Difference between revisions of "Template talk:LSL Constants Attachment"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New section: Re: ATTACH_RPEC and ATTACH_LPEC) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Yes you are right, there is no zero attach point. Like I said, when using 0 (zero) as a parameter, the object will be attached to the '''most recent attach point'''. In other words, 0 (zero) is the functional equivalent of "Wear" in the user interface. | Yes you are right, there is no zero attach point. Like I said, when using 0 (zero) as a parameter, the object will be attached to the '''most recent attach point'''. In other words, 0 (zero) is the functional equivalent of "Wear" in the user interface. | ||
--[[User:Runay Roussel|Runay Roussel]] 14:30, 10 September 2008 (PDT) | --[[User:Runay Roussel|Runay Roussel]] 14:30, 10 September 2008 (PDT) | ||
== Re: ATTACH_RPEC and ATTACH_LPEC == | |||
I was wondering about that myself, so I tried it out of curiosity. It still works, but left and right are reversed. | |||
Revision as of 14:38, 10 September 2008
Just curious why ATTACH_RPEC and ATTACH_LPEC are shown as depreciated? Arcane Clawtooth 22:24, 15 January 2008 (PST)
Re: There is no zero attach point (undo by Strife)
Yes you are right, there is no zero attach point. Like I said, when using 0 (zero) as a parameter, the object will be attached to the most recent attach point. In other words, 0 (zero) is the functional equivalent of "Wear" in the user interface. --Runay Roussel 14:30, 10 September 2008 (PDT)
Re: ATTACH_RPEC and ATTACH_LPEC
I was wondering about that myself, so I tried it out of curiosity. It still works, but left and right are reversed.