I am kinda stuck logically. You see, basically what happens is, the function runs through a table of parts, and then it checks which one has the lowest magnitude, then returns it.
But, I am attempting to find WHICH part has the lowest magnitude, and to do that I assumed I need to find the lowest magnitude first. I have no idea to how return the part that has the lowest magnitude. Does anyone have any clue?
local function distanceCheck(otherPart)
local distances = {}
for i, v in pairs(otherPart) do
local check = (HRP.Position - v.Position).Magnitude
distances[i] = check
end
return math.min(unpack(distances))
end
I would look @Exeplex’s post. And use math.huge for the highest magnitude instead of 9999999.
All I could think of is adding a second for loop below which loops through all the distances and keeps track of the smallest one. unpack won’t work since it does indxes and values.
local maxDistance = math.huge
for i,v in pairs(distances) do
if v < maxDistance then
maxDistance = v
end
end
return table.find(distances,maxDistance)
local function distanceCheck(otherPart)
local lowestmagnitude = 9999999 - Some insanely high number for the first check to pass
local closestpart = nil
for i, v in pairs(otherPart) do
local check = (HRP.Position - v.Position).Magnitude
if check < lowestmagnitude then -- If the magnitude is lower than the previous lowestmagnitude
lowestmagnitude = check -- Set the new low
closestpart = v -- Set the part that is closest
end
end
return closestpart, lowestmagnitude
end
local closestpart, lowestmagnitude = distanceCheck()
You just have to set an insanely high value for the first part to pass as the “lowest magnitude”, then every other part will be checked against it. When a part has a lower magnitude, change the variables to the lowest magnitude and what part is closest. In the end, you can return them.
Edit: You don’t have to return the lowest magnitude, it’s just an extra in case you need it. You can simply just return the part into one variable
You can actually find the lowest magnitude without using a very large number plus a tiny optimization with allocated table memory creation if you use table.create for an array.
The original solution is however better because of the maximum distance that you can set. I below have some alternatives to use which will do the same thing of course.
No large number alternative
local function pairsFind(t, value)
for i, v in pairs(t) do
if v == value then
return i
end
end
end
local function partWithLowestMagnitude(parts, compareTo)
local t = table.create(#parts)
for _, part in ipairs(parts) do
t[part] = (part.Position - compareTo.Position).Magnitude
end
local lowest = math.min(unpack(t))
return pairsFind(t, lowest), lowest
end
local part, magnitude = partWithLowestMagnitude({workspace.Part, workspace.Part1, workspace.Part2, workspace.Part3}, compareTo)
It’s the same thing in the end, your method just utilizes more library methods which do the same thing under the hood. It’s not optimizing the code other than reducing 1 or two lines.
I am not saying it optimizes the code, I just mean table.create could be used for optimization in array cases, also I made a slight error in the code so I’m going to edit and fix it. table.find only works on arrays which I forgot.
I actually think the solution script is better because you can set a maximum distance case opposed to none.
