|
| 18 Jul 2011 04:28 PM |
| Can anybody tell me the easyest way to cframe.I adknowledge the cframe tool,But is there any easyer way.?I dont get cframing with the tool |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 18 Jul 2011 04:29 PM |
| Cmd. Utl. is your ultimate answer. Find a copy in my models. :) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Reaven
|
  |
| Joined: 17 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 9181 |
|
|
| 18 Jul 2011 05:17 PM |
| Cmd.....oh, someone said that. I usually just post a link to it if anyone ever asks for Cframing. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 18 Jul 2011 05:34 PM |
| Just to say it again: Command Utility (or CmdUtl) by Anaminus. Look in his models or mine. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
kesito
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Apr 2010 |
| Total Posts: 13813 |
|
|
| 18 Jul 2011 06:07 PM |
| Command bar. Easiest way to CFrame. You can't find a CFrame tool that can CFrame by .001 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 18 Jul 2011 06:11 PM |
| Oh yeah?! Cmd. Utl. can CFrame by 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000......1 of a stud, seriously, it can. >:D |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
kesito
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Apr 2010 |
| Total Posts: 13813 |
|
|
| 18 Jul 2011 06:13 PM |
| Oh sure it can (Sarcasm) Would you like to be CFrameing by that value? I dont think so. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 18 Jul 2011 06:18 PM |
| If you don't believe me, just try it dude. REAL precision there. :P |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
kesito
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Apr 2010 |
| Total Posts: 13813 |
|
|
| 18 Jul 2011 06:21 PM |
| I believe you but. Who wants to spend a lot of time CFraming at .00000000000001 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 18 Jul 2011 06:27 PM |
I do... ._. It is amazing for removing the overlapping brick effect (when two brick's renderings are at the exact same level), without making the thing look ugly. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 18 Jul 2011 06:38 PM |
| Do we really need to go over which is better again? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 18 Jul 2011 06:57 PM |
| The only benefit I can see in command bar usage, is that I would have the CFrame script down in my head, then I could script automatic CFraming doors and the like a lot easier. Other than that, why would anyone who has tried both still prefer the version where you punch in lines of code and guess what coordinates to choose, when you can use a simple, effective, and easy UI? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 18 Jul 2011 07:50 PM |
| Val is right. CmdUtl is the best blend of user-friendliness and precision. Command Bar is often difficult to understand for many people. Plus, with CmdUtl you can also resize and rotate bricks that are already CFramed into each other. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
Sam3812
|
  |
| Joined: 23 Nov 2007 |
| Total Posts: 1703 |
|
|
| 18 Jul 2011 08:24 PM |
Save the script text as a .lua file, then go to tools > execute script and browse to CmdUtl.Lua, once you've executed the script, go to the command bar and enter
_G.cu();
and you're good to go.
Personally I've become akin to using the CmdUtl recently, it's quite the nifty tool, though for the past couple of years I have been using the command bar and highly recommend that for people who don't want to mess around with getting CmdUtl to work.
I no longer have the line of code for CFraming in the command bar, but to give a guess at it.
game.Selection.CFrame = game.Selection.CFrame * Vector3.new(x,y,z) * CFrame.fromEulerAnglesXYZ(math.rad(x),math.rad(y),math.rad(z))
don't quote me on that, but the first x,y,z is co-ordinates whereas the second set is the rotation (by radians) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|