[Hawk552]

Thanks but that's a really marginal optimization. If it was a huge array, I'd probably add it in, but for a couple of single cell variables I'm not going to bother.

[Orangutanz]

Variable size doesn't matter.

Just notice something your for statement is using new count that is a performance issue!

[Hawk552]

Originally Posted by Orangutanz Variable size doesn't matter. Just notice something your for statement is using new count that is a performance issue!

Err... where?

[stupok]

Originally Posted by Hawk552 Thanks but that's a really marginal optimization. If it was a huge array, I'd probably add it in, but for a couple of single cell variables I'm not going to bother.

Then why did you do this?

static Players[32],Playersnum,Player

Orangutanz is referring to this:

for(new Count;Count < Playersnum;Count++)

[Orangutanz]

Originally Posted by Hawk552 Basically, if I made it static, it would have to be reset each and every time the function was called. Not only would I have to pull it out of the declaration section of the for loop, I'd also have to zero it. Since the zeroing is where the performance hit is, there's no reason to make it static.

Hawk I'm not being funny but it's the creation of variables that cause the performance hit, zeroing increases it but you have to live with that since that is Pawn.

Your for loop is doing this new count, IMO that is bad practice you are showing people! Since it's usually new count = 0 or w/e.

FYI I'm studying application development and I just covered a section regarding this with my tutor. Fast ticking functions should be using either static or global variables if they are being constantly used like you are showing. There is ways and means of not doing this which is down to checking methods within the function. External functions which I mentioned previously is trival and more than likely not worth it.

[Hawk552]

Originally Posted by Orangutanz Hawk I'm not being funny but it's the creation of variables that cause the performance hit, zeroing increases it but you have to live with that since that is Pawn. Your for loop is doing this new count, IMO that is bad practice you are showing people! Since it's usually new count = 0 or w/e. FYI I'm studying application development and I just covered a section regarding this with my tutor. Fast ticking functions should be using either static or global variables if they are being constantly used like you are showing. There is ways and means of not doing this which is down to checking methods within the function. External functions which I mentioned previously is trival and more than likely not worth it.

I don't think you understand... "new Count = 0" is useless as it's automatically declared as 0. If I did make it static, I would have to zero it again every time the function was called. All of the performance hit is in zeroing it (BAILOPAN has said that 3 or 4 times now).

I don't see your point. I think it's not only easier to use 'new' but also makes more sense as it's more practical.

[Orangutanz]

What you are essentially doing:

Script:
new variable

Pawn:
int variable; // created whenever a new variable is created
variable = 0; // due to new being used Pawn 0's it


Using static...
Script:
static variable

Pawn:
static variable; // created only once


Do you understand now? Yes you have to manually 0 the item but that is what for statements are for

Anyway enough said, no more response from me now!

All of the performance hit is in zeroing it (BAILOPAN has said that 3 or 4 times now).

LOL at that! Means whenever you change a variable it hits performance issues regardless if you 0 it or change it to 1

[Rolnaaba]

the first method with making them not solid a soon as they touch, because it is called after they touch, which means that they have already collided and get a rebound off, slowing you down, which kind of defeats the purpose. I have tried making this for a bunnyhop seerver so they could jump through teamates, but they had already collided screwing up their jump by time I made them not solid. I think we solved that problem, I dont remember, try and find that topic.

[Hawk552]

Originally Posted by Rolnaaba the first method with making them not solid a soon as they touch, because it is called after they touch, which means that they have already collided and get a rebound off, slowing you down, which kind of defeats the purpose. I have tried making this for a bunnyhop seerver so they could jump through teamates, but they had already collided screwing up their jump by time I made them not solid. I think we solved that problem, I dont remember, try and find that topic.

Read much? That's exactly what I said.

[Rolnaaba]

I apologize you are teh pwnage.