Create a nanoframe with lua

[SirMaverick]

Because you may still want to put the building in 'being built' state?

(Which is the only thing that is being done here; the nanoframe is just a side effect.)

Exactly.

So nanoframes are just considered as an graphic effect. I still don't understand what this has to do with the proposed way of creating "being built" units.

[smoth]

I think that is what af was saying, make a replacement lua then remove it regret. You are over reacting.. and this is coming from me, king of the walking nitroglycerin.

[Regret]

I think that is what af was saying, make a replacement lua then remove it regret. You are over reacting.. and this is coming from me, king of the walking nitroglycerin.

I am overreacting by answering your question? :|

[Umbra]

I am overreacting by answering your question?

Your a chernobyl disaster gone from bad to wrose.
A lua replacement of nano frames sounds absolutely wonderful. And I usually go against the idea of engine features being migrated to lua.

[Google_Frog]

What do people mean when they want to take nanoframes out of the engine? Should the graphics just be luaed? Should everything to do with buildprogress be removed? Why not implement all construction with custom commands and unit spawning?

I don't think any of it should be taken out (except maybe a tag for graphics).

[lurker]

Regret: Having it in lua does not make it more turing complete than it already is, but does make it orders of magnitude easier to change. That way the person making a tiny tweak doesn't have to write an entire nanoframe system.

Google: Your slippery slope contribution is noted, and I marked it down as "no idea what he's talking about" because there's already such a tag.

[Regret]

Having it in lua does not make it more turing complete than it already is, but does make it orders of magnitude easier to change. That way the person making a tiny tweak doesn't have to write an entire nanoframe system.

My point was that it would make no sense to remove it from engine even after such a replacement was made as having the feature does nothing counter-productive and *A mods + some games rely on it. Removing it would just force a useless update and most likely cause other random bugs that may have been overlooked.

[AF]

remove the feature


WHERE DID THIS SYLLABLE COME FROM?!!?!?! I DONT REMEMBER PUTTING IT THERE

I did not say REmove the feature from the engine, I said MOVE the feature to lua. Theres no reason a gadget implementing TA style nanoframe rendering couldn't be bundled with the OTA base content.

This way we could have variations of the TA nanoframe animation, for example, reversing it, making it fade in as it builds, making it shimmer and shift as its decaying, multiple colours, even making the frame itself get sucked into the nanolathe on reclaiming

[Regret]

remove the feature


WHERE DID THIS SYLLABLE COME FROM?!!?!?! I DONT REMEMBER PUTTING IT THERE

I did not say REmove the feature from the engine, I said MOVE the feature to lua. Theres no reason a gadget implementing TA style nanoframe rendering couldn't be bundled with the OTA base content.

This way we could have variations of the TA nanoframe animation, for example, reversing it, making it fade in as it builds, making it shimmer and shift as its decaying, multiple colours, even making the frame itself get sucked into the nanolathe on reclaiming

Moving from one place to another implies something disappearing from it's original place (hence remove from engine) and appearing in some other.

If it will be only in Lua then it has been in fact removed from engine which is bad for the reasons I mentioned in my post before this one. I seriously doubt someone will make it in gadget form that doesn't force the countless games relying on it to update.

By all means go ahead and remake it, but removal from engine will be illogical and foolish unless replacement is fully backwards compatible (i.e. games relying on it will not have to update to behave as before).

Note: Repetition intended.

[AF]

Did you not see me suggest it be moved to a lua gadget in base content? An archive loaded by spring under every single game loaded?

No games would have to update...

[Regret]

Did you not see me suggest it be moved to a lua gadget in base content?

Yes.

An archive loaded by spring under every single game loaded?

Yes.

No games would have to update...

I seriously doubt someone will make it in gadget form that doesn't force the countless games relying on it to update.

Translation:

If the gadget was bundled with spring and the nanoframe feature removed from engine:

• it will most likely be done wrong the first time it's released in gadget form
• it will most likely require several bugfixes
• spring releases are few and far in between
• game developers will be forced to update or wait for new spring while having a bugged version of that which was fully functional before

I can't imagine how else am I supposed to phrase this so here is in simple terms:

a) having new gadget is good
b) losing a feature from engine for no reason (nanoframe does not prohibit anything while being an engine feature) despite having a gadget replacement is bad
c) having both the gadget AND the current engine feature is better than having just a gadget

[SirMaverick]

Did you not see me suggest it be moved to a lua gadget in base content? An archive loaded by spring under every single game loaded?

No games would have to update...

An updates is needed that dis-/enables the gadget.

[Umbra]

If the gadget was bundled with spring and the nanoframe feature removed from engine:

• it will most likely be done wrong the first time it's released in gadget form
• it will most likely require several bugfixes
• spring releases are few and far in between
• game developers will be forced to update or wait for new spring while having a bugged version of that which was fully functional before

Do you realize that your putting so much effort into a simple animation that lasts no more than a few seconds in most cases? If nano framing breaks down for a release or two, do you think that anyone would notice? Unless you sit by each and every one of your factories and watch as your units are assembled bit by bit, I don't really think that anyone would care much.

It's a mere animation that merely demonstrates that units are being created and don't just pop into existence as they please. It doesn't even have any impact on game play aside from said visual! You are wasting time and effort on such a little thing, truly there isn't something better that you could do with your time?

[Regret]

Do you realize that your putting so much effort into a simple animation that lasts no more than a few seconds in most cases? If nano framing breaks down for a release or two, do you think that anyone would notice? Unless you sit by each and every one of your factories and watch as your units are assembled bit by bit, I don't really think that anyone would care much.

It's a mere animation that merely demonstrates that units are being created and don't just pop into existence as they please. It doesn't even have any impact on game play aside from said visual! You are wasting time and effort on such a little thing, truly there isn't something better that you could do with your time?

Are you blind? I am trying to PREVENT WASTING EFFORT. Is is so incredibly hard to comprehend that removing that which is not broken, for any reason, is just plain retarded?

"Hey this part of the engine is used by almost every game and has no problems whatsoever, let's remove it because... well just because!"

[Gota]

Just for the record nonoframes are important for gameplay reasons.
It makes it much easier to see where something is being built.
I sometimes experience a bug in which they disappear,and its annoying as hell.

[AF]

If the engine was released with a broken first nanoframe gadget, then you don't have to wait for the next release of spring for the fixed version.

• Disable the broken gadget and bundle a fixed or custom version
• Its unlikely the gadget will be broken since the person writing it is expected to have at least tested it actually works

Over reaction is overly over reactive

[Regret]

If the engine was released with a broken first nanoframe gadget, then you don't have to wait for the next release of spring for the fixed version.

• Disable the broken gadget and bundle a fixed or custom version
• Its unlikely the gadget will be broken since the person writing it is expected to have at least tested it actually works

Over reaction is overly over reactive

game developers will be forced to update or wait for new spring while having a bugged version of that which was fully functional before

Unless you actually start reading what is being said and put some effort into thinking about what you're saying, you are not even worth responding to anymore.

[AF]

You obviously did not read or attempt to understand my post.

The nanoframes are simple. Cocking them up would be a major embarasment.

What is more, we have this thing called TESTING. If the frames are broken in the first release, then people will find out and complain long before a release.

Should the unthinkable happen and this simple gadget has managed to get through possibly weeks of testing and yet is still broken when released, there is a very very good chance that a quickfix would be released.

What is more, it is likely that the original engine implementation won't be removed until its definitely working.

This is what we call resistance to change, even though from your perspective there is none.

[Regret]

a) having new gadget is good
b) losing a feature from engine for no reason (nanoframe does not prohibit anything while being an engine feature) despite having a gadget replacement is bad
c) having both the gadget AND the current engine feature is better than having just a gadget

[zwzsg]

Its unlikely the gadget will be broken since the person writing it is expected to have at least tested it actually works

Unrealistic expectations only lead to project failure.