Raised This Month: $ Target: $400
 0% 

invalid expression :D


Post New Thread Reply   
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
n0obie4life
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Old 06-15-2005 , 10:27  
Reply With Quote #11

Quote:
Originally Posted by v3x
Aww.. You owned me, Bail.
haha.

hmm, luckily bail came in and explained the 33 and 32. otherwise i'd be confused totally because all i know is, i must always add 1 .


weeee, lettme test it out now...
__________________
Plugins:
none

n0obie4life is offline
xeroblood
BANNED
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Old 06-15-2005 , 11:47  
Reply With Quote #12

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAILOPAN
No, don't. I don't like seeing people propogate the "[32]" myth. If you have a 32 player server, you need to have 32 slots in the array. [32] only gives you 31, because there is no player "0".
I've always used 32 and simply minus 1 from the player ID.. Works fine... Maybe it is just me but I have a habit of not wasting memory space, even if it is only a single cell at sub-zero..

Don't get me wrong tho, I'm not trying to promote using 32 if it confuses any of you, it's just personal preference.. I see no problem with plugins using a player array of 32 over 33 as long as the logic is correct..

Just my 2 cents..
xeroblood is offline
Send a message via MSN to xeroblood
v3x
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: US
Old 06-15-2005 , 19:57  
Reply With Quote #13

Shouldn't it be 33-1 in the player ID then? :\
__________________
What am I doing these days? Well, I run my own Rust server. It's heavily modded. If you'd like to join, the ip is 167.114.101.67:28116

I also created a website called Rust Tools. It will calculate and tell you the raw amounts of resources needed to craft items.
v3x is offline
BAILOPAN
Join Date: Jan 2004
Old 06-15-2005 , 20:50  
Reply With Quote #14

That's fine, but you've just wasted efficiency by re-indexing to save 4 bytes ;]
__________________
egg
BAILOPAN is offline
xeroblood
BANNED
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Old 06-15-2005 , 22:09  
Reply With Quote #15

Good point.. But will the re-indexing really be that costly? About as costly as wasting 4 bytes of space? Either way, it is worth considering, I'm glad you brought that up!
xeroblood is offline
Send a message via MSN to xeroblood
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 14:06.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Theme made by Freecode