setMimic – Talk

is MimicType 'agresive' correct or is this a copied over typo from the comref? ook? 08:52, 31 August 2007 (CEST)

Agresive is both correct and incorrect.

It is correct in that the classname in cfgMimics is called 'class Agresive'.

It is incorrect in that it should be spelt 'Aggressive'.

Of course we cannot change it as the game will not find class Aggressive in cfgMimics.

Planck 12:13, 31 August 2007 (CEST)

It is not possible to execute setmimic on the server to affect a unit on the client. Please use talk page next time. --Killzone_Kid (in the edit comment)

That's correct, the command has only "local effects", i.e. when executing the command on the server or on client x there's no effect visible on client y.

But you've probably misunderstood the meaning of "local arguments" - it means that the command only can be used where the argument (object, group, ...) is local, i.e. where local returns true for the argument.

Because a command with "local effect" and "local arguments" is pretty unlikely (and mostly useless, too) I had tested it before I've done my edit - and indeed: on the server executing setMimic on a unit which is local to the server didn't change the mimic on the client, but executing the command on my client - where the unit isn't local - worked fine, i.e. "local effect" and "global arguments".

--Master85 02:54, 5 September 2013 (CEST)

Sorry for the delay with reply. You are correct, I must have overlooked this part of testing. As for uselessness of a command with AL and EL, any client specific commands like setViewDistance etc are just that, so there is nothing wrong with those.

Anyway I was trying to come up with universal method for testing locality of a command, and this is what I have so far:

Step 1. (EL vs EG) Server owner, server side exec -> Effect on the client? Yes -> EG; No -> EL;

Step 2. (AL vs AG) Server owner, client side exec -> Effect on the client? Yes -> AG; No -> AL;

Please feel free to correct me.

-KK