setMimic – Talk
is MimicType 'agresive' correct or is this a copied over typo from the comref? ook? 08:52, 31 August 2007 (CEST)
- Agresive is both correct and incorrect.
- It is correct in that the classname in cfgMimics is called 'class Agresive'.
- It is incorrect in that it should be spelt 'Aggressive'.
- Of course we cannot change it as the game will not find class Aggressive in cfgMimics.
- Planck 12:13, 31 August 2007 (CEST)
It is not possible to execute setmimic on the server to affect a unit on the client. Please use talk page next time.
--Killzone_Kid (in the edit comment)
- That's correct, the command has only "local effects", i.e. when executing the command on the server or on client x there's no effect visible on client y.
- But you've probably misunderstood the meaning of "local arguments" - it means that the command only can be used where the argument (object, group, ...) is local, i.e. where local returns true for the argument.
- Because a command with "local effect" and "local arguments" is pretty unlikely (and mostly useless, too) I had tested it before I've done my edit - and indeed: on the server executing setMimic on a unit which is local to the server didn't change the mimic on the client, but executing the command on my client - where the unit isn't local - worked fine, i.e. "local effect" and "global arguments".
- --Master85 02:54, 5 September 2013 (CEST)
Sorry for the delay with reply. You are correct, I must have overlooked this part of testing. As for uselessness of a command with AL and EL, any client specific commands like setViewDistance etc are just that, so there is nothing wrong with those.
Anyway I was trying to come up with universal method for testing locality of a command, and this is what I have so far:
Step 1. (EL vs EG) Server owner, server side exec -> Effect on the client? Yes -> EG; No -> EL;
Step 2. (AL vs AG) Server owner, client side exec -> Effect on the client? Yes -> AG; No -> AL;
Please feel free to correct me.
-KK