Checking occupied vehicle? - Printable Version

Checking occupied vehicle? - Printable Version

+- SA-MP Forums Archive (https://sampforum.blast.hk)
+-- Forum: SA-MP Scripting and Plugins (https://sampforum.blast.hk/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: Scripting Help (https://sampforum.blast.hk/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+---- Forum: Help Archive (https://sampforum.blast.hk/forumdisplay.php?fid=89)
+---- Thread: Checking occupied vehicle? (/showthread.php?tid=177791)

Checking occupied vehicle? - Jochemd - 19.09.2010

Hello,

I believe there was a function to check if a vehicle is occupied... Now I can't find it. Does anyone know what it was?

Regards, Jochem

Re: Checking occupied vehicle? - MadeMan - 19.09.2010

There is no native function to check that, but you can make your own.

Re: Checking occupied vehicle? - Jochemd - 19.09.2010

I did with a simple loop.

But I don't know if it would work with if(IsVehicleOccupied(vehicleid))

pawn Код:

stock IsVehicleOccupied(vehicleid)
{
    for(new i =0; i < MAX_PLAYERS; i++)
    {
        if(IsPlayerInVehicle(i,vehicleid))
        {
            return 1;
        }
    }
return 0;
}

Re: Checking occupied vehicle? - Conroy - 19.09.2010

pawn Код:

stock IsVehicleOccupied(vehid)
{
    for(new i; i <= MAX_PLAYERS; i++) {
        if(IsPlayerConnected(i)) {
            if(IsPlayerInVehicle(i, vehid)) return 1;
        }
    }
    return 0;
}

Re: Checking occupied vehicle? - Jochemd - 19.09.2010

Why using IsPlayerConnected? It was unneeded or is it needed?

Re: Checking occupied vehicle? - LarzI - 19.09.2010

Not needed..
The player cannot be inside a vehicle if *he's not connected.

Re: Checking occupied vehicle? - Conroy - 19.09.2010

I do that with all for statements, it's a habit I've gotten into. It wouldn't do any harm being there anyway.

-Conroy

Re: Checking occupied vehicle? - LarzI - 19.09.2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conroy

I do that with all for statements, it's a habit I've gotten into. It wouldn't do any harm being there anyway.

-Conroy

Well you're actually wrong.
The code is slower with an unecesarry check like that.