Hardrock – User talk

From Bohemia Interactive Community
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 11: Line 11:
OK, having looked more closely, I can see the benefits of "Learning to.." etc.. Maybe we cut it down a bit to reference the SQS and SQF pages?
OK, having looked more closely, I can see the benefits of "Learning to.." etc.. Maybe we cut it down a bit to reference the SQS and SQF pages?
Another note, I made the pages 'sqf syntax' and 'sqs syntax' when now I think it should have been capitalized i.e. 'SQF syntax'. Is that easy to change? --[[User:CrashDome|CrashDome]] 19:21, 20 December 2006 (CET)
Another note, I made the pages 'sqf syntax' and 'sqs syntax' when now I think it should have been capitalized i.e. 'SQF syntax'. Is that easy to change? --[[User:CrashDome|CrashDome]] 19:21, 20 December 2006 (CET)
First of all, I know that creating a complete different section about scripting seems complicated at first. But I think, especially for newcomers, such a "guided" way to learn scripting is needed (and only for ArmA, right now). The articles should contain a complete but easy to learn step-by-step description of the scripting language, something that is badly needed for ages.
Also I think it is good to leave out the SQS description in the Armed Assault pages, other than in an article that references it as "deprecated". There is a new definition of "script" and "function" in Armed Assault, sqs is considered deprecated by BI. That's why I don't think that newcomers should necessarily learn about sqs syntax, other than if they want to.
In the end the article "Script" should point to the two articles "ArmA: Script" and "OFP: Script" (yet unwritten), so that users can be guided in the right direction. Of course we could write all those articles for both engines, but I don't see the benefit for that. It would only be a burden for newcomers with all the "ok this is for both games" and "this is for ofp only" etc. --[[User:Hardrock|hardrock]] 19:28, 20 December 2006 (CET)


== Notes to myself ==
== Notes to myself ==

Revision as of 19:28, 20 December 2006

Hardrock, I think you're complicating things more than needed with the seperate OFP and ArmA sections. Since most material applies to both equally, all that really is needed is definitions within each topic to cover differences. For example, I just created two pages SQS syntax and SQF syntax. Within each I discuss the minor differences. It is far to confusing to discuss topics under each stub like that. I understand your intentions and appreciate your work, but in all honesty this over-complicates things especially for newcomers. Here is my intentions:

SQS Syntax --> Language, Scripts, etc..
SQF Syntax --> Language, Scripts (OFP vs ArmA), touch on Functions (OFP vs Arma), etc..
   Functions ---> OFP vs Arma

That is all that is really needed

--CrashDome 19:18, 20 December 2006 (CET)

OK, having looked more closely, I can see the benefits of "Learning to.." etc.. Maybe we cut it down a bit to reference the SQS and SQF pages? Another note, I made the pages 'sqf syntax' and 'sqs syntax' when now I think it should have been capitalized i.e. 'SQF syntax'. Is that easy to change? --CrashDome 19:21, 20 December 2006 (CET)

First of all, I know that creating a complete different section about scripting seems complicated at first. But I think, especially for newcomers, such a "guided" way to learn scripting is needed (and only for ArmA, right now). The articles should contain a complete but easy to learn step-by-step description of the scripting language, something that is badly needed for ages.

Also I think it is good to leave out the SQS description in the Armed Assault pages, other than in an article that references it as "deprecated". There is a new definition of "script" and "function" in Armed Assault, sqs is considered deprecated by BI. That's why I don't think that newcomers should necessarily learn about sqs syntax, other than if they want to.

In the end the article "Script" should point to the two articles "ArmA: Script" and "OFP: Script" (yet unwritten), so that users can be guided in the right direction. Of course we could write all those articles for both engines, but I don't see the benefit for that. It would only be a burden for newcomers with all the "ok this is for both games" and "this is for ofp only" etc. --hardrock 19:28, 20 December 2006 (CET)

Notes to myself

[x] reorganize arma section
[ ] reorganize ofp section
[ ] complete scripting pages
[ ] extend getting started in bi wikiing page - reading,
[ ] create category "Ambiguous" and add articles (f.i. Script)