rgss3 different from rgss...?

[Bastrophian]

Can someone kindly give me an example of how rgss3 is different from just rgss? Im trying to learn Ruby at codecademy right now, but if rgss3 is different from just plain rgss, how will learning it help me for making scripts in Ace? Just wondering.

Thanks for your time

 

[Tsukihime]

You need to first learn Ruby, in order to work with either RGSS or RGSS3.


RGSS is for XP, RGSS3 is for Ace.


There are some differences in the way they are written, but overall you need to be able to read Ruby in order to make RM scripts.


If you have never scripted before, then chances are you don't know RGSS, so if you're starting with Ace then you might as well just learn Ruby and look at what RGSS3 has to offer.

 

[Zane]

I could be wrong but inside Ace, most things are given a def to handle it.

A Example is

RGSS 3

def col_max ; return 5 end

def item_width ; return 8 end

def spacing ; return 12 end

rect.x = index % col_max * (item_width + spacing)

RGSS 2

rect.x = index % 5 * (8 + 12)

I think RGSS1 is written the same as 2 for that.

You don't have to get confused as bad now in Ace, although that really isn't confusing either.

Tsukihime is right about it though, maybe I just read the question wrong. Ruby IS RGSS just not as many functions as Ruby or jRuby would have. A lot is actually taken out. If you learn the standards of Ruby you'll be able to make better sense of RGSS in general. RGSS3 just makes things easier/faster to work and understand with but it's still a lot of steps to achieve what you'd want to do. This is just my opinion of things.

 

[Bastrophian]

oh ok, so rgss3 is ruby, just with sertain things taken out?(i hope one of those things were boolians...*shiver*) Anyway, thank you for your answers, i was just wondering .

 

[nio kasgami]

Naturally the diffirence between RGSS and RGSS3

is literrally the structure 

in the xp it was really hard to create scripts due the fact you have to overwrite all the Default Script you want to change due the fact the alias don't exit in rgss 

but in rgss3 the structure is a lot better and the problem of compatibility is really more easy to correct due the alias who permit to add your part without overwrite

Boolians is simply a Constants you add a value of Number float or False/true it is easy to understand 

and I suggest to also watch platiniumdiamond rgss3 tutorial he help a lot about the basic in rgss3 ;3

 

[Zeriab]

There are some subtle difference between Ruby 1.8.x and Ruby 1.9.x. RGSS is based on Ruby 1.8.x while RGSS3 is based on Ruby 1.9.x so expect those subtle difference to carry over as well.

Delete all the scripts in the editor and there will be some differences in the API provided by the hidden code. (Residing somewhere inside the DLL)

The standard scripts (what you actually can see in the editor) are significantly between RGSS and RGSS3. You can easily compare the differences here.

*hugs*

 - Zeriab

 

[Napoleon]

I could be wrong but inside Ace, most things are given a def to handle it.

Which is very good because now we can easier alias stuff without having to overwrite so much. The more "defines" in the RTP instead of big methods the more non-rtp-scripts will be compatible I guess.

 

[Shaz]

So could you take all the scripts from Ace and put them into an XP project and they would run?


I mean putting aside that the database is different and the internal handling of some things (tilesets, maybe windows) is different. If those differences weren't there, would the code actually run? Or would there be syntax errors because it contains certain Ruby 1.9 stuff that Ruby 1.8 does not understand?

 

[Tsukihime]

So could you take all the scripts from Ace and put them into an XP project and they would run?


I mean putting aside that the database is different and the internal handling of some things (tilesets, maybe windows) is different. If those differences weren't there, would the code actually run? Or would there be syntax errors because it contains certain Ruby 1.9 stuff that Ruby 1.8 does not understand?

Based on this tutorial, almost.


http://forums.rpgmakerweb.com/index.php?/topic/9405-using-the-vx-ace-engine-in-your-xp-games-the-kiss-tutorial/

 

[Shaz]

Yeah, I knew about that thread. But that's kind of the exact opposite of what I want to do. I want to use the XP engine to run it so there's no map conversion requirement.


Still might be worth a go. I love Ace's database flexibility and scripting, but nothing will EVER make me even mildly like the mapping.