Difference between revisions of "Talk:Activate"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
imported>Haama (Syntax note) |
imported>HawkFest |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
[[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>]] 10:54, 13 July 2007 (EDT) | [[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>]] 10:54, 13 July 2007 (EDT) | ||
:You can actually tell who's saying what??? Yeah, that information is incorrect on activating (not quite sure about onUnEquip, I'd say yes but I have one more thing to test). An activation runs the entire onActivate block (be it another object or that object) before the next line of code is processed. Not quite sure about "Atomic" and having multiple onActivate blocks in a script though (mainly because it hurts to think about why one would do that...). Also, this article is ''really'' confusing. Really, really, really confusing and since it doesn't mention that the reference is the object that's activated, it borders on useless. *sigh* I need to say more about it, but what's keeping me from rewriting the whole article - I don't want to turn it into a different structure/flow from other function articles, and I simply haven't read all of them. (I am more than happy to run tests, though - hence the nesting section) | :You can actually tell who's saying what??? Yeah, that information is incorrect on activating (not quite sure about onUnEquip, I'd say yes but I have one more thing to test). An activation runs the entire onActivate block (be it another object or that object) before the next line of code is processed. Not quite sure about "Atomic" and having multiple onActivate blocks in a script though (mainly because it hurts to think about why one would do that...). | ||
::Well it could have many use. One example is for controlling cascading events, e.g. activating a lever could trigger some action from its onActivate block,like opening a door, cast some spell, do something whatever, AND activate another guyzmo like a remote activator on the player which itself could do many things, and so on (5 max is quite enough)... Many scenarios could justify such a use imho. I already see one advantage, in design terms : splitting a scenario storyboard-like (assuming that 5 scenes max can be implemented in such a way and designing/coding consequently), and implementing each "scene" of the so-called storyboard within one activator or token. This could even replace the use of a quest in some situations where some control over a chain of events is needed, triggered while entering a cell for instance, thus simulating a scene or animation involving multiple objects, for stories that are non-linear offering multiple path / multiple actions, etc... Or maybe my understanding is missing something - being the mister newbie of the day... Does what I wrote makes sense, or are there more efficient ways to do the same thing for all situations? --[[User:HawkFest|HawkFest]] 22:26, 11 September 2007 (EDT) | |||
:Also, this article is ''really'' confusing. Really, really, really confusing and since it doesn't mention that the reference is the object that's activated, it borders on useless. *sigh* I need to say more about it, but what's keeping me from rewriting the whole article - I don't want to turn it into a different structure/flow from other function articles, and I simply haven't read all of them. (I am more than happy to run tests, though - hence the nesting section) | |||
:--[[User:Haama|Haama]] 12:58, 13 July 2007 (EDT) | :--[[User:Haama|Haama]] 12:58, 13 July 2007 (EDT) | ||