WSI

The condescension isn't justified, Josh. You're being disingenuous. I said in my previous post: The only place any info is noted about parameters is where it says, for example: string title="Leadwerks". I understood the 'string' and 'number' are just indicating the type. I also understood the 'name' and 'numbers', etc, were just examples, and didn't have to be typed in verbatim. The only bit I didn't understand wasn't actual parameters is name=, x=, etc. So it's not like I went into this completely brain-dead, or didn't try to think through it myself before posting here. However... The actual code sample lower on that page just has Window:Create(): --Create a window window = Window:Create() context = Context:Create(window) world = World:Create() local camera = Camera:Create() camera:Move(0,0,-3) local light = DirectionalLight:Create() light:SetRotation(35,35,0) There's no parameters included in the actual example code. So, the only example I have to go on is the bit at the top with all the extra info. I'm following your documentation. So again, if that bottom code sample had included parameters inside the (), I would have realized that's the correct way to format it, and then it would have clicked that the "String name="Leadwerks", etc... was a demonstration/explanation, not the actual format. You know how I've said in other posts how experienced programmers forget what it's like to be brand-new, and tend to make assumptions of what the student already knows/understands? This is a grand-slam perfect example of that. Instead of being condescending and sarcastic to a sincere case of confusion and inexperience, you, or someone else, could go through the documentation and update it to make sure all the examples are detailed and thorough.

If the actual command doesn't use =, then why is it noted like that in the documentation? That's another reason why the example code on that page should have the parameters included, to show the actual correct formatting. I could have looked at it and realized "Oh, *that's* how it's actually formatted", and everything would have worked. So, effectively, I can't trust anything in the documentation as being accurate and will have to constantly second guess "well now... is this how it's supposed to be typed, and I'm doing it wrong? Or did they deliberately format it differently for demonstration, while providing no example of how to do it correctly?" Someone should review the docs for accuracy and/or thoroughness. Make sure example code written is complete (includes parameters where applicable, etc), and not assume someone new will look at it and "just know" what the correct approach is.

So, right off the bat, I'm hitting a wall. I'm trying to change stuff in the code to make sure I'm understanding it. I looked up how Window:Create works, and I see that it accepts a number of parameters. Per this page: https://www.leadwerks.com/learn?page=API-Reference_Object_Window_Create I put in the parameters based on the explanation, and it gives me an error when I try to run it. Unfortunately, the example shown on that page doesn't actually use any of those parameters. It's just Window:Create(). So I have nothing to compare against and don't know how the parameters are supposed to be formatted. For example, am I supposed to actually put the "number x=0"? Or just "x=0"? (minus the quotes). I tried both ways, and both give errors. This is what I run into every time I try to learn this engine. I follow what it shows in the documentation, and it doesn't work. Same thing happened when I tried to get a simple ball I modeled in Blender to move. Followed the documentation... didn't work. And it's been the same in every other thing I've tried. Is the documentation not accurate? Maybe it's not me just "not getting it"? Is this stuff not noticed by others because everyone else already knows how to program and doesn't have to reference it? How can I learn if following the documentation returns errors? This is why I get frustrated and give up. Literally every step of the way, everything I try to do, I hit these walls.

Saw this in my Twitter feed. https://twitter.com/alexxubyte/status/1569348391167197185 So basically... compiled languages are more efficient than interpreted languages? Not really surprising. But the specifics may be interesting to folks.

Hey, Josh. I really appreciate that vote confidence. If only I could convince my brain that's the case lol. Funny thing is, I understand programming in concept. I remember hanging out with a friend (super gifted programmer) and being able to understand concepts, and even make suggestions when he was working out how to approach something... and he'd actually use them, and they worked out. True story, I'd started to learn BASIC on my family's Vic-20 as a kid. Would sit in front of the living room TV, open the manual, type in the code in the book, then take it and apply it to my own ideas. I wanted to make a text adventure game. Wish I'd stuck with it. Could probably be a decent programmer by now if I had. Of course, being BASIC, and not interfacing with any other API, it was a lot easier to understand what was going on. It's when I get down into it myself and start working with the syntax that my brain just goes blank, and I have no clue what's going on. That's the thing I need to get past. That said, if you have trouble following what others' code is doing... Then maybe looking at others' code to learn isn't a good approach? It's definitely discouraging when people show me examples of code, and I don't know what I'm looking at. Because my assumption is showing me the code *should* be helpful... but it isn't. It leaves me more confused than anything. Edited: Anyway.. I took a personal day at work today specifically because I'm determined to sit here and work at this 'til there's some kind of breakthrough and my brain "gets it". Yes I'm serious lol. I get weeks of personal time every year, which I'm terrible at using, so I always have way too much left by the end of the year. So... It's fine :p

I appreciate you sharing that. I have to be honest, though... I don't know what I'm looking at lol. I'm just trying to understand Lua and LW3D's specifics... Object oriented programming is well beyond me at this point. I'm sure it's helpful to others who are further along though.

I copied this and am going to use it as my base main.lua for now. Thank you again for typing that all out.

Ah okay, that makes sense. So basically do what they do in the Lua tutorial. I could try that. Maybe not having that wall of green text will at least help me focus on what I need "right now". I think I just need to figure out how translate what I'm seeing on screen into "plain English". Once I can back the code and understand it that way, I know I'm 'getting it'. Until then, it's like reading Greek. But.. I'll keep pushing at it! Thanks for the explanation.

I did actually try that approach to import a simple ball I modeled in Blender and make it move forward by pressing W. It wouldn't work. The ball wouldn't move. I couldn't figure out what I was doing wrong because, again, I don't know what I don't know. Looking at this monster list of things in the API reference was overwhelming and I didn't understand what I was looking at. So I got frustrated and gave up. I can look at it again, but I think the same thing is going to keep happening.. I don't understand what I'm looking at, so all I'm doing is copying and pasting (or re-typing if I choose that route) code provided to me. It's not helping me learn, and I still won't know where/when to use it, if I don't understand what it's doing. This is the wall I keep hitting, and it's why "just start doing it" doesn't work for me. It's like knowing how to bake, versus following the steps on a cake box. Following the steps on the box will yield me a tasty cake in the end. But it won't teach me how to bake. I'm genuinely impressed by how people self-teach themselves this stuff. I don't understand how they do it.

Now that's a very different perspective on it. My Spanish mixed with Greek analogy actually makes a lot of sense from that angle. It's not the Lua that's messing with me, it's the LW specific stuff. Interesting! So I guess I had the right idea there. As for for not diving into Main.lua.. I was under the impression that Main.lua is required? Isn't that what's run first, regardless? I will say, looking at Lua, and all those commented out bits does feel a bit overwhelming.

That's really cool. I'm still at the point of learning Lua.. then looking at programs written with it in Leadwerks, or Love2D, etc... and proceeding to scratch my head as I try to understand what I'm reading. It's like understanding basic, level 1 Spanish, then reading a paragraph with Greek mixed in. I don't know Spanish that well, and don't know Greek at all, so I can't decipher what is what. It all becomes a confusing jumble. I need to figure out how to bridge that gap where I don't know what I don't know. In other words, I can only look up how to do "x" in Leadwerks, if I know "x" exists in Leadwerks in the first place. If that makes sense. But I guess I'll just have to keep bashing my head into it 'til it gets through... somehow. I don't know why this is so complicated for me.

I'm on the struggle bus wrapping my head around Lua as it is. Actually, I think it's more learning to think like a programmer that's messing with me. The syntax itself isn't difficult to learn. When/how/why/where to use it is what's challenging me. C++ would probably melt my brain entirely, though. And I kinda need my brain. I'm much more on the creative side of things. I wanna learn Lua just so I can at least create good prototypes or proof-of-concepts. By no stretch am I trying to become an expert at programming. So, Lua will have to be enough for my needs. Thanks for confirming Lua in UltraEngine!

So, because I'm a masochist... or at least just really stubborn and hate giving up on stuff... I'm going to jump back into learning Lua. I don't know what it is that's blocking it from "clicking" with me, when it's apparently such an easy thing to learn, but maybe I can figure it out if I bang my head against it enough. That said! Is Lua going to be supported in UltraEngine as well?

Heya, thanks I have looked through the script, when I was trying to figure out how to get a model to just move forward when I pressed a key, but couldn't find anything that seemed to do the trick. Though, again, I couldn't interpret most of what I was reading at all, so that didn't help in the end. The games I want to make, at least my first ones, are all 3rd person... a puzzle game, a top-down auto scroller, etc. The games that would be telling stories are considerably bigger and more complex action-adventure style, so I would need a lot more experience in programming, and game design/development in general, before I'm ready to tackle those. Only one of those bigger ones would actually be from first-person, heh. The first one is a kinda whimsical, tile-based puzzler. No combat, no fancy moves.. just moving around tile-based levels with grid movement, and completing objectives. Maybe 4 or 5 "mechanics" tops. Looking into how to make a model move by pressing a key was intended to be the first step to learning how to do the grid-based movement.