|
| 04 Aug 2016 07:10 AM |
I dont want a Character to spawn but i want them to be able to interact with the GUI And have the camera work etc. What script would do this |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Auzer
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Dec 2011 |
| Total Posts: 1590 |
|
|
| 04 Aug 2016 07:12 AM |
The only way is to remove the character once it spawns. Player.Character:remove()
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Aug 2016 07:14 AM |
| Where would i put the script? Just in workspace? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Auzer
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Dec 2011 |
| Total Posts: 1590 |
|
|
| 04 Aug 2016 07:16 AM |
Make a localscript.
Player = game.Players.LocalPlayer Player.CharacterAdded:wait() Player.Character:remove()
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
Auzer
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Dec 2011 |
| Total Posts: 1590 |
|
|
| 04 Aug 2016 07:22 AM |
What do you mean by "won't work"?
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Aug 2016 07:23 AM |
| The character is still there |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Auzer
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Dec 2011 |
| Total Posts: 1590 |
|
|
| 04 Aug 2016 07:23 AM |
Did you put the localscript inside of starterpack?
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 04 Aug 2016 09:14 AM |
Server script:
game.PlayerAdded:connect(function(plr) plr:LoadCharacter() wait() plr:Destroy() end) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Aug 2016 09:15 AM |
| oops plr.Character:Destroy() wrong function lol sorry i am taking some painkillers after surgery and its difficult |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Aug 2016 09:43 AM |
| http://wiki.roblox.com/index.php?title=API:Class/Players/CharacterAutoLoads |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Auzer
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Dec 2011 |
| Total Posts: 1590 |
|
|
| 04 Aug 2016 10:21 AM |
@Toonshield The player will not receive the GUIs if the character has yet to be spawned.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Aug 2016 10:28 AM |
Dang if only the server could have an event fire for when the player joins then clone a screen gui into player gui... OH WAIT!
Holy... am I a genius? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Soybeen
|
  |
| Joined: 17 Feb 2010 |
| Total Posts: 21462 |
|
|
| 04 Aug 2016 10:36 AM |
@auzer don't use :remove()
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Auzer
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Dec 2011 |
| Total Posts: 1590 |
|
|
| 05 Aug 2016 06:41 AM |
@Soybeen Both remove() and destroy() puts the part's parent to nil. The only difference is that destroy() locks the parent property for further changes. Most scripters prefers using remove(), just like me. I would consider myself as an experienced scripter since I've been studying it for such a long time. It kind of seems like you're trying to argue with me where ever I go since you've been on almost every thread of mine, telling me I am wrong while the majority of users are correcting you and you're obviously failing.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Aug 2016 06:47 AM |
You are wrong
"@Soybeen Both remove() and destroy() puts the part's parent to nil. The only difference is that destroy() locks the parent property for further changes." That's not the only difference. Destroy also disconnects all events and probably guarantees the object to be freed from memory as opposed to remove where it'd only be freed when there are no more references to it.
"Most scripters prefers using remove()" Wrong. People who have a brain use Destroy, people who are stupid use remove. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Auzer
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Dec 2011 |
| Total Posts: 1590 |
|
|
| 05 Aug 2016 07:21 AM |
Do you mind telling me why, Flux? There is such little difference. I rarely see someone use destroy() inside a script, like it's extremely rare.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Auzer
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Dec 2011 |
| Total Posts: 1590 |
|
|
| 05 Aug 2016 07:27 AM |
I'm sorry Flux, I thought you quoted my entire post. Well yeah, you're right, and Soybeen really busted me this time. I am still used to remove since, yeah, like I mentioned before, I rarely see it in scripts.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Da_d
|
  |
| Joined: 05 Dec 2013 |
| Total Posts: 189 |
|
|
| 05 Aug 2016 07:40 AM |
auzer is the smartest guy alive!!
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Noveric
|
  |
| Joined: 04 Aug 2016 |
| Total Posts: 432 |
|
|
| 05 Aug 2016 07:43 AM |
Uh, nobody uses Remove() anymore, everyone good uses Destroy() - people who use Remove() are always very new to scripting or it was coded many years ago. Remove() is deprecated.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Aug 2016 07:51 AM |
| I still think it's incredibly stupid Roblox introduced Destory instead of alter Remove to do what Destroy currently does. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Noveric
|
  |
| Joined: 04 Aug 2016 |
| Total Posts: 432 |
|
|
| 05 Aug 2016 07:55 AM |
Isn't it as a general principle bad to change the functionality of something instead of deprecating it? Because legacy code could rely on the previous functionality? Doesn't really apply in this case, obviously, because the change would be tiny anyway, but I just mean in general.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Aug 2016 07:58 AM |
| In general, for the most part yes. Except in this case of course not. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|