Hardrock – User talk

From Bohemia Interactive Community
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
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
--[[User:CrashDome|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? --[[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)
Egads! no! Seriously, scripts are scripts and functions are functions. There is nothing inherently different between OFP and ArmA other than practice and a few commands. With ArmA we are encouraged to use SQF only because it is developing that way. It is not any different from OFP (we can still use SQS) - Igor and I tested it that fact. I've already made that point in both the SQS and SQF pages that sqs is depreciated. Why complicate it with multiple pages of info? By implementing individual "script" pages we are confusing the hell out of the community. I only say that because that is what I have seen. By nature, sqs and sqf have changed very little. The only thing ''new'' is command related. And there are already seperate sections for that. Personally, there shouldn;t be a script page at all. Functions are different only because we've wrapped that term around a specific command ([[call]]) and it's effect. Everything else is script related. Implementing a script page for each game is extremely redundant.
I do like having a single tutorial site for Arma and one for OFP, but it really should end there.
--[[User:CrashDome|CrashDome]] 19:35, 20 December 2006 (CET)
I never said that we can't use sqs scripts anymore. Of course, everything is still there, but BI recommends to use sqf syntax (and I would, too, regarding all the benefits).
IMO, now that everything is possible in sqf syntax that was possible in sqs syntax, sqs syntax should be considered deprecated and not teached to new users. Why should new users learn two script syntax when they only need one? Additionally, why should users be confused with the new script handles when they think scripts are the ones with sqs syntax?
I think it is enough to explain (in a short manner) what a script is (sqf syntax) on the [[ArmA: Script]] (f.i., parallel instance, game not waiting) and what a function is on the [[ArmA: Function]] page. That's it, nothing more. Everything else counts for both of them and is described on seperate pages. Users should also be guided to a description of the deprecated sqs syntax, so they can read sqs files. But they shouldn't be encouraged to use it now that everything is possible in the much stronger sqf syntax. --[[User:Hardrock|hardrock]] 19:41, 20 December 2006 (CET)
OK, I think we both agree newcomers need to be taught properly (via your Arma:Scripting page) but dividing scripts and functions into two seperate pages is not needed. Additionally, the only thing new in Functions in ArmA is the ability to suspend them with sleep and waitUntil. Igor and I tested functions and SQF scripts in Arma. What I am saying is there is no difference between SQF scripts and SQS scripts (other than a few commands)all scripts are parallel and all scripts can pause. Arma or OFP functions (other than a few commands) are the same too. You can see this in my SQS and SQF pages.  Please read them if you haven't. They explain the differences between OFp and Arma quite well. And I like that you can look on one page and see the differences rather than going to two seperate pages to find out what is different. Certainly not enough to warrant multiple categories IMO - [[User:CrashDome|CrashDome]] 19:48, 20 December 2006 (CET)
Ok, I think we are on the same line and see your point now.
First of all (to clarify my point of view) I'm concentrating on Armed Assault. Hardly anyone who doesn't know the OFP syntax yet will want to learn scripting for OFP.
I also know, that there isn't any difference btw. sqs and sqf scripts. But in the tutorial I introduced only the sqf syntax, since as a beginner I never understood the difference between sqf and sqs. Beginners only have to learn sqf now. In the ArmA tutorial they learn about sqf scripts and functions.
Of course, in the functionality there isn't any difference btw. sqf and sqs scripts. But pointing that out and explaining it in the ArmA tutorial will only lead to confusion. I agree with you though that there should be pages for old OFP scripters explaining the difference between ArmA and OFP.
I see the problems of redundant pages though and will think about a solution, but don't have time right now. If you have any good ideas, just write them down here. Regards --[[User:Hardrock|hardrock]] 20:09, 20 December 2006 (CET)
Glad to see we are coming together! I suggest leaving the ArmA:Scripting and OFP:Scripting pages as tutorial sections for beginners. We will reference SQS and SQF as needed in each differently. However, the bulk of info on the SQS and SQF pages will explain most of the detail just fine.
I will start writing some info in those tutorial sections if I get some more time today. Cheers -[[User:CrashDome|CrashDome]] 20:25, 20 December 2006 (CET)
You were pretty right. I structured the sqf and sqs syntax pages and the script and function definition a bit better, I think that's much better now than seperate pages for OFP and ArmA. Also I introduced the [[Control Structures]] article to finally get rid of the horrible loop descriptions in the scripting command pages (and loops/conditional statements are definitely no commands ...) --[[User:Hardrock|hardrock]] 20:42, 21 December 2006 (CET)
== Notes to myself ==
== Notes to myself ==


Revision as of 03:45, 22 December 2006

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)
Retrieved from "https://community.bistudio.com/wiki?title=User_talk:Hardrock&oldid=26742"