Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Functions"

From the Oblivion ConstructionSet Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>DragoonWraith
(→‎OBSE: like the idea of dividing things by the version of CS they require.)
imported>Haama
(→‎The tree: Nice!)
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== OBSE ==
== Undocumented script functions found ==


[[User:DragoonWraith|<font face="Oblivion,Daedric Runes" size=2>D</font>ragoon <font face="Oblivion,Daedric Runes" size=2>W</font>raith]] [[User_talk:DragoonWraith|<font face="Oblivion,Daedric" size=2>TALK</font>]] 13:24, 8 June 2007 (EDT): When OBSE first came out, I went and made it its own section, complete with function categories and the like. I fell away from Oblivion modding, and those pages have not been updated in my absence.
* DumpMasterFileSeekData
* StartMasterFileSeekData
* SetSceneIsComplex i
* SetNoAvoidance i
* SetAllVisible i
* SetAllReachable i
* ShowViewerStrings
* ShowNameMenu


Noticing the lack of those functions, mmmpld went and accomplished the impressive feat of cataloging all functions, OBSE and Vanilla, [[List of Functions|here]].


Given that this is considered useful, should OBSE functions be included on this main Functions page? We would, of course, still have Vanilla functions categories, and it would be easy to filter out OBSE functions for users who do not use OBSE.
i=Integer parameter


It would mean a few things. First, this page would be quite a bit larger than it is. Second, this page is linked to directly from the first page, and OBSE is not officially supported by Bethesda (which may lead to some issues, or may not). Third, we would need to create additional OBSE and Vanilla versions of each function category, so we would have, for example, Actor Functions, Actor Functions: Vanilla, and Actor Functions: OBSE - this is the only way to maintain the ability to filter out only the kinds of functions we want to see. It would also mean more categories listed at the bottom of each functions' page - for example, you might see "Functions | Functions: Vanilla | Actor Functions | Actor Functions: Vanilla" - I don't mind this, but it could be an issue.
Are they useful for anything? --[[User:JustTim|JustTim]] 12:28, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
 
The advantages is that it's much easier for scripters who are actually using OBSE, without making things more difficult for scripters who don't. The functions wouldn't be segregated, and it would be easier to see what functions are available.
 
I am quite willing to do the work to set this up, but I'm not into unilateral decisions like this, so I would like some feedback.
 
:: Personally I wanted all the functions on one page, which as far as I know can't be done with the categories (at least from our side), so I'd still use the [[List of Functions]]. May also be a bit more confusing for those new to scripting. I'm indifferent really. —[[User:Mmmpld|mmmpld]] 00:22, 9 June 2007 (EDT)


::: I think most scripters using OBSE will have read the OBSE documentation, so when they come to the wiki it's probably to look up more info on a specific function(s). New scripters on the other hand could easily become confused. Those are just my thoughts, though, and I am all for making OBSE more visible on the wiki as long as things are clear to new users. (And thanks for getting on top of the updates, DW - I've tried to keep up in your absence, but all of v0011 and most of v0010 are undocumented here). [[User:Scruggs|Scruggs]] 01:57, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
:Hmm... name menu... is it possible to copy the player's name to something?[[User:Haama|Haama]] 17:20, 10 June 2007 (EDT)


::::[[User:DragoonWraith|<font face="Oblivion,Daedric Runes" size=2>D</font>ragoon <font face="Oblivion,Daedric Runes" size=2>W</font>raith]] [[User_talk:DragoonWraith|<font face="Oblivion,Daedric" size=2>TALK</font>]] 11:27, 9 June 2007 (EDT): Thanks Scruggs. I've been meaning to get back into it, but at this point I haven't even gone through to see what we do have, other than noticing that we were missing functions.
::ShowNameMenu doesn't seem to do anything, it accepts a reference in front, and it seems to completely ignore what you put behind it. I tested it in the console, before I left the sewers, afterwards, in the inventory, map and spell menu. It doesn't matter what reference you use either. I think this one is disabled.


::::Anyway, that's a good point, mmmpld. I hadn't considered that problem. Your list will certainly remain valuable should we do this, so that there is a way to get them all in one place.
::ShowViewerStrings is a lot more interesting, very interesting actually. It needs a reference in front, can be anything. It show a whole bunch of information about the NIF file and some other things like form ID, Editor ID. The NIF information includes different properties, sometimes havok information, the name of the root node and a lot more. It's worth investigating this further.


::::My thoughts are this - first, move all OBSE functions from their current page to one that has (OBSE) on the end of it, so that when they're all together, you can easily see which ones require OBSE. The top of the Functions page would explain, briefly, what OBSE is, and link to the corresponding page.
::[[SetSceneIsComplex]], [[SetNoAvoidance]], [[SetAllVisible]] and [[SetAllReachable]] all have a page of their own now. DumpMasterFileSeekData and StartMasterFileSeekData still need to be tested.
::--[[User:Qazaaq|Qazaaq]] 18:38, 5 July 2007 (EDT)


::::Then the break-down categories I described above would be made, and functions would be assigned categories. That means we would have a category for all functions, a category for all Vanilla functions, and a category for all OBSE functions. I'm not sure how warranted it is, but perhaps an Expansion functions or SI functions category (I'm only aware of PushActorAway, are there any others?). Then we would have the various "Type" categories - Actor Functions, Magic Functions, etc, plus a Vanilla-only and OBSE-only versions of each. This should make it very easy to continue scripting without OBSE functions if one so desires, while also enabling someone to see all the functions of a particular type that he could have access to. Checking one page is always nicer than checking several.
== Placing subcategories on one page ==


::::Oh, and another consideration. Is "Vanilla" an appropriate name for non-OBSE functions? It sounds a little informal to me. Seems like it should be "Native" functions or "Oblivion" functions or something.
Any way to do that? As of now, there are 11 on the first page and 2 on the last page.--[[User:Haama|Haama]] 13:07, 14 February 2008 (EST)


:::::I think there are a few other functions for SI, such as IsPlayerInSI. There's a list on the forums - http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=666465&hl=. To be exact, these functions are added by the new CS, and not the Shivering Isles expansion pack. The reason I draw this distinction, is that there were alot of problems with the new CS and, whether warranted or not, I won't use the new CS. For this reason, personally, I would like the original CS functions and the new CS functions to remain separate.
== The tree ==


:::::A brief explanation of OBSE and a link to mmmpld's list would work. The benefit of that organization - once you're using OBSE the source of the functions doesn't matter much, and if you want to make a non-OBSE mod, you can use the vanilla lists.
I gotta' say - I'm not liking it. This is all stuff that's available if you click on Function Types, and you have to scroll down quite a bit now to get to the functions. Also, whatever happened to the Goto by Letter thing? It may have shown up on the page a bit odd, but it worked and didn't overlap anything important. I'd like to see that again.--[[User:Haama|Haama]] 11:58, 28 May 2008 (EDT)


:::::"Oh, and another consideration. Is "Vanilla" an appropriate name for non-OBSE functions? It sounds a little informal to me. Seems like it should be "Native" functions or "Oblivion" functions or something." Either term adds information where there should be none (Gricean logic, so take it as far as you want). Making the distinctions for OBSE and CSv1.0 functions should be enough.[[User:Haama|Haama]] 12:18, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
:I commented out the letter thing because it didn't work on Internet Explorer and Opera, with the intent to fix it as soon as I got the time. It's still on my todo list, so I'll get to it.
:I think the tree makes things clearer for new users, I already know perfectly well how the functions category is organized. I think it will help, but personally I wouldn't mind if it's removed.
:--[[User:Qazaaq|Qazaaq]] 14:21, 28 May 2008 (EDT)


:::::::[[User:DragoonWraith|<font face="Oblivion,Daedric Runes" size=2>D</font>ragoon <font face="Oblivion,Daedric Runes" size=2>W</font>raith]] [[User_talk:DragoonWraith|<font face="Oblivion,Daedric" size=2>TALK</font>]] 12:27, 10 June 2007 (EDT): So we should divide things by v0.8 (the version of the CS originally released to us - I'm fairly certain that we never got v1.0), v1.2, and OBSE then? Sounds good to me. Do you like the idea of having the different categories, each with an "all" section, a "0.8" section, a "1.2" section (if warranted), and an "OBSE" section?
:The problem is that a lot of people have difficulty using Categories. I don't really know why, but it's been a perennial complaint. Maybe a separate page would be more appropriate.
:[[User:DragoonWraith|<span style="font-family: Oblivion, Daedric Runes; size=2;">D</span>ragoon <span style="font-family: Oblivion, Daedric Runes; size=2;">W</span>raith]] [[User_talk:DragoonWraith|<span style="font-family: Oblivion, Daedric Runes; size=2;">TALK</span>]] 15:06, 28 May 2008 (EDT)


== Unducumented script functions found ==
::Alright, I moved the tree to another page, stole Wikipedia's alphabetic thing (works like a charm, tested IE and Opera), learned how to forcibly remove the external link styling, and put all of the subcategories on the first page in what I consider to be an excellent mimicry of the actual subcategory style.
 
* DumpMasterFileSeekData
* StartMasterFileSeekData
* SetSceneIsComplex i
* SetNoAvoidance i
* SetAllVisible i
* SetAllReachable i
* ShowViewerStrings
* ShowNameMenu


::Is that better?
::[[User:DragoonWraith|<span style="font-family: Oblivion, Daedric Runes; size=2;">D</span>ragoon <span style="font-family: Oblivion, Daedric Runes; size=2;">W</span>raith]] [[User_talk:DragoonWraith|<span style="font-family: Oblivion, Daedric Runes; size=2;">TALK</span>]] 15:41, 28 May 2008 (EDT)


i=Integer parameter
:::Well, hid the 'real' subcategories as well as I could. Hard to do more because we can't use the fake system we used with the Settings, as the Category articles themselves get in the way.
:::[[User:DragoonWraith|<span style="font-family: Oblivion, Daedric Runes; size=2;">D</span>ragoon <span style="font-family: Oblivion, Daedric Runes; size=2;">W</span>raith]] [[User_talk:DragoonWraith|<span style="font-family: Oblivion, Daedric Runes; size=2;">TALK</span>]] 16:23, 28 May 2008 (EDT)


Are they useful for anything? --[[User:JustTim|JustTim]] 12:28, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
::::Oh, oh my - that's beautiful, and they all show up on every page. Great work DW!--[[User:Haama|Haama]] 16:43, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 15:43, 28 May 2008

Undocumented script functions found[edit source]

  • DumpMasterFileSeekData
  • StartMasterFileSeekData
  • SetSceneIsComplex i
  • SetNoAvoidance i
  • SetAllVisible i
  • SetAllReachable i
  • ShowViewerStrings
  • ShowNameMenu


i=Integer parameter

Are they useful for anything? --JustTim 12:28, 10 May 2006 (EDT)

Hmm... name menu... is it possible to copy the player's name to something?Haama 17:20, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
ShowNameMenu doesn't seem to do anything, it accepts a reference in front, and it seems to completely ignore what you put behind it. I tested it in the console, before I left the sewers, afterwards, in the inventory, map and spell menu. It doesn't matter what reference you use either. I think this one is disabled.
ShowViewerStrings is a lot more interesting, very interesting actually. It needs a reference in front, can be anything. It show a whole bunch of information about the NIF file and some other things like form ID, Editor ID. The NIF information includes different properties, sometimes havok information, the name of the root node and a lot more. It's worth investigating this further.
SetSceneIsComplex, SetNoAvoidance, SetAllVisible and SetAllReachable all have a page of their own now. DumpMasterFileSeekData and StartMasterFileSeekData still need to be tested.
--Qazaaq 18:38, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Placing subcategories on one page[edit source]

Any way to do that? As of now, there are 11 on the first page and 2 on the last page.--Haama 13:07, 14 February 2008 (EST)

The tree[edit source]

I gotta' say - I'm not liking it. This is all stuff that's available if you click on Function Types, and you have to scroll down quite a bit now to get to the functions. Also, whatever happened to the Goto by Letter thing? It may have shown up on the page a bit odd, but it worked and didn't overlap anything important. I'd like to see that again.--Haama 11:58, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

I commented out the letter thing because it didn't work on Internet Explorer and Opera, with the intent to fix it as soon as I got the time. It's still on my todo list, so I'll get to it.
I think the tree makes things clearer for new users, I already know perfectly well how the functions category is organized. I think it will help, but personally I wouldn't mind if it's removed.
--Qazaaq 14:21, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
The problem is that a lot of people have difficulty using Categories. I don't really know why, but it's been a perennial complaint. Maybe a separate page would be more appropriate.
Dragoon Wraith TALK 15:06, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
Alright, I moved the tree to another page, stole Wikipedia's alphabetic thing (works like a charm, tested IE and Opera), learned how to forcibly remove the external link styling, and put all of the subcategories on the first page in what I consider to be an excellent mimicry of the actual subcategory style.
Is that better?
Dragoon Wraith TALK 15:41, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
Well, hid the 'real' subcategories as well as I could. Hard to do more because we can't use the fake system we used with the Settings, as the Category articles themselves get in the way.
Dragoon Wraith TALK 16:23, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
Oh, oh my - that's beautiful, and they all show up on every page. Great work DW!--Haama 16:43, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://cs.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Functions&oldid=4200"