Difference between revisions of "Talk:PlaceAtMe"
imported>Gamall (Tests show they are saved. Question is if saves are cleaned by any other way) |
imported>Gamall m (typo) |
||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
[[User:Gamall|Gamall]] 14:17, 18 July 2006 (EDT) : | [[User:Gamall|Gamall]] 14:17, 18 July 2006 (EDT) : | ||
@ DragoonWraith : How often ? Did you test this ? Who provided this information ? I do hope the are unloaded from times to times (or when a limit is reached), but I'm not convinced. It is true that savegames seem to lose about 10 Kb every now and then, but | @ DragoonWraith : How often ? Did you test this ? Who provided this information ? I do hope the are unloaded from times to times (or when a limit is reached), but I'm not convinced. It is true that savegames seem to lose about 10 Kb every now and then, but nothing proves it is linked to disabled references being cleaned up. | ||
@ JOG : Try creating a reference with placeatme, use the console to get its reference, see to it that the zone you were in is discharged from memory, save, quit the game, go back to it, go back to the zone, use the reference, it will work. This proves references created with placeatme are saved. That and the significant weight increase in the savegames mentionned earlier. | @ JOG : Try creating a reference with placeatme, use the console to get its reference, see to it that the zone you were in is discharged from memory, save, quit the game, go back to it, go back to the zone, use the reference, it will work. This proves references created with placeatme are saved. That and the significant weight increase in the savegames mentionned earlier. | ||
So whether or not objects placed with placeatme and disabled are stored in the savegame is really not the issue anymore. ''They are''. The issue is whether or not saves are cleaned in the way DragoonWraith said, or any other way. They may be, and they may not be ; either way, I think this issue deserves much more attention than has been given to it this far. | So whether or not objects placed with placeatme and disabled are stored in the savegame is really not the issue anymore. ''They are''. The issue is whether or not saves are cleaned in the way DragoonWraith said, or any other way. They may be, and they may not be ; either way, I think this issue deserves much more attention than has been given to it this far. |
Revision as of 14:36, 18 July 2006
Using PlaceAtMe to return a reference to a created object does not appear to work...
ref refCreatedObject to refCreatingObject.PlaceAtMe ObjectToCreate, 1, 0, 0
Seems to do nothing. ObjectToCreate is never created, as far as I can determine. Conversely, the following creates ObjectToCreate perfectly fine:
refCreatingObject.PlaceAtMe ObjectToCreate, 1, 0, 0
Some more detail in how this is supposed to be used would be good, maybe? Or this is a bug I guess...
--X-Bahamut 23:34, 8 April 2006 (EDT)
- You can't declare and set a variable in the same line. I'll add a section to the article explaining how to use the returned reference. Mrflippy 20:03, 8 April 2006 (EDT)
--Tegid 22:41, 12 April 2006 (EDT) Does PlaceAtMe only succeed at creating a reference if it is called by a Persistent Object or an Actor? More importantly if I have a Foo object can I create another Foo object by calling?
set FooRef2 to FooRef1.PlaceAtMe Foo, 1, 0, 0
--Tegid 09:14, 20 April 2006 (EDT): It turns out the answer to my questions are no, you don't need a persistent reference, and yes, one object can create another of the same type.
-- I noticed something bad about the couple PlaceAtMe / Disable, often used in mods for spell effects. Once the references are placed, there is no way to get rid of them. Although disabled, they are saved with your saved games. In MW there was a way around this, but the command disappeared with TESIV. All I can say is that, unless there is a way around this, modders should strive to avoid use of PlaceAtMe at all cost, and use MoveTo instead on a finite number of references. Gamall 12:23, 18 July 2006 (EDT)
- test : 500 references = 76 KB increase of the savegame. Gamall 12:41, 18 July 2006 (EDT)
- Dragoon Wraith TALK 13:28, 18 July 2006 (EDT): That's a temporary increase though. Disabled objects are unloaded from memory every so often, automatically.
- I heard this rumor a while ago, but I'm still not convinced. "Initially disabled" objects are not removed from the savegame. Objects that exist in an ESP or ESM (persistent or not) are not removed after you disable them, that's a fact that was extensively tested. Objects created by placeatme give you a reference to access them, the game would crash if you do so after the object is removed, and I doubt that Bethsoft made a garbage-collection-routine that just removes disabled objects that were created ingame without storing a reference to them.--JOG 13:40, 18 July 2006 (EDT)
Gamall 14:17, 18 July 2006 (EDT) :
@ DragoonWraith : How often ? Did you test this ? Who provided this information ? I do hope the are unloaded from times to times (or when a limit is reached), but I'm not convinced. It is true that savegames seem to lose about 10 Kb every now and then, but nothing proves it is linked to disabled references being cleaned up.
@ JOG : Try creating a reference with placeatme, use the console to get its reference, see to it that the zone you were in is discharged from memory, save, quit the game, go back to it, go back to the zone, use the reference, it will work. This proves references created with placeatme are saved. That and the significant weight increase in the savegames mentionned earlier.
So whether or not objects placed with placeatme and disabled are stored in the savegame is really not the issue anymore. They are. The issue is whether or not saves are cleaned in the way DragoonWraith said, or any other way. They may be, and they may not be ; either way, I think this issue deserves much more attention than has been given to it this far.