entity scripted name question
- Thread starter mtrain
- Start date
O Ilusionista
Captain 100K
put one more frame, you can't change a entity name on the first frame
and ah, the result will be DirtBagPete without spaces
and ah, the result will be DirtBagPete without spaces
I wrote a tutorial specifically on how to do this leveraging OpenBOR's text reading capabilities.
DC
Edit: Seems I misread - I thought you wanted to randomly assign the words to make different names. After a reread, I can't understand why you need script for this at all. Just make the name "Dirt_Bag_Pete" and be done with it.
DC
DC
Edit: Seems I misread - I thought you wanted to randomly assign the words to make different names. After a reread, I can't understand why you need script for this at all. Just make the name "Dirt_Bag_Pete" and be done with it.
DC
mtrain
New member
The problem is i dont know how to properly write only this part: n1+n2+n3
Because if i write changeentityproperty(getlocalvar("self"), "name", n1+n2+n3); openbor is crashing, if i write changeentityproperty(getlocalvar("self"), "name", "n1+n2+n3"); the name will be exactly n1+n2+n3. So how must i write that 3 variables together, to openbor can recognize them as three separated text words and show them together on screen. Not 1 random name, but 3 random words shown together.
DC, your method can allow me to make that?
I plan to make each of the word to be randomly chosen from list, in other words n1, n2 and n3 variables will be different every time, and they are three words, that will form a one long name, so i need to know is there possible to assign 3 words to be shown as name of the entity, how to make engine recognize them and do not crashing.
Because if i write changeentityproperty(getlocalvar("self"), "name", n1+n2+n3); openbor is crashing, if i write changeentityproperty(getlocalvar("self"), "name", "n1+n2+n3"); the name will be exactly n1+n2+n3. So how must i write that 3 variables together, to openbor can recognize them as three separated text words and show them together on screen. Not 1 random name, but 3 random words shown together.
DC, your method can allow me to make that?
I plan to make each of the word to be randomly chosen from list, in other words n1, n2 and n3 variables will be different every time, and they are three words, that will form a one long name, so i need to know is there possible to assign 3 words to be shown as name of the entity, how to make engine recognize them and do not crashing.
See my edit above.
Now if you must use script to change a name, there are three things to know.
[list type=decimal]
[*]To add spaces to a name, use an underscore. "Dirt_Bag_Pete"
[*]In a script anything enclosed in " " is exactly that. It's a literal string value, and that's how it's meant to be. Otherwise how could you have strings in the first place? Once you have assigned a string to a variable, you don't need to (and as you've discovered can't) enclose it in quotes for use.
[*]Lastly, you CAN add strings together, just again only enclosing the actual literal string values in quotes, not the variables.
[/list]
Put all that together, and here's the end result:
I'm not a fan of doing work in function calls though - it's a bad habit to get into because it leads to messy code that is very difficult to reuse, modify or debug. Do something like this instead:
Now if you must use script to change a name, there are three things to know.
[list type=decimal]
[*]To add spaces to a name, use an underscore. "Dirt_Bag_Pete"
[*]In a script anything enclosed in " " is exactly that. It's a literal string value, and that's how it's meant to be. Otherwise how could you have strings in the first place? Once you have assigned a string to a variable, you don't need to (and as you've discovered can't) enclose it in quotes for use.
[*]Lastly, you CAN add strings together, just again only enclosing the actual literal string values in quotes, not the variables.
[/list]
Put all that together, and here's the end result:
Code:
changeentityproperty(getlocalvar("self"), "name", n1 + "_" + n2 + "_" + n3);I'm not a fan of doing work in function calls though - it's a bad habit to get into because it leads to messy code that is very difficult to reuse, modify or debug. Do something like this instead:
Code:
self = getlocalvar("self");
name = "Dirt";
name += "_Bag";
name += "_Pete";
changeentityproperty(self, "name", name);mtrain said:
Glad to help, just remember my last tidbit above; you should really do all calculations first and then send the results to your function call (or whatever else). The engine doesn't care either way, but YOU will later on. Trust me.
O Ilusionista
Captain 100K
Damon Caskey said:
I was going to ask you why but I think I got it. The original method uses 3 variables to archive this (n1,n2,n3), while you use just one (name).
That's not really it. Variables go away when the script finishes, and it's better to use too many than too few.
The problem is putting too many actions into one line.
Read this:
Now read this:
Sure the second version uses "more" code, but tell me which one do you think is easier to understand? Also just for the record, yes it will execute faster and use less memory than the first.
One serious mistake starting coders make is thinking less code = more efficient, but this is almost never the case. In fact it's usually the other way around.
Why? Computers don't "read" code - they compile it into a set of basic instructions. Those instructions are going to be identical for a given set of actions no matter how you write them into code. Ergo, it just makes sense to write in a way that keeps things more organized and readable.
It's not just readability and efficiency either. Think about modifying and reusing code. By keeping items blocked and organized, the second version can be reworked in a twinkling, where the first would take a bit more time. It all adds up quickly.
DC
The problem is putting too many actions into one line.
Read this:
Code:
changeentityproperty(getlocalvar("self"), "name", n1 + "_" + n2 + "_" + n3);Now read this:
Code:
self = getlocalvar("self");
name = "Dirt";
name += "_Bag";
name += "_Pete";
changeentityproperty(self, "name", name);Sure the second version uses "more" code, but tell me which one do you think is easier to understand? Also just for the record, yes it will execute faster and use less memory than the first.
One serious mistake starting coders make is thinking less code = more efficient, but this is almost never the case. In fact it's usually the other way around.
Why? Computers don't "read" code - they compile it into a set of basic instructions. Those instructions are going to be identical for a given set of actions no matter how you write them into code. Ergo, it just makes sense to write in a way that keeps things more organized and readable.
It's not just readability and efficiency either. Think about modifying and reusing code. By keeping items blocked and organized, the second version can be reworked in a twinkling, where the first would take a bit more time. It all adds up quickly.
DC
O Ilusionista
Captain 100K
ah yeah, there is that reason. Its like Mugen works too. People like to combine several triggers on the same line like:
The line in question checks it the time is zero (in fact, it triggers 1 tick before 0) AND the power is greater than 1000 AND the player is airbone AND it has control.
But is way better to do this:
Because the engine will check, first, if you have control (you can set the control on & off in mugen) because TRIGGERALL is a mandatory trigger which needs to be true, independent of what is bellow. If this isn't TRUE, Mugen won't execute anything more on that code block (but will parse it to check for errors)
The line in question checks it the time is zero (in fact, it triggers 1 tick before 0) AND the power is greater than 1000 AND the player is airbone AND it has control.
But is way better to do this:
Because the engine will check, first, if you have control (you can set the control on & off in mugen) because TRIGGERALL is a mandatory trigger which needs to be true, independent of what is bellow. If this isn't TRUE, Mugen won't execute anything more on that code block (but will parse it to check for errors)