Pixel Crushers Forum

Hi!

It seems that articy instruction nodes are imported as dialogue entries, but the documentation says that they are imported as groups (Instructions will be converted into a group dialogue entry that acts as a passthrough to run the instruction node's expression.). It happens here in the articy converter script: In my opinion it would be better to keep them as groups, because dialogue entries have many more fields (including localization fields) that are useless for simple instructions. Furthermore, non-group entries send OnConversationLine messages (sometimes, in the same frame, I use tens of instructions to handle game logic, I guess it could lead to some framerate issues).
If this is intended, would it be possible perhaps to get an option in the importer window to turn them into groups?
Thanks!

Marc

Hi,

We switched this to ensure that articy code evaluation in the Dialogue System works in the same order as in articy. In the next update, I'll add an option to allow them to be groups. But please be aware that the Dialogue System has to factor in something that articy doesn't, so Conversations Evaluate Conditions One Extra Level Ahead.

Thank you, I missed this information! Maybe it explains why sometimes I had to add extra empty nodes in articy.
It brings additional questions...

1 - Do you remember approximately what year did this change happen (turning instructions to non-groups)?

2 - So if I understand well, keeping your example with a flipping coin, in articy we should never flip the coin in the instruction pin of a hub and check the result in the input pin of the following node, right? Sometimes I do these kind of things, like putting instructions in the output pin of conditions nodes, maybe I should avoid this to avoid errors and unexpected behaviors, as hubs and conditions nodes are both converted to groups.

3 - In case we could convert articy instructions into groups in the future: during dialogue authoring in articy, does adding a hub between the instruction node and the condition check would work? Or should it be an empty dialogue fragment, necessarily, like in the example in your documentation?

Sorry for all these questions, I want to be sure that I'll use the option if you add it to the importer

_marc wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 7:28 am1 - Do you remember approximately what year did this change happen (turning instructions to non-groups)?

Version 2.0.5 in October 2018.

_marc wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 7:28 am2 - So if I understand well, keeping your example with a flipping coin, in articy we should never flip the coin in the instruction pin of a hub and check the result in the input pin of the following node, right? Sometimes I do these kind of things, like putting instructions in the output pin of conditions nodes, maybe I should avoid this to avoid errors and unexpected behaviors, as hubs and conditions nodes are both converted to groups.

3 - In case we could convert articy instructions into groups in the future: during dialogue authoring in articy, does adding a hub between the instruction node and the condition check would work? Or should it be an empty dialogue fragment, necessarily, like in the example in your documentation?

The change (turning instructions to non-groups) was a first step so that you'll be able to connect an instruction node directly to an input pin that checks the instruction's output. The last step (inserting another blank node between the instruction node and the input pin node) will be in version 2.2.46, so you won't have to worry about adding a hub node or anything messy like that in articy.

Ok perfect, thank you