Open darkChozo opened 4 years ago
Also, on the subject of attachments, is there a good reason to use numbered instead of descriptive variable names? In other words, why do we have [_scope1,_scope2,_scope3] and not something like [_scopeReflex,_scopeMagnified,_scopeSniper]?
Probably because they aren't always those things. The user might decide to issue RCOs as the standard scope, or use one slot for thermal sights, etc.
In that case you could name them something like [_standardScope, _specialScope, and _sniperScope] instead.
I would like to see SMG scopes included since default assignGear crews get 200m optics on their smgs which is dumb.
Naming conventions wise, I am okay with 1,2,3 and commenting the defaults to the right like // SMG Close Range, // Rifle Default, // Rifle Magnified, // Sniper Scope.
That or [_scopeCQB, _scopeDefault, _scopeSpecial, _scopeSniper]
Both the ACO and Holosight have SMG variants ranged to 100m instead of 200m. We should use them. This would also let you swap out _scope1 for a magnified scope without making your crewmen have ridiculous looking PDWs.
Implementation would be to add something like a _scope1smg variable to the assignGear files, and then setting
_attachments = [_scope1smg]
in each SMG user's gear definition. Alternatively, you could have a separate _smgAttachments that is resolved in f_assignGear_attachments, but that would involve detecting whether the unit is using an SMG and would probably end up being too opaque/fragile.Also, on the subject of attachments, is there a good reason to use numbered instead of descriptive variable names? In other words, why do we have
[_scope1,_scope2,_scope3]
and not something like[_scopeReflex,_scopeMagnified,_scopeSniper]
?And yes, I am an endless source of minor assignGear tweaks, thanks for asking.