processInitCommands – Talk
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
It seems like people are using this command incorrectly all over the known universe!! Why are people having the server createVehicles, then setVehicleInit them, then run processInitCommands right after??? Isn't the idea/approach to setVehicleInit and then have the ''client'' run processInitCommands when they connect AFTER the fact. Any clients that are CURRENTLY connected will need to run something else for the object that was created. Thoughts? --[[User:Doolittle|Doolittle]] 20:44, 2 August 2007 (CEST) | It seems like people are using this command incorrectly all over the known universe!! Why are people having the server createVehicles, then setVehicleInit them, then run processInitCommands right after??? Isn't the idea/approach to setVehicleInit and then have the ''client'' run processInitCommands when they connect AFTER the fact. Any clients that are CURRENTLY connected will need to run something else for the object that was created. Thoughts? --[[User:Doolittle|Doolittle]] 20:44, 2 August 2007 (CEST) | ||
: Well, processInitCommands is not needed for JIP clients as those run init commands automatically when they conne. processInitCommands is only really useful when you want already connected clients to run newly set setVehicleInit commands, the reason this is done is that then you can use the same init function for already connected clients and JIP connecting clients, atleast thats the theory. I never really got that to work as i wanted so I used setVehicleInit only for JIP clients and processInit not at all, but others are perhaps having more success.. --[[User:Salisan|Salisan]] 20:52, 2 August 2007 (CEST) | : Well, processInitCommands is not needed for JIP clients as those run init commands automatically when they conne. processInitCommands is only really useful when you want already connected clients to run newly set setVehicleInit commands, the reason this is done is that then you can use the same init function for already connected clients and JIP connecting clients, atleast thats the theory. I never really got that to work as i wanted so I used setVehicleInit only for JIP clients and processInit not at all, but others are perhaps having more success.. --[[User:Salisan|Salisan]] 20:52, 2 August 2007 (CEST) | ||
:: Okay, thanks! Guess I had it wrong.. the known universe is safe once again.. What do you mean by "that's the theory"? How did you never get it to work? --[[User:Doolittle|Doolittle]] 21:08, 2 August 2007 (CEST) | |||
Revision as of 20:08, 2 August 2007
According to the comref the version of this command is 1.33.
Unless you have updated information and haven't just guessed that it should be 2.33. We can all make assumptions, but it might be safer to ask BI.
Planck 13:47, 21 August 2006 (CEST)
- Yes, 2.33 is correct here. --Suma 12:34, 29 September 2006 (CEST)
It seems like people are using this command incorrectly all over the known universe!! Why are people having the server createVehicles, then setVehicleInit them, then run processInitCommands right after??? Isn't the idea/approach to setVehicleInit and then have the client run processInitCommands when they connect AFTER the fact. Any clients that are CURRENTLY connected will need to run something else for the object that was created. Thoughts? --Doolittle 20:44, 2 August 2007 (CEST)
- Well, processInitCommands is not needed for JIP clients as those run init commands automatically when they conne. processInitCommands is only really useful when you want already connected clients to run newly set setVehicleInit commands, the reason this is done is that then you can use the same init function for already connected clients and JIP connecting clients, atleast thats the theory. I never really got that to work as i wanted so I used setVehicleInit only for JIP clients and processInit not at all, but others are perhaps having more success.. --Salisan 20:52, 2 August 2007 (CEST)
- Okay, thanks! Guess I had it wrong.. the known universe is safe once again.. What do you mean by "that's the theory"? How did you never get it to work? --Doolittle 21:08, 2 August 2007 (CEST)