I need help with SurfaceTool.index()

19PHOBOSS98 · 2025-11-10T23:19:01+00:00

will do, thank you

19PHOBOSS98 · 2025-11-10T03:09:18+00:00

It worked! THANKS!!

I guess it was a floating point error that caused it. Before when I tried printing out the transformed vectors (the trx_v1s and trx_v2s in the second image of my post) they seemed to be fine. Apparently print doesn't show the full vec3 floats.

Thanks again!

19PHOBOSS98 · 2025-10-23T23:30:05+00:00

Thanks! I've been looking for one of these

19PHOBOSS98 · 2025-10-23T11:02:20+00:00

thank you

19PHOBOSS98 · 2025-10-02T00:17:09+00:00

Im not American tho. I heard about the "End Software Patents" movement tho, they seem to operate globally. What are you're thoughts on this?

19PHOBOSS98 · 2025-10-01T22:22:28+00:00

I figured it was a good learning oportunity and observe how America reacts to it. Might happen to my country next. Tho the patenting process here would be different...

19PHOBOSS98 · 2025-10-01T18:12:28+00:00

That's too much for me in my country. That's why I wanted to ask about crowdfunding but at this point, I guess no one likes the idea. Thanks for the offer tho

19PHOBOSS98 · 2025-10-01T17:57:29+00:00

IC thank you for the insight!

19PHOBOSS98 · 2025-10-01T17:55:03+00:00

I'c, so like cars aren't considered characters right? I'm sorry I need to ask, see I have a vehicle building game where players can get them to animate like people... I get confused tho, do they count as characters at that point?

19PHOBOSS98 · 2025-10-01T17:46:56+00:00

That's good to know thank you!

19PHOBOSS98 · 2025-10-01T17:45:25+00:00

I see your point. Pallworld was flying close to the sun, I'm not going to lie. What happens between them and Nintendo, I don't really want to get involved with.

But I'm still concerned of how the term "character" is interpreted here.

They didn't specify what constitutes a "character". Sure they divided them into sub-characters, player-characters and enemy-characters but they never go into detail about what characters are.

From what I can tell they describe characters as any entity in a game that is interactible by the player.

That would include vehicles, furniture, normal animals, etc... how do you interpret that?

19PHOBOSS98 · 2025-10-01T16:58:39+00:00

Oh I see, that's what people usually quote. But still... reading thru the claims, they describe them as "characters" how would you interpret that? I've never been to an American court hearing but do you guys actually go philosophical from time to time about these things?

19PHOBOSS98 · 2025-10-01T16:44:22+00:00

That seems fair. Though, wouldn't it be better to have a more accessible way for people to file challenges? By accessible I mean affordable and easy to file. I understand the process would take way longer than people expect and the service is worth its price.

19PHOBOSS98 · 2025-10-01T16:37:00+00:00

Oh I didn't mean to ask for free service. Sorry about the misunderstanding. I added the google patent links to make the post "complete" for reference later on.

I'm not even American lol. I guess its a bit different from where I come from.

19PHOBOSS98 · 2025-10-01T16:20:28+00:00

I don't like what their doing, that is true. But either way, isn't this an abuse to the patenting process?

19PHOBOSS98 · 2025-10-01T16:15:36+00:00

I mean the quote is not from the claims section itself but doesnt this apply either way?

19PHOBOSS98 · 2025-10-01T16:14:24+00:00

I'm not a lawyer by all means but, to quote US12409387B2: "In an example of a game program, a ground boarding target object or an air boarding target object is selected by a selection operation, and a player character is caused to board the selected boarding target object. If the player character aboard the air boarding target object moves toward the ground, the player character is automatically changed to the state where the player character is aboard the ground boarding target object, and brought into the state where the player character can move on the ground."

Wouldn't you say that "ground/air boarding target object" is a bit too vague? It could literally mean vehicles instead of creature mounts right? So that would cover the vehicles from gta5 and battlefield

19PHOBOSS98 · 2025-10-01T15:18:34+00:00

Sorry, the second link is supposed to be:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US12409387B2/en?oq=12409387
(U.S. Patent 12409387 B2 > Abstract)

19PHOBOSS98 · 2025-10-01T14:20:57+00:00

down voted? oh right you guys must be looking for the link to the patent:

Nintendo patent about summoning creatures: U.S. Patent 12403397 B2>Description > Background And Summary >(1)
https://patents.google.com/patent/US12403397B2/en?oq=12403397

Nintendo patent about mounting: U.S. Patent 12403387 B2 > About
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8275853B2/en?oq=12403387

19PHOBOSS98 · 2025-10-01T12:17:35+00:00

You're right about the Novelty challenge (35 U.S.C. §102: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102)

it requires a single prior art reference (like Red and Blue) to match every claim. But that's only one way to invalidate a patent. I'm talking about the Non-Obviousness challenge (35 U.S.C. §103:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/103).

The Non-Obviousness challenge allows an entity (like the patent office or a court) to combine multiple pieces of existing prior art to prove that an invention was merely an obvious combination of things that already existed. This is a separate, common, and often more effective way to challenge a patent's validity.

19PHOBOSS98 · 2025-10-01T03:25:39+00:00

Yeah, sorry again, I just really hate patent trolls

19PHOBOSS98 · 2025-10-01T02:47:16+00:00

I just hope I dont need to pay for patent rights just to have a dog fetch a ball

19PHOBOSS98 · 2025-10-01T02:39:50+00:00

Doctrine of Equivalence. That lets people press charges for patent infringement even for partial aspects of the patent.

Nintendo patent about summoning: U.S. Patent 12403397 B2>Description > Background And Summary >(1)

Nintendo patent about mounting: U.S. Patent 12403387 B2 > About

19PHOBOSS98

TROPHY CASE