• Welcome to SC4 Devotion Forum Archives.
 

News:

The SC4 Devotion Forums are no longer active, but remain online in an archived, read-only "museum" state.  It is not possible for regular members to post or use the private messaging system, and no technical support will be provided for any issues pertaining to the forums in their current state.  Attachments (those that still work) are accessible without login.

The LEX has been replaced with SC4Evermore (SC4E), and SC4E maintains an active Discord server.  For traditional forums, we recommend Simtropolis.

Main Menu

Manipulation of the hover query. Is it possible?

Started by FrankU, November 03, 2013, 01:19:29 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

FrankU

I have a question concerning hover queries.

I posted this question also in the FrankU and Nexis Coop thread, but the readers there did not have answers. So maybe here I get attention from others.

In the images below you see several different situations.



A: a Stage 1 Farm Lot. The lot is 1x1 and contains only the props that are also on the Farm Fields belonging to the lot. So don't get confused.
B: a full grown Farm Field, with props where the "query as main building" is set to true.
C: a Farm Field without props. This meadow only contains a texture.
D: a Farm Field section where the seasonal prop is not visible because it is the season that the invisible state is active.
E: a Farm Field section where a seasonal prop has appeared.
F: a ploppable Farm Field lot (technically a park lot) without a grown prop.
G: a ploppable Farm Field lot with a non seasonal prop (a grown seasonal prop would give the same query).
H: a Farm Field with props that have the "query as main building" set to false (from dependency pack, so I cannot change that). Here I hover in between the props.
I: the same Farm Field where I hover above a prop.

Now my question is a simple one: how can I edit the lots and/or props in such a way that all grown Farm Field lots show the same hover query? Is it possible?
For the ploppable lots there is a different query. That is OK with me.

But what I do not like is that a Farm Field where the props are not visible gives me only info about the zone. I would like to see the same query as we can see in image B and E.
Non visibility of props appears:
1. when the lot contains no props,
2. when the props have an invisible building,
3. when the props are not visible due to the season,
4. when the props are not visible due to zoom level (many props do not appear in zoom level 1)

And the zone query also appears when I hover on a location on a lot where there is no prop at that specific point or where there is only a prop with "query as main building" set to false.

Last week I came with the idea (someone gave me the idea, actually) that adding an invisible prop that covers the whole lot would give me the correct query, at least on meadows and seasonal fields. But of course that was not true. A seasonal field does contain props all the time, it is just that they are not visible all the time. So adding another invisible one is indeed useless. Quite superfuous I did experiments, but nothing appeared.

And would it be possible to make a custom hover query? I know about the creation of custom queries for when you click the lots. I even made them for these lots.

Does anyone know what I could do?

FrankU

Hi all you who read this.... (I hope someone does)

Since I published this question half a year ago it was viewed 264 times. Several of those views were my own, of course. But... does this mean there is no answer to this question? Does nobody know? is there nobody who has a hint to an answer?
Or is it that obvious that no one of you took the trouble to tell me how stupid the question is?
I would really like to know if there is anything I can do here.

Frank

HappyDays

Late reply, but...

I asked this myself a long time ago, and the answer I received was that the hover query logic is primarily controlled by the executable. Ergo, we can do naught.

FrankU

I was already afraid that I'd end up with an answer like this.
Thanks for confirming. One issue less to bother about.  :(