Check Any Unit is !alive not all

[1para{god-father} 105]

If I wanted to activate a trigger if 1 of say 3 vehicles are destroyed how can I do that , I know I can do

!alive aaaa AND !alive bbbb AND !alive cccc

but I want to activate if any of the 3 vehicles have been destroyed not all. i.e can you use a "OR" i.e !alive aaaa OR !alive bbbb etc.. ?

Thanks

[riouken 15]

Yes use "or" or you can use "ll"

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/a_or_b

[Big Dawg KS 6]

{alive _X} count [aaaa,bbbb,cccc] < 3

[KC Grimes 79]

Big Dawg's method is the way to go here. And if for some reason you don't like it, you could group the 3 vehicles and count when the group has less than 3 in it.

[demonized 20]

Big Dawgs code would fail if they are all dead. ( the count would not be less than ( < ) 3, it would be 3.

edit, nvm that, another way same result:

this will activate if one or more is dead.

({!alive _x} count [aaaa,bbbb,cccc]) != 0

Edited July 19, 2011 by Demonized

[KC Grimes 79]

Ah. Wouldn't work because of the missing '!'. The < 3 would work if it was using just {alive} though right?

[demonized 20]

ah yes, i saw that now, BD code works just fine... sorry about that BD, corrected previous post.

[.kju 3245]

((!(alive aaaa)) || (!(alive bbbb)) || (!(alive cccc))

IMHO is a lot more readable that the count condition approach.

[1para{god-father} 105]

thanks guys so many ways :)

[KC Grimes 79]

That's the cool part of BIS games and scripting in general ;)

[Big Dawg KS 6]

((!(alive aaaa)) || (!(alive bbbb)) || (!(alive cccc))

IMHO is a lot more readable that the count condition approach.

I don't see how that (which actually contains more symbols and lower-level logic) is more readable than "is the number of {aaaa,bbbb,cccc} that are alive less than 3"... Besidse, you won't be saying that if he needed to scale it up to 20 or so objects (in which case my code example would be much more readable).

[KC Grimes 79]

I think by more readable he means as you said lower-level logic, easier for people who aren't so in-tune with scripting to read.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

;1985107']I think by more readable he means as you said lower-level logic' date=' easier for people who aren't so in-tune with scripting to read.[/quote']

IMO the count example is closer to a natural language (well, specifically English) than the chain of boolean operators.

[KC Grimes 79]

IMO the count example is closer to a natural language (well, specifically English) than the chain of boolean operators.

I agree, because everybody knows what less than (<) means, versus ||, which could mean "insert coin".

[kylania 568]

not alive a OR not alive b OR not alive c

Better? :)

[Big Dawg KS 6]

not alive a OR not alive b OR not alive c

Better? :)

AFAIK no natural languages have would accept that as gramatical norm (even if correct). The closest translation of the count example (as I have given) is closer.

Either way (as interesting it is to debate this) we are unfortunately derailing the thread.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Big Dawg KS