for directional movement in one of my projects

The-Whiz · 2009-09-24 19:01:42

weswesrock wrote:
archmage wrote:
Move steps is the same as
change x sin of direction* # of steps
change y cos of direction* # of steps

But like next costume it exists because it is simpler to have move # steps
I used that method for directional movement in one of my projects

I just used that in my newest project...

jacool · 2009-09-25 10:58:02

It's easier to have a block for changing to the costume, I know it can be replaced by other blocks but so can other things.
Like
Point towards
It could be replaced with a trigonomentric function, look at scmb1:s stuff and see.

Last edited by jacool (2009-09-25 10:58:23)

weswesrock · 2009-09-25 18:51:54

We also don't need:

[blocks]<turn cw( )degrees>
<go to[
<wait until>[/blocks]

The-Whiz · 2009-09-25 19:02:11

We don't need
<change{ Variable }by( 1
Or
<say[ Hello ]for( 1 )secs>
Or
<think[ Hello ]for( 1 )secs>

Last edited by The-Whiz (2009-09-25 19:02:38)

weswesrock · 2009-09-25 19:06:50

There's also no need for:

[blocks]
<timer>
<reset timer>
<( <<> )>
(( <-> ))
[/blocks]

archmage · 2009-09-25 19:08:41

We need both greater than and less than and the minus block can be done without but that would be too much of a pain.

fruit · 2009-09-25 19:10:35

The-Whiz wrote:
We don't need
<change{ Variable }by( 1
Or
<say[ Hello ]for( 1 )secs>
Or
<think[ Hello ]for( 1 )secs>

weswesrock wrote:
There's also no need for:

[blocks]
<timer>
<reset timer>
<( <<> )>
(( <-> ))
[/blocks]

Yes we do.

Last edited by fruit (2009-09-25 19:10:49)

The-Whiz · 2009-09-25 19:11:05

No need for
<set x to( 0
<change x by( 10
<set y to( 0
<change y by( 10

fruit wrote:
The-Whiz wrote:
We don't need
<change{ Variable }by( 1
Or
<say[ Hello ]for( 1 )secs>
Or
<think[ Hello ]for( 1 )secs>
weswesrock wrote:
There's also no need for:

[blocks]
<timer>
<reset timer>
<( <<> )>
(( <-> ))
[/blocks]
Yes we do.

How so?

<set{ Variable }to( (( Variable <+> 1 ))

<say[ Hello
<wait( 1 )secsc>
<say[

<think[ Hello
<wait( 1 )secsc>
<think[

Use a simple timer script.

<not> <( 2 <>> 1 )> >>

(( 1 <+> -1 ))

Last edited by The-Whiz (2009-09-25 19:16:14)

Scratch

archived forums

#1 2009-09-21 00:59:27

There's no need for,"next costume"

#2 2009-09-21 01:30:01

Re: There's no need for,"next costume"

#3 2009-09-21 01:35:32

Re: There's no need for,"next costume"

#4 2009-09-21 07:08:49

Re: There's no need for,"next costume"

martianshark wrote:

#5 2009-09-21 10:01:19

Re: There's no need for,"next costume"

#6 2009-09-21 16:29:43

Re: There's no need for,"next costume"

archmage wrote:

#7 2009-09-21 17:06:39

Re: There's no need for,"next costume"

The-Whiz wrote:

archmage wrote:

#8 2009-09-21 17:58:11

Re: There's no need for,"next costume"

#9 2009-09-21 18:01:18

Re: There's no need for,"next costume"

archmage wrote:

#10 2009-09-21 18:19:33

Re: There's no need for,"next costume"

#11 2009-09-21 19:39:45

Re: There's no need for,"next costume"

#12 2009-09-21 19:51:40

Re: There's no need for,"next costume"

Bentheneighbor wrote:

Code:

#13 2009-09-22 02:01:39

Re: There's no need for,"next costume"

archmage wrote:

#14 2009-09-22 04:29:10

Re: There's no need for,"next costume"

#15 2009-09-22 20:28:00

Re: There's no need for,"next costume"

#16 2009-09-23 11:48:33

Re: There's no need for,"next costume"

#17 2009-09-24 18:58:43

Re: There's no need for,"next costume"

archmage wrote:

#18 2009-09-24 19:01:42

Re: There's no need for,"next costume"

weswesrock wrote:

archmage wrote:

#19 2009-09-25 10:58:02

Re: There's no need for,"next costume"

#20 2009-09-25 18:51:54

Re: There's no need for,"next costume"

#21 2009-09-25 19:02:11

Re: There's no need for,"next costume"

#22 2009-09-25 19:06:50

Re: There's no need for,"next costume"

#23 2009-09-25 19:08:41

Re: There's no need for,"next costume"

#24 2009-09-25 19:10:35

Re: There's no need for,"next costume"

The-Whiz wrote:

weswesrock wrote:

#25 2009-09-25 19:11:05

Re: There's no need for,"next costume"

fruit wrote:

The-Whiz wrote:

weswesrock wrote:

Board footer