Tenal
|
  |
| Joined: 15 May 2011 |
| Total Posts: 18684 |
|
| |
|
Sorcus
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 29 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 3775 |
|
|
| 07 Oct 2011 11:13 PM |
The hack works, because the camera object is local to the player. Each player + the server, have a camera, local to them. So, the weirdness is caused by the fact that since the camera is local, anything that is its child also becomes local only to a particular player and not replicated. Creating "local parts".
~Sorcus |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 Oct 2011 11:13 PM |
Will Roblox ever make a more, well, legit way to do this?
~¡Todos los días estoy barajando!~ |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Sorcus
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 29 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 3775 |
|
|
| 07 Oct 2011 11:15 PM |
Well, I hate to reply to a question with a question. But what is the real and most common purpose for using local parts?
~Sorcus |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 Oct 2011 11:16 PM |
An RTS game.
~¡Todos los días estoy barajando!~ |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Tenal
|
  |
| Joined: 15 May 2011 |
| Total Posts: 18684 |
|
| |
|
Sorcus
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 29 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 3775 |
|
|
| 07 Oct 2011 11:17 PM |
?? Don't see the point of it in a multiplayer RTS game. Or are you talking single player?
If it is single player games, I agree that the solution would be to allow for single player games and remove this "glitch".
~Sorcus |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 Oct 2011 11:19 PM |
I think it would be nice if Roblox allowed more capabilities to improve single-player games.
~¡Todos los días estoy barajando!~ |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 Oct 2011 11:20 PM |
> Don't see the point of it in a multiplayer RTS game.
Wait, really? :?
~¡Todos los días estoy barajando!~ |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Tenal
|
  |
| Joined: 15 May 2011 |
| Total Posts: 18684 |
|
| |
|
Sorcus
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 29 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 3775 |
|
|
| 07 Oct 2011 11:21 PM |
Yes, nick. I don't see any point in it. Well, as I said if there is only one player allowed, it becomes a single player game, and the necessity to put parts in the camera is removed. So, that is arguably the best solution.
first person, arm appliance? Err...
~Sorcus |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 Oct 2011 11:24 PM |
There are plenty of good RTS games on the PC...
~¡Todos los días estoy barajando!~ |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 Oct 2011 11:24 PM |
Single player games would be really nice.
But, can't you also make local parts by putting a message in the player's character and putting parts in in it? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Tenal
|
  |
| Joined: 15 May 2011 |
| Total Posts: 18684 |
|
| |
|
|
| 07 Oct 2011 11:26 PM |
It has the same effect with local sounds, which is very useful for music (see RIDI) and maybe GUIs that have clicky sound effects or something.
Plus local objects don't suffer network lag.
The best solution (in my opinion) is to implement a localWorkspace which contains local parts. Even if you did introduce singleplayer games, having local objects is still useful in multiplayer games. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Sorcus
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 29 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 3775 |
|
|
| 07 Oct 2011 11:26 PM |
So, what is your point nick? Ah RTS, I love 'em. I used to be a pro player in AOE for that matter playing it like crazy 14 hours a day and participating in tourneys. *Ahem* back to topic, there shouldn't be anything local in a multiplayer RTS, because the other player simply can't see it. So, only single player games actually benefit from it.
As for your question, Julien, I don't know.
~Sorcus |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Sorcus
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 29 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 3775 |
|
|
| 07 Oct 2011 11:29 PM |
As for you, WatchoutForDinosaurs, I eat dinosaurs.... *Ahem* I just think overall, local parts are bad. Parts are physical. Only one player having them and knowing about them and simulating them in a multiplayer scenario, is plain bad. If any machine needs the info, it is the server, not a client.
~Sorcus |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 Oct 2011 11:29 PM |
I just noticed why I was confused with this talk.
I said "An RTS game." and you thought I meant multiplayer...
Well, you could implements some sort of "Fog-O-War" with local stuff in a RTS.
~¡Todos los días estoy barajando!~ |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 Oct 2011 11:31 PM |
"The server, if any machine needs the info, not a client."
And you can use the camera of the server to make stuff local to the server, which is useful if you don't want to replicate things that will only be used by server scripts anyways. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Sorcus
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 29 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 3775 |
|
|
| 07 Oct 2011 11:32 PM |
Umm, Fog of War isn't really changing what you have? Its only what is shown to you that is changed. That's perfect.
~Sorcus |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 Oct 2011 11:33 PM |
I believe being able to make stuff local to the server is useful to avoid wasting time replicating things that will only be used by the server.
But such things should anyways be put in nil and stored in variables, I suppose. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 Oct 2011 11:34 PM |
"Its only what is shown to you that is changed. That's perfect."
Can you rephrase that? I don't quite understand your point.
OT: If only the scripters forum had discussion like this on every thread..
~¡Todos los días estoy barajando!~ |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Anaminus
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 29 Nov 2006 |
| Total Posts: 5945 |
|
|
| 07 Oct 2011 11:34 PM |
I remember making a fog effect that required local parts. It made sense, as you would've only wanted a player to see their own fog.
I also had a thing that would only show the area the player was currently in. Since only that area was rendered, it would allow for "massive" places, without a bunch of lag. That also used local parts. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Sorcus
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 29 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 3775 |
|
|
| 07 Oct 2011 11:34 PM |
Yes, so making something local to a server, just is another way of saying, store them in the server script. So, yeah, other than single player games, nothing else benefits from this.
Anaminus, interesting, can I see this anywhere?
~Sorcus |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 Oct 2011 11:39 PM |
"OT: If only the scripters forum had discussion like this on every thread.."
ahhhhh yea... blame LocalChum and other scripters that often spam (including me, sometimes) for all this spam. :'( I miss the day where we had discussion like this constantly.
Are objects in nil replicated? I mean.. kind of hard to explain.. ;o
Suppose you have a script, a LocalScript and an ObjectValue. The script has a variable that points to an object that is in nil. You set the value of the ObjectValue to that object. Then, you store a variable in the LocalScript that points to the value of the ObjectValue. Then, you delete the object value. The object will need to be replicated, in order to be both in the LocalScript and in the script.. so this brings me to the point: how does all of this work? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|