Talk:ESM Math Library

Is anyone else going to keep the Stage Functions category full of articles for each of these functions? Seems like it should not be too much to ask for contributors to also add things there. --DragoonWraith 17:30, 19 May 2006 (EDT)

Splitting things up

Wouldn't it make more sense to split each set of functions into separate quests by type? So instead of just "FunctionQuestScript" with who knows how many stages we'll end up with, how about "TrigFuncQuestScript" for the content that is there now, and separate quests for other libraries. Just basic module/packaged code, in other words. -- Nezroy 13:48, 9 May 2006 (EDT)

I think both have a place. For a version which displays each function separately, see Stage Functions.

It depends... you got up to 255 stages which is enough for quite a while. I've chosen to use one quest to make the setup easier. Adding stages to you quest is many times easier than adding full quests. If it would be possible to share a library as stand-alone plugin to use it in other plugins without hassle then i'd fully agree with you, but since this isn't possible and you've got to set up your quests "by hand", just having one quest is (IMO) the better solution. As long as the number of functions doesn't exceed the limit. --JustTim 14:10, 9 May 2006 (EDT)

Should be a category

We should make this a subcategory of Useful Code, or else make Useful Code a subcategory of this, and make this a category. Each of those functions should be its own article. I don't have time to do that right now, so I just threw the Scripting and Useful Code categories onto this article, but someone really needs to reorganize this.

Great idea, however.--DragoonWraith 14:00, 9 May 2006 (EDT)

You are presumably right, but this "someone" should better be anyone with a better sense for organisation and structuring than i. :) --JustTim 14:10, 9 May 2006 (EDT)

Added it. Took a long time, and meant changing a lot of pages, but I think it's pretty good. I've linked back to this page, since this page has the whole thing done in one quest. Personally, I find the more modular method preferable.

By the way, why do you have a "GetAngle" function? Oblivion comes with one...--DragoonWraith 21:13, 9 May 2006 (EDT)

Wow, great work! Looks awesome! Yes, you're right, the more modular method will presumably the best choice for most users.

Yes, the naming of the getAngle function is a littlebit misleading. The Oblivion GetAngle function returns the angle of an object or actor. My getAngle function calculates the angle of a 2d-vector (input x and y of the vector). This is very handy if your want to calculate the Angle between two objects. --JustTim 04:23, 10 May 2006 (EDT)

Isn't that what GetHeadingAngle is for? --DragoonWraith 17:28, 19 May 2006 (EDT)

1) getHeadingAngle only works on actors. 2) you may want to calculate the angle between two imaginary points that arent objects or actors. 3) getHeadingAngle only calculates the Angle of the Z axis. 4) when used on the player, the function returns where the player is looking at, not where his body is pointing at.

I've renamed it to getVectorAngle to make it a little more clear. --JustTim 19:36, 19 May 2006 (EDT)

Ah, that makes sense now. I getcha.--DragoonWraith 21:29, 19 May 2006 (EDT)