Would using oUF to just replace a player's nameplate be overkill?
I honestly don't like how the player's default nameplate works and thus decided to replace it.
1. Would it be an overkill to use an oUF just to replace player's nameplate? 2. Afaik, spawning a unitframe with oUF would disable/hide default ones. The question is how could I prevent it from being disabled/hidden since I'm only willing to replace the player's nameplate, not unitframe. |
It will only hide the frames you spawn.
So if you only implement the nameplates it will only skin that. Don't think it is overkill at all. oUF is quite light to be honest but as with everything depends on what you do with it. :) |
Quote:
At least it's good to hear that it's not an overkill :banana: |
Careful..it's addictive. I started out with oUF just to replace my player and target units and ended up implementing all units and then actual nameplates as well lol.
|
Quote:
I'm already addicted to it D: My core UI has all unitframes implemented by oUF. This will be a separate addon that can be used standalone just to replace player's default resource bar ;) |
I did two addons with oUF as well. One for nameplates (and personal bar) and one for all the units. :D
|
Okay... so back to the origin!
Would it be possible to create an unitframe without hiding the default ones? Afaik, :Spawn function would disable blizzard's default unitframe for a selected unit. Any helps please?! |
In looking at the spawn function in oUF it does not appear there is a way to override the functionality.
You could modify the spawn function yourself and add an override to it? Maybe this is something they can add to the new version for BfA as well. :) Lua Code:
|
Yeah, I thought of adding one extra parameter to Spawn function, but I quit doing it as I don't want to modify lua file whenver there's an update :/
Lua Code:
|
May I ask project manager and authors to officially add an extra parameter to Spawn function (as above) so that the developers with oUF could choose to disable Blizzard default unitframe or not?
|
|
As a workaround, you could always prehook oUF.DisableBlizzard, and only call it for the units you wish disabled. Then you don't have to directly change anything in the oUF code. Been doing this in some of mine for a while.
Just add something like the following before your spawn code is run: Lua Code:
|
That's a great idea.
|
Quote:
I've recently lost my Github password and am being lazy to find it :p Quote:
The question is... Let's say you have two addons which embeds their own copy of oUF. One will replace all the unitframes (A) while the other will just draw an extra player unitframe on the center of the screen (B). Do you reckon overriding a DisableBlizzard function in B would also affect one in A? oUF doesn't use a LibStub, so I'm guessing that it won't affect each other tho... (I can't test it myself atm :() |
Quote:
The only way it'd affect everything is if multiple layouts use the same unembedded oUF instance (which is why you should never override colors globally). Another way to get what you want without modifying oUF source: Lua Code:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Thanks for the tip! |
Why do you want to leave stock ui frames shown? Does the player frame come into question? If so, do you care about stuff handled by oUF elements like totems, additional power or the stagger bar? If the answer to the last two question is yes, you will have to poke into oUF elements that disable stock ui elements.
|
Quote:
The only reason that I'd like to keep the default player frame is because I'm willing to create an extra player frame with oUF in the center of the screen (on top of the default one). It's like the personal resource display thing that Blizzard added since the Legion. The only difference is this will be an unitframe, not nameplate. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Sorry, I'm still weak at those high level(?) terminologies :o |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:57 PM. |
vBulletin © 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd
© 2004 - 2022 MMOUI