Difference between revisions of "Talk:OBSE Wish List"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→example:
imported>Scruggs |
imported>GreyWanderer |
||
| Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
:::I haven't seen any slowdown due to spells, but then my computer has a good processor and a lot of RAM, it's the video card that's bad. If this is more efficient, then that is a good thing. MWSE's version of this wasn't very efficient as I remember it, though. | :::I haven't seen any slowdown due to spells, but then my computer has a good processor and a lot of RAM, it's the video card that's bad. If this is more efficient, then that is a good thing. MWSE's version of this wasn't very efficient as I remember it, though. | ||
::::Well, I noted that above. cdcooley said opposing to MWE's, this function was "not optimized". I assumed that the mandatory ref as a parameter was one reason. That's why I made it optional; only use it if you need it. [[User:GreyWanderer|Grey]] 12:19, 4 August 2006 (EDT) | |||
::::Iterating through local references would be very nice. AoE spells will get you references to actors and nothing else - activators, furniture, containers, and doors will only run spell scripts if directly hit by them, and carriable items, statics, flora, etc can't run spell scripts at all. | ::::Iterating through local references would be very nice. AoE spells will get you references to actors and nothing else - activators, furniture, containers, and doors will only run spell scripts if directly hit by them, and carriable items, statics, flora, etc can't run spell scripts at all. | ||
| Line 117: | Line 119: | ||
set door5 to getLocalReference 10 5 ; return the 5th</pre> | set door5 to getLocalReference 10 5 ; return the 5th</pre> | ||
::::Basically similar to MWSE's implementation, except allowing you to jump to any reference in the list without iterating. [[User:Scruggs|Scruggs]] 20:53, 3 August 2006 (EDT) | ::::Basically similar to MWSE's implementation, except allowing you to jump to any reference in the list without iterating. [[User:Scruggs|Scruggs]] 20:53, 3 August 2006 (EDT) | ||
:::::The problem I saw with this is that I personally don't know how much "lists" exist. It might just be too much work to sort all items by type. Then again ... if this sorting get's done in idle time (i.e. all the time, so that each time only a small portion needs to be re-sorted), this could have a significant good impact on performance. It could also mean though that general performance decreases when running obse. But now that I think of it again ... it is certainly better if the executable did this sorting in native code rather than us doing it in pseudo-code. [[User:GreyWanderer|Grey]] 12:19, 4 August 2006 (EDT) | |||