kburkhart84

Well, if you delete the current verts, and then create a single edge, and then subdivide the edge, and then only move those verts using the vertex slide, it will be perfectly precise.  The catch, as Kryzon mentioned is that you can't move the verts yourself directly, rather via the tool, so that the verts stay exactly straight on the edge.  You don't need constraints for this.

I didn't look in too much detail, but do you have anything that makes you stop once you collide with the big cube.  Physics(or simple collision response) is keeping the small cube outside of the big one, but that won't automatically stop the other script(Click to Move) from trying to progress towards its target.  So the jittering would be a constant collision, push out of collision, collision again....  You need to somehow stop the Click to move script upon collision, or it needs to be redone to go around collisions, depending on what you want.

In general 3d is more difficult to handle than 2d, simply due to the added axis.  General programming parts of games suddenly have an added level of complexity.  Any vector math has the additional axis.  You go from simple top-down rotations to possibly needing quaternions (or some other measure) to avoid gimble lock, if this applies to your game.

But, some general concepts are the same. For example, for platformers, if you use a form of raycasting to check if your character is on the ground, you can likely follow the same method in 3d.  The calculations will be more complicated due to the 3rd axis, but the concept is the same.

Lastly, and I'm guessing you already know this, the art is usually more complicated.  Depending on the artist, some are better with 2d, and some with 3d.  For example, I've never gotten to where I can pixel much of anything, but I can model "acceptably" at least.  The other thing is that generally, more is expected of 3d games, since that is currently the "norm."  It seems that there is less acceptance of "programmer" art than with 2d.  Also, 2d games can more easily be "stylized" like neon style, or the desktop picture thing I've seen somewhere...this doesn't exist easily in 3d.  So you will likely have to make more "real" art instead of something stylized.

Select those end points, hit 'F" to create an edge, and the either subdivide that edge.  This way you recreate the vertices all along that single edge.

I don't know much of Blender, but if you manually move the vertices you inserted into the edge, the edge won't be a straight line anymore (if you zoom in really close you'll see it's a bit sloppy from not being mathematically perfect). It's something that really annoyed me for a while until I discovered 'constraints'.

So you need to use something like Vertex Slide or Custom Transform Orientation to let your vertices slide mathematically perfect along the edge. In 3DS Max, this is called "edge constraint".

Yes, my first point was the actual creation of the vertices on the straight line.  Once you do that, then yes indeed you would be best to do the vertex slide tool to keep things straight.  It is the easiest way I know to slide the verts along the straight edge, considering it takes more time/effort to set up the contraints and/or the custom transform orientation.

It isn't exactly what you want, but you could scale to whatever axis is closest(X, Y, Z) and then rotate them into position once they are aligned.  The only other things I can think of is if you have a plane and you snap to it(see snapping), but that is somewhat more complicated to set up than the first way.

I agree with Kryzon here though, that isn't a bad idea for a tool to have.  In fact, it may even exist already, but since it would be one of the less used tools, it wouldn't be as obvious.

I just remembered something else(duh).  You delete all the vertices except for the end points.  Select those end points, hit 'F" to create an edge, and the either subdivide that edge.  This way you recreate the vertices all along that single edge.