#31
Proper JASS would lag less.JASS or GUI?
49 posts
#32
That depends on how you write them! If you simply convert the GUI trigger to custom text, nothing will change!
I don't know how to convert a GUI trigger to custom text!
Tell me how!
#33
Trigger Editor --> Edit --> Convert to custom textbut remember, just converting it won't make it better.
#34
Ok, Thnx! 
#35
No problem.
#36
Thanatos, before u convert it. Rememer that u cant convert it to GUI#37
Just a curiosityWhat changes if I convert a GUI trigger to custom TXT?
It still works perfectly? reduces the lag or something alike?
#38
It will still work the same and nothin changes#39
If I create a spell trigger in GUI and then convert the trigger to TXT, the spell will be multinstanceable 
#40
All our other posts already said this.Converting it does nothing, you have to change it aswell, and in fact GUI --> JASS spell conversions sucks.
#41
To make a spell multiinstancable and reduce lag you have to remake it in JASS and use the advantages of JASS. Not just convert a GUI version.#42
Ok, now I don't have more any curiosity!
#43
RamzaThanatos, before u convert it. Rememer that u cant convert it to GUI
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONG!!!!!!!!!!
You can convert JASS to GUI if it can be done in GUI.
But this cannot be done in the editor! Simply download Deprotect at This website and deprotect a map (if it is protected deprotect it twice!) and the JASS will turn into GUI unless it can only be done in JASS.
#44
Blade.dk2
Using locations IS faster than using reals, if you doesn't take the painful cleanup's duration in consideration.
Excuse me , but who did lie that to you?
Who said locations are faster.
Who said that SetUnitPosition ( unit , location ) is faster than ( SetUnitPosition ( unit ,real x , real y ) ???
Reals > Locations !!! proof ?
you have many functions that take locations to call their real exuivalents,by using GetLocationX/Y
aslo the -->native<-- GroupEnumUnitsInRangeLoc calls GroupEnumUnitsInRange() using GetLocationX/Y
tested by me. GroupEnumUnitsInRange() is faster than its location equivalent.
locations behave slower since you have to create them. you give 2 reals to a native named Location () and it returns
you one location. so where is the faster here ?
#45
Nantuko_HuskBlade.dk2
Using locations IS faster than using reals, if you doesn't take the painful cleanup's duration in consideration.
Excuse me , but who did lie that to you?
Who said locations are faster.
Who said that SetUnitPosition ( unit , location ) is faster than ( SetUnitPosition ( unit ,real x , real y ) ???
Reals > Locations !!! proof ?
you have many functions that take locations to call their real exuivalents,by using GetLocationX/Y
aslo the -->native<-- GroupEnumUnitsInRangeLoc calls GroupEnumUnitsInRange() using GetLocationX/Y
tested by me. GroupEnumUnitsInRange() is faster than its location equivalent.
locations behave slower since you have to create them. you give 2 reals to a native named Location () and it returns
you one location. so where is the faster here ?
Vexorian AND PitzerMike "lied" to me. And as I said, locations are faster if you DON'T take cleanup in consideration.
Why? Because you only have to pass one single pointer to the function instead of two reals.
And that location-taking functions call other function with the real value of the locations, doesn't make locations slower, only affects the funciton.
Here is your proof and tell me who lied to you?.
And stop that offensive attitude, thank you.