Well - the new release isn't out yet - it's just a Release Candidate.

https://github.com/mozilla/rhino/releases

That said - we are very happy to see the progress - since it has been over a year since 1.7.13 was released!

Hopefully soon!

WOW, Thank you Paul

With the new include functionality I have been able to drop my script sizes by 60-90%! This cleans up the code dramatically and promotes code reuse.

Excellent work to the BC team!

Hi guys,

The plan is to release 4.5 in April.

Cheers!

Paul.

Cheers guys. Thanks for the quick response!

👍 Happy to help!

Cool to see the forums working! 🙂

I've marked @Panagiotis-Milios more detailed explanation as the accepted solution, but kudos to you @Chris-Brown for pointing it out, and @Panagiotis-Milios for providing the detailed example. Thanks a bunch! 🙂

@Steve-Jones
thanks dear Steve jobs (oops!) Jones .
i found this after one day challenge with bomberRTT sample !
i think its better to say somewhere this important note that " developer plan" needed to lunch RTT games.

p.n: i build this project in platforms pc / webgl / android in unity2019.1.5 pro.
Android version not worked in my android phone (android9 os). something wrong that cause app install but not available to play!

@JasonL
Yes we can do that too, I was just wondering how granular our control over the segment is, as one of the requirements for our testing was to have a precise number of users for each group.

Thank you so much for the info, I'll write again if I have more questions.

Ah! Thanks for letting us know!

yes that reason too. readgroup result data is not enough so need more data(like score) so need.

@wjurica Assuming you're using c#, consider Newtonsoft for the deserialization & mapping process. It's two lines of code to map your data to a class.

https://www.newtonsoft.com/json

Hi @kinco-h - I assume (hope) you got the info you needed from our support folks?

Hint - you access chat support by clicking on the "Ask Support" button in the top right-hand corner of the Design Portal...

2024-12-04_09-07-57.png

Oh, server can use client API

All very good points @Panagiotis-Milios !

There is a global list of reason codes here - https://docs.braincloudservers.com/api/appendix/reasonCodes

Diving into our new game and found a work-around ~ use private viewing. I have our reference game open in a private window, and the new project in the main one.

Thank you, fantastic. I appreciate all the information you have given.

Hello @Gavin-Beard!

We've had trouble reproducing this issue on our end. After some testing with a small app on MacOS and iOS, we have not been able to see the error you are encountering using Unity 2021.3.8.

If you could, please check out the app here and let us know if this issue is still persisting. It is a barebones authentication app and it should run on multiple devices. The Authentication.cs script has all the gory details. Just open up the Main scene under Assets > App > Misc > Main.unity to get it running. You will also need to add your brainCloud credentials, but you can copy the Authentication example template in brainCloud to test the app.

Please let us know how this app works on your end and if any issues are encountered! You should be able to click on any error logs in the in-app console to copy the log to your device's clipboard.

As for your specific issue, my best guess is that perhaps an external library of sorts might not be supported with brainCloud, such as the Newtonsoft Json.NET library. For JSON de/serializing, brainCloud comes with JsonFX. You can also make use of Unity's own JsonUtility for structured JSON de/serialization. Both the app I've shared and the examples on our GitHub make use of JsonFX extensively.

If you'd like to know more and see how a more robust app can handle brainCloud authentication, as Franco suggested, you should check out our Authentication example on our Unity Examples GitHub.

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have further questions or inquiries about this.

These points above are indeed good examples regarding "forcing bad practices":

If I have 3 free API calls after the API call, after the 3rd freebie, I can return it and call again for 1 core + 3 more that can branch off again. This is inefficient for BC, yet beneficial for end-users (thus, forcing bad practices since it costs and gives more if we avoid the pre and post hooks).

If a workaround to save API costs would be more work for the user, and costs more for BC, that's a lose-lose. If such a "hole" exists, shouldn't it be repriced for that consideration to make it the win-win you folks want it to be?