Scripting - Getting Started – ArmA: Armed Assault Talk
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
::::: It might be ''better'' in terms of performance, but that's nothing a novice scripter is concerned about. Keep it as simple as possible for this subject. Only give as much information as absolutely neccessary (even to the point of oversimplifying), or you will end up talking over the heads of your 'audience' anyway (no matter how true it might be what you're saying). --[[User:Kronzky|Kronzky]] 16:36, 25 July 2006 (CEST) | ::::: It might be ''better'' in terms of performance, but that's nothing a novice scripter is concerned about. Keep it as simple as possible for this subject. Only give as much information as absolutely neccessary (even to the point of oversimplifying), or you will end up talking over the heads of your 'audience' anyway (no matter how true it might be what you're saying). --[[User:Kronzky|Kronzky]] 16:36, 25 July 2006 (CEST) | ||
::::::IMHO there is not much more difficulty in using function syntax over OFP-script syntax --[[User:Whisper|Whisper]] 16:58, 25 July 2006 (CEST) | ::::::IMHO there is not much more difficulty in using function syntax over OFP-script syntax --[[User:Whisper|Whisper]] 16:58, 25 July 2006 (CEST) | ||
:::::::I don't care anyway, I understand both, as I'm long enough into scripting now... I asked someone at BI, they are also still ''using'' sqs. Don't ask me why, they just do it. And the difficulty difference is quite enormous imo, as you can't use labels, ?: etc in functions, which definitely leads to better programming style in functions, but for people who just want to get their mission working, this is a step too far. Anyway, just write the article, it's better than none ;) --[[User:Raedor|raedor]] 18:38, 25 July 2006 (CEST) | |||
::::: And why is this in the 'Types' category? And how come there so many dead links, incomplete sentences and typos in a published article? Is the author still working on this? Shouldn't this be in somebody's sandbox instead? [[User:Kronzky|Kronzky]] | ::::: And why is this in the 'Types' category? And how come there so many dead links, incomplete sentences and typos in a published article? Is the author still working on this? Shouldn't this be in somebody's sandbox instead? [[User:Kronzky|Kronzky]] | ||
:::::: looks like WIP in progress to me. [[User:Hoz|hoz]] 16:55, 25 July 2006 (CEST) | :::::: looks like WIP in progress to me. [[User:Hoz|hoz]] 16:55, 25 July 2006 (CEST) | ||
Revision as of 17:38, 25 July 2006
I wrote "the second says in what kind the text will be displayed." instead of "the second says in what position on the screen the text will be displayed." because "Black Out" isn't only for positioning the text --T_D 14:04, 24 July 2006 (CEST)
About SQS: This is article for beginners and I think better is to speak about functions only (or most of time) and don't mention of exceeded sqs scripts. Many thanks for corrections to everybody. --Djura 19:06, 24 July 2006 (CEST)
- Is this an appropriate article for Types? hoz 19:12, 24 July 2006 (CEST)
- OK, but after A bit of math chapter ;-). --Djura 15:49, 25 July 2006 (CEST)
- What's so bad on sqs, Djura? You still need them for cam scenes and lots of other stuff, also they are easier to understand for newbies (as functions are more like "real" programming). --raedor 00:27, 25 July 2006 (CEST)
- Ask ArmA autors ;-) I think everithing you can do with sctipts allow functions too. --Djura 15:49, 25 July 2006 (CEST)
- As this is a "Getting started" page we should start with the easy and basic things, and that's what you need as usual mission maker. Functions and stuff are for more advanced scripters... --raedor 15:59, 25 July 2006 (CEST)
- But BI stated that it is better to chose function based syntax whenever it is possible, so it would be better to start with function syntax, wouldn't it? --Whisper 16:05, 25 July 2006 (CEST)
- It might be better in terms of performance, but that's nothing a novice scripter is concerned about. Keep it as simple as possible for this subject. Only give as much information as absolutely neccessary (even to the point of oversimplifying), or you will end up talking over the heads of your 'audience' anyway (no matter how true it might be what you're saying). --Kronzky 16:36, 25 July 2006 (CEST)
- IMHO there is not much more difficulty in using function syntax over OFP-script syntax --Whisper 16:58, 25 July 2006 (CEST)
- It might be better in terms of performance, but that's nothing a novice scripter is concerned about. Keep it as simple as possible for this subject. Only give as much information as absolutely neccessary (even to the point of oversimplifying), or you will end up talking over the heads of your 'audience' anyway (no matter how true it might be what you're saying). --Kronzky 16:36, 25 July 2006 (CEST)
- I don't care anyway, I understand both, as I'm long enough into scripting now... I asked someone at BI, they are also still using sqs. Don't ask me why, they just do it. And the difficulty difference is quite enormous imo, as you can't use labels, ?: etc in functions, which definitely leads to better programming style in functions, but for people who just want to get their mission working, this is a step too far. Anyway, just write the article, it's better than none ;) --raedor 18:38, 25 July 2006 (CEST)
WIP Template needed?
Perhaps we need a WIP template. Maybe thats the definition of a stub? Not sure.hoz 16:55, 25 July 2006 (CEST)
- A [stub] means that the article is just a bare-bones version of what it should look like finally (with very brief content paragraphs, that act more like place-holders). It doesn't mean an article that's still in the early editing stages, and is full of bugs (that's what the sandbox is for).--Kronzky 17:05, 25 July 2006 (CEST)