Understanding primitives

* BoilingOil fortunately reads all new posts, or he might have missed this, since @gummilutt forgot the "" around his name No problem, though

!= is very similar to <>, in that it means the inverse of ==. Use it as if it was exactly the same as <>.

(12-01-2016 11:52 PM)BoilingOil Wrote:  * BoilingOil fortunately reads all new posts, or he might have missed this, since @gummilutt forgot the "" around his name No problem, though

I had no idea it needs "" to work, since you don't see those when the post is written. I'll keep that in mind for next time. Good thing for me you read everything Thank you, that makes a lot of sense

I thought I got it @BoilingOil, but I realize now that I do not. You said it's the same as <>, but the examples of that that you gave me had 0x0000 on one side, and 0x0001 on the other. This one has 0x0000 on both.

So just to be sure I get it. It's saying
Param 0x0000 =/= Literal 0x0000

Literal 1 is autonomy, and literal 0 is directed, correct? And here it's saying param is NOT equal to literal 0, so a true here should signify that it found a 1, meaning true is autonomous behavior, and false is directed behavior. Is that correct, or am I totally lost?

Woah!!!! We are testing if the value *IN* Param 0x0000 is unequal to the literal value 0x0000. Param 0x0000 is not necessarily 0x0000 itself, it's a variable that contains a number we don't know. That is why we are testing it.

So (Param 0x0000 != Literal 0x0000) is asking if the contents of Param 0x0000 are zero or not.

And yes, if the sim is autonomous, then Param 0 equals 1. Therefor, Param 0 is UNequal to 0, and therefor the expression is true!

Thank you for clarifying. I worked myself into quite a loop of confusion, and after a while I didn't even get what param was anymore xD My brain does not like math. I used to really enjoy it, but my high school teacher saw it as his job to make us understand that we suck and should just give up, so my brain tends to shut down if it sees new stuff.

I had a teacher like that once... I single-handedly - though unintentionally - bullied him out of a job.

It was his *first* job as a teacher, as in: he had just finished school himself, but he was like: "if only you'd had a higher math education like me, I could have made this extremely simple. But now I'll have to teach you the hard way." And then he started doing an example of three equations with three variables, and he screwed up for about 45 minutes. When finally he gave up, I solved the equations in front of the entire class-room in less than a minute. In less than 30 minutes after that, the entire school knew, and none of the students would believe *anything* he said anymore. A week later, he had a nervous breakdown. Another week, and he resigned. It was just his bad luck that I'm very math-compatible, and I had already had a teacher who encouraged me, and did a great job teaching maths in general.

That's almost exactly what ours used to say, haha. Only his was "If you weren't a useless social studies class, I would teach you the good easy way to do this but I only share that with my nature sciences classes. You're shitty social studies-students, so you get the shitty method. If you'd have been a sports class I'd teach you the ultra shitty, but you are just shitty.". He spent most of the first year trying to convince me to switch to a nature science program, because he thought I belonged there, then when I didn't do so, he decided to lump me in with the rest and start hating instead. I don't usually care what people think, but he was sufficiently systematic about it that math eventually got imbued with a strong sense of "you hate this and you stop doing this now". I'll never understand why some people choose to become teachers, when they hate teaching and hate students.

I guess in a way he was right though, I did belong in nature science given that I ended up choosing to become a doctor. But I wanted to study languages, and that meant a social studies based program, and I don't regret it

@gummilutt Use the megaphone to mention

Does anyone know if there is a global check of some kind that checks if a Sim is holding a baby? It's driving me nuts that Sims perform hobby animations while walking even if they are carrying their baby. I like the hobby animations in general so I don't want to use a mod that nukes them, but it'd be great if I could add a "carrying baby? THEN STOP IT!" line in the beginning of the BHAV.

I found one called Pickup - Carrying Sim?, but I wonder if that one does what I want, since it has pickup in the name and I don't want it to test if it should pick up the baby.

I think that the one you found is actually exactly what you need. But without testing, one can never be certain. You need to try to find that out. If you do, make sure that it looks like this:



It *is* a Global, so there should be no other concerns.