What am I doing wrong here.

[smoth]

I wasn't really looking for too much information or assistance. Mostly I knew what I needed after I talked with JK. I was hoping flozi or maybe pressureline would post but that was about it. at this point the new thread really merits no new posts until flozi, myself or some random guy submits their gadget to do it.

so the main thing the thread needs is time.

I guess my main thing is now that I want to make future threads be more organized. The transport discussion SHOULD get it's own thread so people can find it if they want to learn about it.

[SinbadEV]

This is a paraphrase of something I read online, it's trite but it is a good place to start:

First: Ask one question in as clear and concise a manner as possible.

Second: Explain what you've done to find the answer including avenues you've pursued and abandoned.

Third: Thank everyone for helping you in advance.

If you do this you should be able to point people back to something you said in your first post instead of explaining something again... if you cannot point someone back to your first post than it is not their fault for going off the rails you envisioned and it might be a good idea to respond gently and then go back and edit the first post to clarify your request for help.

[SwiftSpear]

I think it's kind of the hazard of talking about technical issues in a public forum. There's no guarantee that any other user is at a similar technical level that you are. Even if they are, it's very possible that their engine experience is in area's you're less familiar, and the area you're talking about they are less familiar with.

You get a lot of responses that are basically idealitic "I think this should be possible" and it's somewhat meaningless to actually discuss that unless it happened to make you think through something you hadn't considered before.

Therefore it's a balance between reading what people say, but at the same time being willing to not get dragged into debates about the feasibility of every system. Especially if it's ultimately you who will be doing the coding work.

If no one in the thread is willing to do work, to me, it's basically already an off topic thread anyways, so I wouldn't get so concerned with derailment. Hence why we've never enforced "don't go off topic" rules too strictly. Human discussion normally flows from one thing to another, and forum is fundamentally primarily discussion. It can be frustrating when you feel a topic isn't spent but other start moving on... but that's just the nature of social interaction. It can be frustrating. For the most part you're all just talking for the sake of talk anyways.

[smoth]

I can understand that if I was starting the thread to talk for the sake of talking. However, in my case I have a very real goal that I am collecting information to work on. In the past there has been at least 1 user who has accused me of hoarding knowledge so I felt it best to make a thread where everyone can find the information and learn from it.

[SwiftSpear]

Appologies that I can't refer to specific examples that I know actually happened, I'm gonna be using the ones sinbad posted.

unit attachment:
- hacky as fuck, seriously no, so many issues.
Massive set of hidden parts:
- requires all the parts to use 1 atlas
- Atlas texturing is ok but not for me, I prefer proper texturing.
- maintenance night mare

The issue with saying things like this, as Sinbad correctly identified, is that by giving people the nicety of explaining why you don't like their proposal, you open the floor to debate the valors and flaws of it in more depth.

At the same time, although you're giving them more useful information, you're also being a bit rude in saying effectively "your idea is bad".

If you want to kill discussion in a certain direction, the more practical approach is to show disinterest in sharing information on it. Say something like "it might work, but I don't want to do it that way"

You've given them nothing to debate, you've given them a little pat on the back in saying "it might work" so they don't feel like they have to defend their proposal, as you haven't actually called their proposal bad, and you've pushed the axiom of weather or not the topic is worth continuing discussing into the realm of your own opinion. They can't argue against what you've said, what would their position be? "Actually, I think you DO want to do it my way!"

[knorke]

instead of talking about "attaching" and "adding" models to a unit you could have said what you actually wanted: draw models.

[smoth]

failed thread
thread MKII

"it might work, but I don't want to do it that way"

You've given them nothing to debate, you've given them a little pat on the back in saying "it might work" so they don't feel like they have to defend their proposal, as you haven't actually called their proposal bad, and you've pushed the axiom of weather or not the topic is worth continuing discussing into the realm of your own opinion. They can't argue against what you've said, what would their position be? "Actually, I think you DO want to do it my way!"

didn't think of this, I will try it next time.

it seems the solution is that I cannot prevent the thread from being derailed via strong or soft methods but must instead steer the ship. I can try it, we'll see how it goes.

instead of talking about "attaching" and "adding" models to a unit you could have said what you actually wanted: draw models.

Draw models is not what I was trying. "Attaching a model I am drawing to a point and getting it's translation allowing for unit customization" is not going to fit in the subject line I think

[knorke]

Draw models is not what I was trying.

oh never mind then.

"a point and getting it's translation

I asume point=a piece of the real unit. To read piece position and rotation:
http://springrts.com/wiki/Lua_SyncedRead#Unit_Pieces

[SwiftSpear]

Specifically regarding the model attachment thread: It's just a super specific issue regarding a fairly isolated segment of code. Like I say, it's just kind of the hazard of dumping something into a public forum. A large majority of the people who read your thread read it as "I want modular units", where as you're WAY beyond that, discussing a specific, fairly low level, rendering issue you'd like an extra feature in. But once a thread gets going on a fun direction, it's hard to salvage it for it's initial value. It's best to make a new thread and try to explain more clearly the specifics of what you're trying to do, rather than bemoan the stupid people who couldn't understand the issue the first time around

It's a public forum, people see a thread they think sparks their interests, so they get excited and start commenting on it, because, well, they can. That's just kind of how things work.

[SinbadEV]

It's a public forum, people see a thread they think sparks their interests, so they get excited and start commenting on it, because, well, they can. That's just kind of how things work.

You are so right... I am sorely tempted to spout my own poorly informed and likely unhelpful suggestions.

[smoth]

But once a thread gets going on a fun direction, it's hard to salvage it for it's initial value. It's best to make a new thread and try to explain more clearly the specifics of what you're trying to do, rather than bemoan the stupid people who couldn't understand the issue the first time around

It's a public forum, people see a thread they think sparks their interests, so they get excited and start commenting on it, because, well, they can. That's just kind of how things work.

yeah and my bemoan was because I suspect people read the subject but not the first post. I completely understand, there is a phenomena of read topic, respond to thread without reading the rest of it.

Was the second thread better swift?

[SwiftSpear]

Ya, my only complaint is don't get upset so quickly when you lose a thread here and there to social redirection. It's fine to make a new thread to preserve the direction of the topic you actually wanted to talk about in the first place. It's fine if the old thread stays open as well, as people are less likely to bring the off topic discussion from the old thread into the new thread if the off topic discussion is still IN the old thread.

We might get work done a little more efficiently if the forums ran more like a wikipedia page. But I think the forums themselves would be a lot less fun.

[SinbadEV]

It's fine if the old thread stays open as well, as people are less likely to bring the off topic discussion from the old thread into the new thread if the off topic discussion is still IN the old thread.

So... Instead of asking for topics to be locked declare thread bankruptcy and start a new one with a link to the old one saying "if you want to go off topic we have a place for that already"...?

[smoth]

yeah, I am working on that. I might be here to get stuff done, others not so much.