And your trying to do with with the catalog event huh. Should still work just try the other scale field values that i listed above. You may want to check out the data fields on the actor with the "Raw Data View" on
The problem is that its giving me the message 'ErrorCatalogFieldNotWritten' which tells me that it can't find the field in the first place. And I actually got the value 'Scale' from the Raw Data View itself. I have tried CActorModel_Scale and Scale both and they don't work for me.
----
Not all fields can be written by catalog functions. In particular most, if not all, actor fields are immutable.
FYI you only need to make one "wall section" unit. Each wall section can detect its neighbors and swap to the appropriate model (such as corner, t-junction, etc.) This could potentially be done entirely in actor events (using queries) or you could do it with triggers. But it shouldn't be necessary to make multiple units, as long as they all share the same pathing footprint.
Attach line of sight blocker to all of the spawned unit ? Is it that hard
----
I dunno I didn't really think about it, but a few minutes of digging shows that the LoS blockers work by having a special type of footprint that blocks LoS, so editing the footprints of the wall units is probably the way to go.
Of course one problem you'll have is that people don't need to go to your website to download the map since it's published on battle.net, so generating traffic will be a little trickier.
You're proving my point exactly. Blizzard makes a more powerful editor, people bitch about how it's harder to use. Blizzard makes an easier to use editor, or something with an identical feature set to WC3, people will bitch about how it's not an advancement. (This very thread contains examples of both, proving that it's not even a dilemma.) No matter what happens there's only one constant and that's people bitching.
At the end of the day a more powerful and flexible editor allows better maps to be made by the people who are actually going to invest significant time in the process, and that's a better goal than allowing people to easily churn out crap. Sorry if that sounds harsh but think about it for a while.
Anyway I've said my piece so if you want to continue complaining go ahead. I will say that overall the people who are actually making cool shit are the ones with a zen attitude who, instead of getting frustrated that things aren't how they feel they ought to be, learn to deal with the way things actually are.
1. Change the launch missile effect's location to "Target Point"
2. Yes, using a model actor and a persistent effect. Have the launch effect's impact effect be a create persistent effect that has an expire delay and as its expire effect the damage effect. (Could I say effect any more times?) Make sure its location is "Target Point." Then make a model actor with events that look like this:
Effect.GrenadePersistentEffect.Start
At Effect
Create
Effect.GrenadePersistentEffect.Stop
Destroy
Finally edit the Host field and remove "_Selectable", the subject should be blank. You might also want to fiddle with the host site operations, SOpShadow is probably best for what you're doing.
All your complaining boils down to the editor doesn't function exactly as you'd intuitively expect it to. Well, guess what - if they made it exactly to your specifications, then it would be unintuitive for somebody else. I'm so sick of the sense of entitlement people have about the editor and the constant complaining. Face it, nothing they could release could possibly be good enough for people not to bitch about it as a way of defending their own egos when they get suck or can't figure something out. And that's what 99% of the complaining on these forums boils down to - people get frustrated and it must be Blizzard's fault for making a shitty tool that doesn't read their minds. It can't possibly be that they're trying to use a tool they haven't spent enough time learning, it must be a bug!
More than anything else that attitude makes me uninterested in helping somebody out and it's way to common around here.
You can set a Death Response effect as part of a behavior. This effect can be a Create Unit effect, for example, or anything else you want to trigger on the unit's death.
You people have clearly never used any contemporary game development tools. You want a reality check, go play with the Source engine for a weekend.
Here's the dirty little secret of the gaming industry: game design is tedious, laborious work. You're lucky to have a data editor and not have to manually edit XML. Similarly you're lucky to have a visual trigger editor and not have to learn the scripting language if you don't want to.
If you want to avoid tedium you should probably choose a different hobby since game design is about 10% creative thinking and 90% painstaking attention to detail. You think Blizzard is screwing you over and they have amazing unreleased in-house tools? Consider that as buggy as the editor is, when the campaigns were being made, they were using a much earlier and much buggier version of it.
edit: Klishu you're spot on. Once you develop a workflow things go much, much faster. You start to pick up tricks like using event macros and object inheritence and things that formerly took you 30 minutes take you 30 seconds, and you very rarely get stuck or run into unexpected behavior.
You duplicated or edited some splat actor except the events got messed up and instead of only being created for the specific unit its intended for its being created for every unit.
You could always upload an unlocked version of your map here and say if anybody likes it and wants to take over maintaining it they're welcome to. Most really popular maps end up being maintained by a different team than the original developer, anyway.
0
Quote from rkmx52:
Quote from SouLCarveRR: Go
@SouLCarveRR: Go
And your trying to do with with the catalog event huh. Should still work just try the other scale field values that i listed above. You may want to check out the data fields on the actor with the "Raw Data View" on
The problem is that its giving me the message 'ErrorCatalogFieldNotWritten' which tells me that it can't find the field in the first place. And I actually got the value 'Scale' from the Raw Data View itself. I have tried CActorModel_Scale and Scale both and they don't work for me.
----
Not all fields can be written by catalog functions. In particular most, if not all, actor fields are immutable.
0
FYI you only need to make one "wall section" unit. Each wall section can detect its neighbors and swap to the appropriate model (such as corner, t-junction, etc.) This could potentially be done entirely in actor events (using queries) or you could do it with triggers. But it shouldn't be necessary to make multiple units, as long as they all share the same pathing footprint.
0
You aren't doing anything incorrectly it simply does not work on battle.net.
0
Quote from progammer:
@RileyStarcraft: Go
Attach line of sight blocker to all of the spawned unit ? Is it that hard
----
I dunno I didn't really think about it, but a few minutes of digging shows that the LoS blockers work by having a special type of footprint that blocks LoS, so editing the footprints of the wall units is probably the way to go.
0
@Karawasa:
Of course one problem you'll have is that people don't need to go to your website to download the map since it's published on battle.net, so generating traffic will be a little trickier.
0
You're proving my point exactly. Blizzard makes a more powerful editor, people bitch about how it's harder to use. Blizzard makes an easier to use editor, or something with an identical feature set to WC3, people will bitch about how it's not an advancement. (This very thread contains examples of both, proving that it's not even a dilemma.) No matter what happens there's only one constant and that's people bitching.
At the end of the day a more powerful and flexible editor allows better maps to be made by the people who are actually going to invest significant time in the process, and that's a better goal than allowing people to easily churn out crap. Sorry if that sounds harsh but think about it for a while.
Anyway I've said my piece so if you want to continue complaining go ahead. I will say that overall the people who are actually making cool shit are the ones with a zen attitude who, instead of getting frustrated that things aren't how they feel they ought to be, learn to deal with the way things actually are.
0
Now for the real challenge: get line of sight to work correctly within your maze.
0
1. Change the launch missile effect's location to "Target Point"
2. Yes, using a model actor and a persistent effect. Have the launch effect's impact effect be a create persistent effect that has an expire delay and as its expire effect the damage effect. (Could I say effect any more times?) Make sure its location is "Target Point." Then make a model actor with events that look like this:
Effect.GrenadePersistentEffect.Start
At Effect
Create
Effect.GrenadePersistentEffect.Stop
Destroy
Finally edit the Host field and remove "_Selectable", the subject should be blank. You might also want to fiddle with the host site operations, SOpShadow is probably best for what you're doing.
0
@IskatuMesk:
All your complaining boils down to the editor doesn't function exactly as you'd intuitively expect it to. Well, guess what - if they made it exactly to your specifications, then it would be unintuitive for somebody else. I'm so sick of the sense of entitlement people have about the editor and the constant complaining. Face it, nothing they could release could possibly be good enough for people not to bitch about it as a way of defending their own egos when they get suck or can't figure something out. And that's what 99% of the complaining on these forums boils down to - people get frustrated and it must be Blizzard's fault for making a shitty tool that doesn't read their minds. It can't possibly be that they're trying to use a tool they haven't spent enough time learning, it must be a bug!
More than anything else that attitude makes me uninterested in helping somebody out and it's way to common around here.
0
You're probably looking at the campaign upgrade that makes them plant a whole bunch of mines in a line.
0
You can set a Death Response effect as part of a behavior. This effect can be a Create Unit effect, for example, or anything else you want to trigger on the unit's death.
0
You people have clearly never used any contemporary game development tools. You want a reality check, go play with the Source engine for a weekend.
Here's the dirty little secret of the gaming industry: game design is tedious, laborious work. You're lucky to have a data editor and not have to manually edit XML. Similarly you're lucky to have a visual trigger editor and not have to learn the scripting language if you don't want to.
If you want to avoid tedium you should probably choose a different hobby since game design is about 10% creative thinking and 90% painstaking attention to detail. You think Blizzard is screwing you over and they have amazing unreleased in-house tools? Consider that as buggy as the editor is, when the campaigns were being made, they were using a much earlier and much buggier version of it.
edit: Klishu you're spot on. Once you develop a workflow things go much, much faster. You start to pick up tricks like using event macros and object inheritence and things that formerly took you 30 minutes take you 30 seconds, and you very rarely get stuck or run into unexpected behavior.
0
You duplicated or edited some splat actor except the events got messed up and instead of only being created for the specific unit its intended for its being created for every unit.
0
You could always upload an unlocked version of your map here and say if anybody likes it and wants to take over maintaining it they're welcome to. Most really popular maps end up being maintained by a different team than the original developer, anyway.
0
Quote from s3rius:
That's the thread. All info we got on there is in it: http://forums.sc2mapster.com/resources/project-workplace/2398-full-gamespeed-control-usefull-for-bullettime-stuff/
----
Thanks that was the thread I was looking for.