Problem using building positions

[Cheitan 33]

Hi,

 

I'm trying to create some occupation scripts, and more specifically a script designed to fill military towers with various units. Problem, the script make units spawn on ground and not in the tower. Here is my script :

//exec: server

params["_center"];

{
	_u = "KICC_SNIPER" createUnit [(_x buildingPos 17), (createGroup [east, true])];
	_u setPosATL (_x buildingPos 17);
	_units = ["KICC_OFFICIER", "KICC_FUSILIER", "KICC_TIREUR_PRECISION", "KICC_SENTINELLE_RADIO"];
	for "_i" from 0 to 16 do
	{
		if(random 1 > 0.6) then {
			_u = (selectRandom _units) createUnit [(_x buildingPos _i), (createGroup [east, true])];
			_u setPosATL (_x buildingPos _i);
		};
	};
} forEach (_center nearObjects ["Land_Cargo_Tower_V1_F", 1000]);

On ground, all units seems to be in the right X and Y position, only Z position seems to miss the point. It's strange because I'm using the exact same syntax than in the example 1 on the Biki. What am I missing ?

 

 

EDIT : when trying to set the position of the player character, in the exact same way, through the debug console, all is working as expected : the player is placed on top of the tower. I've also tried to hint the used position to check that it's a AGL position, and it is. For example for the sniper the Z value is something like 14m. And I'm definitely using setPosATL which is supposed to use this Z value and count it above ground level. I'm a bit lost...

[killzone_kid 1333]

7 minutes ago, Cheitan said:

_u = "KICC_SNIPER" createUnit [(_x buildingPos 17), (createGroup [east, true])];

Please familiarise yourself with syntax of createUnit before using this command https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/createUnit

[Cheitan 33]

Oops, just seen :

Quote

NOTE: THIS SYNTAX RETURNS NO UNIT REFERENCE!

 

That's why it's not working. The create unit command only take X and Y in account, Z value is ignored. And later, when using setPosATL on _u, it's failing because _u is not the reference I was expecting. As usual, RTFM... I should be used to that, though. Thanks @killzone_kid, always a pleasure to read your articles and your notes all over the Biki !

[HazJ 1289]

This may be of use to you as well.

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/BIS_fnc_buildingPositions

[Cheitan 33]

Mh, I'm using the engine command. This function is way way younger than the command, but it is missing a real description. Do you know what are the advantages of it compared to the command ? Performances, maybe ?

[HazJ 1289]

What command? Do you mean this one:

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/buildingPos

This isn't the same as the function I linked.

Quote

Do you know what are the advantages of it compared to the command ? Performances, maybe ?

I could be wrong but, from what I have been told... Engine commands are faster than functions. For example:

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/BIS_fnc_selectRandom

vs

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/selectRandom

I personally use the command rather than the function.

Again, I'm not 100% sure on this.

[Cheitan 33]

That's what I think either. This function is really missing a description explaining what can be its goal, compared to buildingPos. Using buildingPos -1 will return an array containing all positions in the given building, that seems to be exactly what the function do, but maybe slower than the command. Mh, strange.

[Grumpy Old Man 3549]

9 minutes ago, Cheitan said:

That's what I think either. This function is really missing a description explaining what can be its goal, compared to buildingPos. Using buildingPos -1 will return an array containing all positions in the given building, that seems to be exactly what the function do, but maybe slower than the command. Mh, strange.

Both the command and the function do exactly as described, both return an ARRAY *hint hint* containing all building positions.

Nothing strange about that.

 

Cheers

[kauppapekka 27]

The "redundant" functions were used to do the jobs that now have been incorporated to some commands. So I'd say better to just use the commands as usually they are faster and "cleaner" looking.

BIS_fnc_buildingPositions: Introduced_with_Arma_3_version_1.00

buildingPos: Since Arma 3 v.155.133934 if index -1 is supplied, the command will return array with all available positions.

[Cheitan 33]

20 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Man said:

Both the command and the function do exactly as described, both return an ARRAY *hint hint* containing all building positions.

Nothing strange about that.

 

Cheers

What seemed strange to me was the fact that the function was able to do, in the better case, the same work than the command but slower. But @kauppapekka seems to be right :

 

10 minutes ago, kauppapekka said:

The "redundant" functions were used to do the jobs that now have been incorporated to some commands. So I'd say better to just use the commands as usually they are faster and "cleaner" looking.

BIS_fnc_buildingPositions: Introduced_with_Arma_3_version_1.00

buildingPos: Since Arma 3 v.155.133934 if index -1 is supplied, the command will return array with all available positions.

Considering this second annotation, I think we should now use the engine solution instead of the function.

 

Thanks for your replies !

[HazJ 1289]

18 minutes ago, kauppapekka said:

The "redundant" functions were used to do the jobs that now have been incorporated to some commands. So I'd say better to just use the commands as usually they are faster and "cleaner" looking.

BIS_fnc_buildingPositions: Introduced_with_Arma_3_version_1.00

buildingPos: Since Arma 3 v.155.133934 if index -1 is supplied, the command will return array with all available positions.

Ah, my bad. Sorry. I wasn't aware of that, didn't know it could return all available positions in one go when -1 is supplied. Not used this for years ha. Hence not knowing about the change with the v1.55 update.Thanks! (:

[Tankbuster 1747]

I missed the new command too - was using the function version yesterday!

 

Command version is rather quicker - on a building with 8 positions, performance test result for the function is 0.0108. The command version is 0.0025. So, about 4 times faster.