Triggering triggers with triggers

[Aeviv 10]

Im trying to run a scenario where two player teams (single player mission mind) are operating independantly, but need to secure an area each before they a cleared to move to the next one.

Say team A secure the airbase, with a trigger of 'Opfor NOT PRESENT' named T1, while Team B secure the village, trigger 'Opfor not present, named T2

Once both of these triggers have been activiated, i want this to trigger a third trigger, T3, which will restock the teams on ammo and heal them, as well as telling them to proceed to the next waypoint.

I thought i would do this by placing T1=true;T2=true; in the condition bar of T3, but no avail. Can someone please help me out here?

[jamesf1 0]

"=" is an assignment operator. E.g. this sets "myVar" to the value 3:

myVar = 3;

"==" is an equality operator. E.g. this checks if "myVar" has the value 3:

if(myVar == 3) then { hint "Yes."; } else { hint "No."; };

But, to test against true/false values, you don't need to use the equality operator. So, to test if "myVar" is true, you'd use:

if(myVar) then { hint "True."; } else { hint "False."; };

Furthermore, we can use the "triggerActivated" command and, so, what you're looking to put in your condition field is:

(triggerActivated T1) AND (triggerActivated T2)

Edited July 6, 2009 by JamesF1

[ProfTournesol 956]

Love the title so i reply :bounce3:

You should use the function "triggeractivated". For example, when t1 is activated, the command "triggeractivated t1" becomes true.

So you can put this as condition of your third trigger :

(triggeractivated t1)&&(triggeractivated t2)

[Aeviv 10]

Ahh very simple now you pointed that out, thanks for the help!

[Big Dawg KS 6]

So, what you're looking to put in your condition field is:

(triggerActivated T1)==true AND (triggerActivated T2)==true

Lol? Using a comparison operator to check booleans?

Redundancy... :j:

[jamesf1 0]

Lol? Using a comparison operator to check booleans?

Redundancy... :j:

Of course, but as you may have gathered by my post, I was attempting to make the explanation as simple as possible for the OP.

But if it matter to you so much, I've updated my post with more explanation so that not using comparisons on booleans is no longer an 'invisible' step ;)

Edited July 6, 2009 by JamesF1

[ProfTournesol 956]

@ JamesF1 : editing your post without crediting me isn't fair. Not a nice way to behave here.

[jamesf1 0]

Why would I credit you when I fixed my own 'mistake' independently of your post? If I'd sourced the command usage or whatever from your post, then I'd have credited you... but I didn't, so I didn't.

Edited July 6, 2009 by JamesF1

[ProfTournesol 956]

Why would I credit you when I fixed my own 'mistake' independently of your post? If I'd sourced the command usage or whatever from your post, then I'd have credited you... but I didn't, so I didn't.

I see. Congratulations.

[raedor 8]

Lol? Using a comparison operator to check booleans?

Redundancy... :j:

It's not just redundant, it will also throw an error.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Yea I was thinking it might, but couldn't actually test it at the time.