rigid | Static web site generator in Go | Static Site Generator library

I have 2 simple capsules. 1 is stationary and the other is moving to the same tile on the tilemap using transform.position.

Both capsules have capsule colliders and rigid bodies. I've attempted to remove the rigid body but from what I can tell, the OnCollisionEnter function requires a rigid body to work.

My script, attached to both of these, is a simple:

In my game I want to have a floating monster that's attack throws a grenade at the player. My problem is that the grenade only spawns in 0, 0, 0. In my script I make it so that the zombies spawns in on its own location but for some reason that doesn't work. I tried making it spawn by having the spawn location equal new Vector3(100, 100, 100) but it still spawned at 0, 0, 0. I know that the co-routine runs because I put a Debug.Log. Thanks for the help!

Edit #2: I can't have a rigidbody on the script. I have edited the movement script and I have found that no mater what if a rigidbody is added then it will go to 0, 0, 0.

Edit #3: I updated the scripts

Here is my script: (Sorry if the code is bad)

I tried this code:

With Excel 2019 and Office 365, MS introduced changes to array functions such that they are at least a bit less rigid.

Suppose I have the following VBA function

NOTE: This isn't specific to Minecraft Fabric. I'm just new to rigid pre-runtime optimization.

I'm writing an API hook for Minecraft mods that allows the mapping of various tasks to a Villager's "profession" attribute, allowing other mods to add custom tasks for custom professions. I have all of the backend code done, so now I'm worried about optimization.

I have an ImmutableMap.Builder that I'm using to store the other mods' added tasks. Problem is, while I know that the "put" method will never be called at runtime, I don't know if the compiler does. Obviously, since this is a game and startup times in modpacks are already long, I'd like to optimize this as much as possible, since it will be used by every mod that wishes to add a new villager task.

Here's my current source code for the "task registry":

I have been trying to get a linearized version of a MultiBodyPlant without gravity to experiment with LQR for systems without gravity. However, the linearization leads to some interesting phenomena. A simplified example can be found in this google colab notebook.

When I linearize and check the rank of the controllability matrix for a single free-floating rigid body, I get a rank of 6. This is expected as I use the get_applied_generalized_force_input_port() as the input port, hence making sure that all possible forces can be applied to the system. The system of a single rigid body has 6 degrees of freedom (DoF) and the rank of the controllability matrix is 6, hence it is controllable.

However, when I use Drake's in-built function IsControllable() to check the controllability, it results False meaning that it thinks the system is not controllable. In the source of the IsControllable() function, the rank of the matrix is checked against the number of rows in the A matrix. I think that this might be causing an issue as the linearization involves the use of quaternions during the AutoDiff (thus adding one more row to the A matrix due to 4 numbers being used for quaternions to represent the state). The linearization process does not know about the unit-quaternion constraint, and hence the A matrix for a system using quaternions will have 1 more row than the DoF of the system.

I wonder if this is the correct intuition for the controllability mismatch?

And could this cause issues as other functions within Drake that maybe use the IsControllable() function for verifying controllability?

I got a dictionary with 14 keys.

First Ive created createTableOfRecordsenter function:

What I'm trying to do is to get a generic typearg of a Field using

I've been working on a calculator and I am very close to getting it working, but I need to find a way to have the amount of numbers and operators that the user puts in to be up to the user. This is a simpler test version of what I have so far that I need to apply this to. I left out a few things but this is the exact part of the code I need to apply it to. The user should be able to input any amount of numbers and operands as long as it is under 20 of each. I don't want to stick to a rigid form of input, like cin >> numIn[n]; cin >> operator1[n], because then you would HAVE to end with an operator, for example.