Talk:LlSetDamage

I deleted following sentence.

If the object hits another object it will die.

This function seems to have nothing to do with object-to-object collisions. If the sentence is true, detailed conditions should be described, I think. --MasterOf Perl 14:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be better written. It's why the world isn't riddle with bullets that didn't hit their targets. -- Strife ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

hmmm i see your point. I have expanded the article. -- Strife ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is, I haven't really scripted any guns in... oh 5 years. And things have mostly likely changed. -- Strife ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

it will however not be physical while it is not damage enabled ... ?

"If the object is not physical, the object will be damage enabled if it becomes physical; it will however not be physical while it is not damage enabled." ... It sounds as if all physical objects have to be set damage enabled via llSetDamage... Anyone can rewrite or explain it so I can understand what these lines mean?--Mako 08:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll do some testing after I get some sleep and let ya know. It looks like it might mean something like the relationship between llMoveToTarget and STATUS_PHYSICS. You can have physics without moving to target but you can't move to target without physics enabled. So, if you set a move to target before the physics, the prim does nothing. If you then set physics, the move to target acts until the physics are disabled again. Something along those lines anyhow. -- Fred Gandt ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Then we'll have to add more information to the line, for example insert the word "moving" or such anywhere in these line? I'm interested in only the way of "explanation" about each matter and I personally don't care about each specification itself. People, from the alpha geek to the noob for programming, having various background, can read and understand each line in the same way is important :) -- Mako 10:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that line is meant to read "it will however not be damage enabled while it is not physical" at least from what I know about Linden Damage mechanics. I can, of course, be completely wrong. -- Faust 10:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find any sense in the statement you questioned. I have updated the page to suit. -- Fred Gandt ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe Faust has the functionality described properly. Fred's most recent edit removed all mention of a Physics requirement. I'm pretty sure the object must be Physics enabled for it to give the damage and self destruct. The badly worded caveat was meant to convey that if you set it while the object wasn't physics enabled, it would retain the property, the functionality becoming active only when it became physics enabled. -- Strife ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Physics do NOT need to be enabled. -- Fred Gandt ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW. Why was my last comment removed Strife (IT HAS SINCE BEEN RESTORED). I did the tests, set the caveats right, added my comment to the discussion page and now find that my perfectly reasonable remark is gone. The old caveat may once have been pointing to something correct (even though poorly worded) but it is not now so, my comment that "I could find no sense in the line..." (in the caveats) that Mako questioned is perfectly reasonable. And rather than assuming anything I spent time testing the ACTUAL FUNCTION. What gives? -- Fred Gandt ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Confirming Fred's findings that Physical is no longer a requirement for llSetDamage. Even messing with Physical status doesn't change this.

I am kind of curious if I was just completely wrong, or if this behavior had changed in recent server updates. -- Faust 10:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, everyone. I just wanted to know the meaning of those line for translation, but after that most of the contents in this article were changed, so I have to redo the translation from the start *shrugs* Anyway, I don't have spiritual energy for doing so now, then I'll go on for another articles and will come back a month or so later. I hope the discussion will be settled till then:) -- Mako 13:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm so sorry Mako that changing the caveats to show correct information has created the need for a re-translation but, surely it is better to have a full and proper answer to a question than a pile of guesswork that means nothing of any use to anyone. We all have our crosses to bear. Ain't life grand? -- Fred Gandt ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I can assure you it was not intentional on my part that I deleted your comment, I think what might have happened was I was editing from the revision and not the latest revision. I am sorry it happened and will try to be more careful. As to the function behavior, my understanding of the function is several years out of date; the last time I was scripting weapons was in 2004 (and they tweaked the functionality several times since then). Thank you for enlightening me, I wish I could do testing but my internet connection makes doing anything visual in-world next to impossible. -- Strife ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahh. Yes. I fully understand. I accidentally reverted a whole page before (realized and fixed it but, did rather panic). I was looking at a past page when I went into edit. Won't be doing that again. *wipes sweat from brow*

The first (learning curve) project I ever scripted was a very crappy weapon with "attacks". But it wasn't LL damage enabled. In fact until now I hadn't even looked at it. I assumed that LL damage was all physics based myself. Assumption and me have never got along though. I am happy to assume under only very particular conditions. First - The assumption must not lead me to a conclusion. Second - The assumption effects only me. Third - I have no real interest in the subject. As soon as any of those conditions are broken I cannot accept anything but proof or evidence.

Still having computer troubles? Yikes! That's a long time now. One day we may actually meet in-world. -- Fred Gandt ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So I was just about to ask for a confirmation of the non-physics behavior when I remembered something I built in 2005: An invisible skymine, you would fly into it and it would instantly kill you. Ultra thin and no polygons. The script was simple, the prim on the other hand was the real cool part of it as it was tortured. I wish I had remembered it earlier. Not surprise I didn't, it wasn't one of my more enlightened creations. It was in response to griefers bothering me in Rausch while I was plumbing the depths of prim torture. I was doing my research in Rausch because I needed an empty sandbox that nobody would mind if I crashed it. I have always felt ashamed of creating this, I stooped to the griefer's level.

...

Pretty sure VolumeDetect is another exception (like phantom). -- Strife ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)