The most common reason for dialog text to not show up is because it doesn't fit. Perhaps your dialog labels are only slightly larger than your text, and for some reason the text is coming out slightly larger on BNet? That would be my initial thought...
The data editor is a work of art. Sure, the learning curve is mean, but
at the apex is a shining pot of limitless delight.
I don't know. Even at the apex, there's an awful lot of frustration. Also, "limitless" is a pretty strong word... I've run into plenty of limitations in the data editor.
I actually really like the data editor, don't get me wrong. I spent a long time struggling with it, until on day the lightbulb went off. Everything makes a great deal more sense once you get past those initial hurdles.
PI's mathematical significance is that it's the factor by which the area or circumfrence of a circle are related to it's radius. PI is also the factor by which the volume of a sphere is related to its radius.
Because of this relationship, a complete circle (or 360 degrees) is equal to PI radians.
Apparently the item does need to be for sale somewhere. It's not enough to have a train ability that references the item. It's not enough to put that train ability on a unit. The command card for that unit needs to actually have the train command on it. The unit does not need to be a unit that is actually placed on the map, however.
Do you suppose this is a bug or by design? Should I report it as a possible bug?
Either way, I hope my trials will help someone else avoid the same, very confusing bug. I doubt many maps will try to sell without having a place to buy as well, but it could come up...
Being a tutorial, I wanted to stick with the easiest method that worked. Although catalogs would definitely work, so should the function. I've seen it work before, which is I think the most frustrating part. I had considered using catalogs myself, and that may have to be what I use. The tutorial does cover some basic catalog stuff anyways, so it isn't really a stretch.
Interesting point about them not being bought anywhere. I'm going to test that theory. The Forge is a normal shop too, though, and it sells the items normally and you do collect money. It's really weird.
At least I'm not crazy and it's not something stupid (although I kind of wish it was). Thanks for looking into this. As always you are a gentleman among cats.
I am working on a dialog tutorial (part 3 in a series), and I have run into a weird issue. I was recreating a dialog from another map. The dialog worked fine in the other map and most of the recreation was direct copy-paste. However, it doesn't work right in my tutorial's map and for the life of me I can't figure out why.
I'm trying to display the cost of an item in a tooltip, but the item cost is coming back as 0. If I hard-code Marine or Pylon in instead of my custom object, the proper cost is returned. However, I don't see anything wrong with my custom items. Compared side-by-side with the objects from my other map, they are identical.
Since the map is for a tutorial, I have no problem sharing it. Please take a look and I would greatly appreciate it if you can tell me what the problem is.
How to See the Problem
Run the test map and select Archon (the only unit with inventory). Pick up random items scattered about and select the Forge. Use the Forge's only ability and observe the tooltips on the dialog buttons. The tooltips are currently littered with debugging information, but a cost of 0 is displayed for all items.
Logic
A trigger on the Forge's ability calls Item Sell Dialog - Create(). Item Sell Dialog - Create() calls Get Item Cost Tooltip() to retrieve the cost tooltip. Get Item Cost Tooltip() is the function with the problem. The cost is retrieved in the following local variable lines from that function:
Both of these functions are returning 0, despite the items having a cost clearly set in data.
Debugging Steps
A few parts of the map are out of order because of several debugging steps I've taken trying to solve the problem. I've left them as-is since the problem is yet unsolved.
Get Item Sell Tooltip() is not called. It is supposed to be called by Item Sell Dialog - Create(). Get Item Sell Tooltip() then calls Get Item Cost Tooltip() as well as adding some other data to the tooltip. Get Item Sell Tooltip() works fine, so I cut out the middle man and called Get Item Cost Tooltip() directly.
Get Item Cost Tooltip() displays several pieces of information about Item to ensure that it is referencing the correct item (it is). This information is added to the tooltip. This would not be present on the completed map.
Two conditions are disabled inside of Get Item Cost Tooltip(). Those conditions would prevent a 0-mineral or 0-vespene item from displaying that aspect of its cost. However, since all the values were 0, I had to disable that. The lines:
are now unconditional, and the conditions have been disabled.
Please Help
This has actually stumped several people so far. We can't figure out what's wrong. If you can tell me what's wrong, I'd greatly appreciate it. What's more, my tutorial readers will appreciate it as well because I will finally be able to finish this section of the tutorial and move on.
Quickly Enable and Disable Debugging by Section using my Debug Library!
For me, debugging often means displaying a whole lot of information (variable values and such) to the screen to make sure everything is working as expect. I think this is the case for most programmers as it's quite effective at giving you a good picture of what the program is doing.
The functions Text Message() and Debug Message() work fine for the most part, but I wanted some more flexibility. Specifically, I wanted to be able enable/disable debugging without having to search and find every call to Debug Message(). In a normal programming language like C, you might see a lot of "#ifdef DEBUG" lines littered throughout the code, but setting up an if statement like this in the GUI can be a burden. I found it easier to just do it all in one function call.
I actually took it a step further, allowing myself to divide my code into sections and enable/disable specific sections for debugging. I find this the most useful because I can enable only the section I am working on, greatly filtering the debug output. I can still quickly enable/disable any other section to fully customize my debugging experience.
Taken even a step further, I found in practice that some debugging message are more detailed than others. It's often useful to be able to debug a section at a high level (low level of debugging detail), while still being able to debug it at a very low level (high level of detail). For example, when you're really digging into code, you may find it useful to print out details from every iteration of a loop. I would consider this too be a high level of detail. Later, when you are debugging the project as a whole, you may still want debug messages from this section, but you won't need to see every iteration of every loop. My library enables you to do this by setting detail levels for your messages.
My library also allows you to set color and screen location for debug messages (by section), as well as output to up to four different files. I've found these tools to be useful when debugging multiple sections at once. There's also a condition that you can use if your debugging doesn't involve writing a message to the screen.
I've covered the "why" here. The "how" is covered in the Usage (README) document included with my library. Please let me know if this is not clear.
If you find this library useful, please let me know. I would be happy to consider any feature requests you may have.
I'd like to help you. Perhaps you could jump on IRC at some point so we can do a little back-and-forth to figure out what's going on? I am virtually always on although I do idle sometimes. Best time is during the evenings (Eastern Time - GMT -5), although I am somewhat available during most days.
You could put credits at any number of places in your game, but you should definitely do so. Credit is basically "free" to give to someone, but you might end up with a pretty long list. I'd put it in a menu somewhere or in a tip or something like that. You don't want it to interfere with your game.
As a rule, if someone posted an asset here and you used it, give them credit even if it doesn't explicitly say so. If you ripped someone's code apart to learn, give them credit too even though you didn't directly use any of their assets. Consider giving credit to people who helped you in the forums or IRC. You won't catch everyone, but you can thank the people who make large contributions or really helped you tear down walls. They've volunteered their time and efforts. A simple thank you can go a long way.
many ideas hold the world... this with or against the people who will
gain from/by using them... wait till you get in the real world, ideas
are not a dime a dozen, and if they matter it takes decades centuries to
be correctly identified (to the victor the spoils, always)
less abstract: the example of "dota with a twist" is indeed not an idea
and probably not "credit worth"... thinking of doing dota in the first
place was an idea
saying that people get rapped by the system is not anathema to saying
that ideas are still the most important... the first guy to voice out an
original idea get's it stolen.. but advocating that this is how it
should be..., how do u north american say it? "christ!"...
steve jobs and bill gates... a thief and a dreamer, who won ... WE did,
we got computers
if you take one without the other we got nothing
"the idea is meaningless" (without money or blablabla) i feel sorry for
u
just to be clear, i feel workmanship is as important, u guys however are
trying to downplay the importance of ideas, and that's simply wrong...
I actually feel sorry for you. I'm a pragmatist. I know how the world works, and ideas aren't worth spit. It's sad but true and your ideology doesn't make it not true.
Sure, the idea of DOTA is a great idea, but who got credit? The first person with the idea, or the first person with an implementation? It may be that they are one in the same, but it's actually not likely. All we care about is implementation. Also, had the implementation been poor, it wouldn't matter how good the original idea was. Someone could pick up the same idea, do a good implementation, and give the original no credit whatsoever. It's how the world works.
All those movies about the guy who has a great idea and in the end that idea sees fruition and he is successful... well, one they're movies. Two, the only way that's ever going to happen is a through a really good sell job. So now, the sales pitch is as important, if not more important, than the idea itself (this is often true). The company would be buying the person as much as the idea. Third, no company would pay for an idea when they could just steal it. You can't copyright, patent, or trademark an idea, only concrete things. There's a reason for this, because ideas aren't worth anything.
That said, every good project does start with a good idea, but that idea don't have to be yours, original, or even really that good if the implementation is solid.
It's the way our society is. Not saying it's right (it does have it's merits), it just is. We value the material more than the abstract, by a very large margin. A large reason for this is the high cost of material goods. Materials cost time to make, and time is money. Ideas, by the same respect, require very little time. A well thought-out, complete idea would require more time, and may therefore hold more value. This is why I'm urging him to consider additional contributions, even if they are not technical in nature. Planning out the entire game is what seperates the designer from the idea map, as I said. It's more than an idea at that point though. It's now blood, sweat, and tears and it therefore holds value.
EDIT: I'm actually going to stop. I didn't mean for this to turn into a huge thoeretical discussion. If you want to argue my point, you can be "right". Or, you can not argue and just be right in your own mind. We're probably not going to change each other's minds, and we've gone pretty far off topic.
"ideas are a dime a dozen bla"... or other = spoken by people who lack
ideas... or who don't even know what they are how they redefine
things...
as it has been said before all that defines "credit" here is a line on a
"credits" page or roll... and u guys brush it like someone was asking
for the use of your girlfriend for a night
i shouldn't go further, but such an attitude makes my aggro rise (gotta
go run with my kid on my shoulders, at least he'll have fun out of your
poor judgment getting a rise out of me):
galaxy is just a software, people who build the software deserve credit
(my maps have always said : done by Blizzard and me, not the other way
around) ...
ideas rule the world, of course you need people to make them happen,
however each time a dreamer looses his "credit" the world that could be
dies a little (and there's nothing much left by now) ... see the state
the world is in... that's cause people kill dreamers... they are too
scarry
Ideas go unrealized all the time. An idea by itself holds no weight. Without money or people backing an idea, the idea is meaningless. That's all there is to it. Did you miss the part about how if your only contribution is an idea, it will be subverted by those with the real power (the implementors)? You have to know that to be true.
I'm not saying you shouldn't give credit to someone for an idea. A line on the credits really doesn't mean much, but it can mean the world to the person recieving credit. It's an easy win. I'm saying that an idea by itself will most likely not gain followers. I'm saying that if you're thinking of entering a project with an idea as your only contribution, that you should consider what other contributions you could bring to the table if you actually want your idea realized. Otherwise, either nothing will happen at all, or the implementors will diverge heavily from the original idea.
Truer words have not been spoken. Ideas come up in all walks of life, and ideas themselves aren't worth anything. Implementation is what seperates and idea from reality, and what gives an idea strength. Anyone can sit around and think of ideas all day. Seeing a project through to completion is one of the hardest things anyone can do. It requires dedication and hard work. These are values that are worth something.
I think you'll find, too, that if you have someone else do the implementation, that those implementors have ideas of their own that may conflict with yours. Since they are in the position of power (being the people doing the real work), their ideas will almost always trump yours. That is unless you are a true designer.
There's a strong distinction between and idea man and a designer. An idea man thinks in the abstract. A designer thinks in the concrete. While the idea man is concerned with coming up with a really good idea, the designer is interested in solutions to very real problems. The designer is a step away from the implementor and will usually work hand-in-hand, with the implementor handing off certain problems or conceptual ideas to the designer. The really big difference is the the idea man's job is done when the idea is done. The designers job is done when the project is done. It's a big distinction.
The are other avenues you may wish to pursue, like perhaps the "story designer", "art director", or "creative director" as mentioned. It's important to be clear about what you contributions will be. The more you are willing to contribute, the more willing someone else will be to hop on board. Anyone who's going to work with/for you is going to want to see that you are as determined as they are.
0
My diabetes!
0
@wOlfLisK: Go
Nobody cares.
There. I said it.
0
@RCIX: Go
Are you using syles at all?
The most common reason for dialog text to not show up is because it doesn't fit. Perhaps your dialog labels are only slightly larger than your text, and for some reason the text is coming out slightly larger on BNet? That would be my initial thought...
0
I don't know. Even at the apex, there's an awful lot of frustration. Also, "limitless" is a pretty strong word... I've run into plenty of limitations in the data editor.
I actually really like the data editor, don't get me wrong. I spent a long time struggling with it, until on day the lightbulb went off. Everything makes a great deal more sense once you get past those initial hurdles.
That said, it's definitely not without its flaws.
0
@StatusQ3: Go
PI's mathematical significance is that it's the factor by which the area or circumfrence of a circle are related to it's radius. PI is also the factor by which the volume of a sphere is related to its radius.
Because of this relationship, a complete circle (or 360 degrees) is equal to PI radians.
0
Apparently the item does need to be for sale somewhere. It's not enough to have a train ability that references the item. It's not enough to put that train ability on a unit. The command card for that unit needs to actually have the train command on it. The unit does not need to be a unit that is actually placed on the map, however.
Do you suppose this is a bug or by design? Should I report it as a possible bug?
Either way, I hope my trials will help someone else avoid the same, very confusing bug. I doubt many maps will try to sell without having a place to buy as well, but it could come up...
Thanks again for your help Helral.
0
@Helral: Go
Being a tutorial, I wanted to stick with the easiest method that worked. Although catalogs would definitely work, so should the function. I've seen it work before, which is I think the most frustrating part. I had considered using catalogs myself, and that may have to be what I use. The tutorial does cover some basic catalog stuff anyways, so it isn't really a stretch.
Interesting point about them not being bought anywhere. I'm going to test that theory. The Forge is a normal shop too, though, and it sells the items normally and you do collect money. It's really weird.
At least I'm not crazy and it's not something stupid (although I kind of wish it was). Thanks for looking into this. As always you are a gentleman among cats.
0
I am working on a dialog tutorial (part 3 in a series), and I have run into a weird issue. I was recreating a dialog from another map. The dialog worked fine in the other map and most of the recreation was direct copy-paste. However, it doesn't work right in my tutorial's map and for the life of me I can't figure out why.
I'm trying to display the cost of an item in a tooltip, but the item cost is coming back as 0. If I hard-code Marine or Pylon in instead of my custom object, the proper cost is returned. However, I don't see anything wrong with my custom items. Compared side-by-side with the objects from my other map, they are identical.
Since the map is for a tutorial, I have no problem sharing it. Please take a look and I would greatly appreciate it if you can tell me what the problem is.
How to See the Problem
Run the test map and select Archon (the only unit with inventory). Pick up random items scattered about and select the Forge. Use the Forge's only ability and observe the tooltips on the dialog buttons. The tooltips are currently littered with debugging information, but a cost of 0 is displayed for all items.
Logic
A trigger on the Forge's ability calls Item Sell Dialog - Create(). Item Sell Dialog - Create() calls Get Item Cost Tooltip() to retrieve the cost tooltip. Get Item Cost Tooltip() is the function with the problem. The cost is retrieved in the following local variable lines from that function:
Item is the parameter.
Both of these functions are returning 0, despite the items having a cost clearly set in data.
Debugging Steps
A few parts of the map are out of order because of several debugging steps I've taken trying to solve the problem. I've left them as-is since the problem is yet unsolved.
Get Item Sell Tooltip() is not called. It is supposed to be called by Item Sell Dialog - Create(). Get Item Sell Tooltip() then calls Get Item Cost Tooltip() as well as adding some other data to the tooltip. Get Item Sell Tooltip() works fine, so I cut out the middle man and called Get Item Cost Tooltip() directly.
Get Item Cost Tooltip() displays several pieces of information about Item to ensure that it is referencing the correct item (it is). This information is added to the tooltip. This would not be present on the completed map.
Two conditions are disabled inside of Get Item Cost Tooltip(). Those conditions would prevent a 0-mineral or 0-vespene item from displaying that aspect of its cost. However, since all the values were 0, I had to disable that. The lines:
and
are now unconditional, and the conditions have been disabled.
Please Help
This has actually stumped several people so far. We can't figure out what's wrong. If you can tell me what's wrong, I'd greatly appreciate it. What's more, my tutorial readers will appreciate it as well because I will finally be able to finish this section of the tutorial and move on.
I thank you for your time.
0
Quickly Enable and Disable Debugging by Section using my Debug Library!
For me, debugging often means displaying a whole lot of information (variable values and such) to the screen to make sure everything is working as expect. I think this is the case for most programmers as it's quite effective at giving you a good picture of what the program is doing.
The functions Text Message() and Debug Message() work fine for the most part, but I wanted some more flexibility. Specifically, I wanted to be able enable/disable debugging without having to search and find every call to Debug Message(). In a normal programming language like C, you might see a lot of "#ifdef DEBUG" lines littered throughout the code, but setting up an if statement like this in the GUI can be a burden. I found it easier to just do it all in one function call.
I actually took it a step further, allowing myself to divide my code into sections and enable/disable specific sections for debugging. I find this the most useful because I can enable only the section I am working on, greatly filtering the debug output. I can still quickly enable/disable any other section to fully customize my debugging experience.
Taken even a step further, I found in practice that some debugging message are more detailed than others. It's often useful to be able to debug a section at a high level (low level of debugging detail), while still being able to debug it at a very low level (high level of detail). For example, when you're really digging into code, you may find it useful to print out details from every iteration of a loop. I would consider this too be a high level of detail. Later, when you are debugging the project as a whole, you may still want debug messages from this section, but you won't need to see every iteration of every loop. My library enables you to do this by setting detail levels for your messages.
My library also allows you to set color and screen location for debug messages (by section), as well as output to up to four different files. I've found these tools to be useful when debugging multiple sections at once. There's also a condition that you can use if your debugging doesn't involve writing a message to the screen.
I've covered the "why" here. The "how" is covered in the Usage (README) document included with my library. Please let me know if this is not clear.
If you find this library useful, please let me know. I would be happy to consider any feature requests you may have.
0
Added a poll. I am considering going with the name "Starimon". Please tell me what you think.
0
@aczchef: Go
Convert Integer to Text
I'd like to help you. Perhaps you could jump on IRC at some point so we can do a little back-and-forth to figure out what's going on? I am virtually always on although I do idle sometimes. Best time is during the evenings (Eastern Time - GMT -5), although I am somewhat available during most days.
0
@siege911: Go
You could put credits at any number of places in your game, but you should definitely do so. Credit is basically "free" to give to someone, but you might end up with a pretty long list. I'd put it in a menu somewhere or in a tip or something like that. You don't want it to interfere with your game.
As a rule, if someone posted an asset here and you used it, give them credit even if it doesn't explicitly say so. If you ripped someone's code apart to learn, give them credit too even though you didn't directly use any of their assets. Consider giving credit to people who helped you in the forums or IRC. You won't catch everyone, but you can thank the people who make large contributions or really helped you tear down walls. They've volunteered their time and efforts. A simple thank you can go a long way.
0
I actually feel sorry for you. I'm a pragmatist. I know how the world works, and ideas aren't worth spit. It's sad but true and your ideology doesn't make it not true.
Sure, the idea of DOTA is a great idea, but who got credit? The first person with the idea, or the first person with an implementation? It may be that they are one in the same, but it's actually not likely. All we care about is implementation. Also, had the implementation been poor, it wouldn't matter how good the original idea was. Someone could pick up the same idea, do a good implementation, and give the original no credit whatsoever. It's how the world works.
All those movies about the guy who has a great idea and in the end that idea sees fruition and he is successful... well, one they're movies. Two, the only way that's ever going to happen is a through a really good sell job. So now, the sales pitch is as important, if not more important, than the idea itself (this is often true). The company would be buying the person as much as the idea. Third, no company would pay for an idea when they could just steal it. You can't copyright, patent, or trademark an idea, only concrete things. There's a reason for this, because ideas aren't worth anything.
That said, every good project does start with a good idea, but that idea don't have to be yours, original, or even really that good if the implementation is solid.
It's the way our society is. Not saying it's right (it does have it's merits), it just is. We value the material more than the abstract, by a very large margin. A large reason for this is the high cost of material goods. Materials cost time to make, and time is money. Ideas, by the same respect, require very little time. A well thought-out, complete idea would require more time, and may therefore hold more value. This is why I'm urging him to consider additional contributions, even if they are not technical in nature. Planning out the entire game is what seperates the designer from the idea map, as I said. It's more than an idea at that point though. It's now blood, sweat, and tears and it therefore holds value.
EDIT: I'm actually going to stop. I didn't mean for this to turn into a huge thoeretical discussion. If you want to argue my point, you can be "right". Or, you can not argue and just be right in your own mind. We're probably not going to change each other's minds, and we've gone pretty far off topic.
0
Ideas go unrealized all the time. An idea by itself holds no weight. Without money or people backing an idea, the idea is meaningless. That's all there is to it. Did you miss the part about how if your only contribution is an idea, it will be subverted by those with the real power (the implementors)? You have to know that to be true.
I'm not saying you shouldn't give credit to someone for an idea. A line on the credits really doesn't mean much, but it can mean the world to the person recieving credit. It's an easy win. I'm saying that an idea by itself will most likely not gain followers. I'm saying that if you're thinking of entering a project with an idea as your only contribution, that you should consider what other contributions you could bring to the table if you actually want your idea realized. Otherwise, either nothing will happen at all, or the implementors will diverge heavily from the original idea.
0
Truer words have not been spoken. Ideas come up in all walks of life, and ideas themselves aren't worth anything. Implementation is what seperates and idea from reality, and what gives an idea strength. Anyone can sit around and think of ideas all day. Seeing a project through to completion is one of the hardest things anyone can do. It requires dedication and hard work. These are values that are worth something.
I think you'll find, too, that if you have someone else do the implementation, that those implementors have ideas of their own that may conflict with yours. Since they are in the position of power (being the people doing the real work), their ideas will almost always trump yours. That is unless you are a true designer.
There's a strong distinction between and idea man and a designer. An idea man thinks in the abstract. A designer thinks in the concrete. While the idea man is concerned with coming up with a really good idea, the designer is interested in solutions to very real problems. The designer is a step away from the implementor and will usually work hand-in-hand, with the implementor handing off certain problems or conceptual ideas to the designer. The really big difference is the the idea man's job is done when the idea is done. The designers job is done when the project is done. It's a big distinction.
The are other avenues you may wish to pursue, like perhaps the "story designer", "art director", or "creative director" as mentioned. It's important to be clear about what you contributions will be. The more you are willing to contribute, the more willing someone else will be to hop on board. Anyone who's going to work with/for you is going to want to see that you are as determined as they are.