Talk:Testing cheats

If I used boolprop on TS2, and the error showed up on TS2, would it show up on Seasons? I really need to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidMC123 (talk • contribs) (UTC) - Please sign your comments with ~

For The Sims Medieval, there is a special .ini file for the "advanced cheats" located in "(your install dir)\The Sims Medieval\GameData\Shared\NonPackaged\Ini\", The .ini file is called (or supposed to be called) "Commands.ini" and contains an explaination and the switch for the Testingcheatsenabled, but the file is read only, so you have to flip that to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.244.217 (talk • contribs) (UTC) - Please sign your comments with ~

Capital letters required?
Gosh I play The Sims for years but still I have to ask this question, is this cheat really case sensitive or not? I always use the cheat in both The Sims 2 en The Sims 3 without capital letters, but still many websites claim that you need to type it with capital letters. Could someone explain me if this is true, or if there are more risks for not doing it or so?  Tiezel     (talk)     curious?   15:20, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, no cheats are known to be case-sensitive (maybe except TS1 for console, but I don't remember). Because cheats don't have spaces between word, it might be a little difficult to read them, especially when they're listed like in guides or wiki like this. That's why they're written here with capital letters so you can read each word more easily, like testingCheatsEnabled or restrictBuildBuyInBuildings. So to answer your question... no, cheats are not case-sensitive. Some users tell you to type it with capital letters just to make sure, but it has no difference.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  16:13, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article?  Tiezel     (talk)     curious?   16:19, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought this is a common knowledge though. I don't know, but if you think it's necessary, I've put it on the page.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  16:29, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Fire Glitch
I set one of my Sim's objects on fire. I was randomly messing around forcing errors on the fire, until I ended up deleting the object the fire was burning upon. Now there is a fire burning on itself but it seems to be completely harmless. Buy and Build mode are enabled and the Sims are acting as if the fire isn't there. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 05:32, January 11, 2014 (UTC)


 * The breadfruit tree also suffers this glitch, this time without cheats. If it catches on fire, it will just keep burning and displaying the "Burning Animation". This mod sortof fixes that. K6ka (talk | contrib) | NG Userpage | The Last Stand Wiki | The Sims Wiki | YouTube | Wikipedia 13:56, January 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * That tree is a laughable tree.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  14:15, January 11, 2014 (UTC)

NPC and townie maker
You know...I think that there should be a page on the NPC and townie maker, like there is on the Sim Modder. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 09:09, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't really disagree. However, I've heard the NPC and Townie maker is broken since Apartment Life. K6ka (talk &#124; contrib) 17:36, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone could make it, as long as the content is considerably enough. I think the NPC and Townie Maker has been broken long before Apartment Life. There have been many versions of the fixes, and I can't remember which one actually fixes the object.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  14:32, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * Cyjon made a mod that partially fixes the NPC maker. However, he recommends the townie brick or Inge's teleporter instead. K6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 16:08, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * I was certain I've used either of Cyjon or Argon's mod, but I don't have them anymore in my Downloads folder. I guess I tossed it into recycle bin as soon as I didn't need them anymore at that time. I have Inge's teleporter, but I think it still has limitations. I think it has no options to turn a Sim into one of the social class townies, hobby instructors, or locals? I don't remember.


 * By the way, is the option to turn a Sim into a tourist requires a fix too or not? I recall I've once successfully turned some Sims into some tourist families.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  07:35, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

All those (unnecessary) little things
I'm always questioning this to myself. Do we absolutely need to state every bit of details that are pretty much ignored anyway? "Sim wears hairstyle and outfit as a certain someone," "has the 37th face template," "has the 2nd female elder voice," "has grey eye color but brown when looked in SimPE with green recessive gene," and so on and so forth. That is especially with the addition of "if you don't have EP2 but have EP8, it will result like this." What if that's not the condition? What if my condition is different, e.g. "Have EP7, EP6, but not EP4," "Have EP1, SP5, but not EP6," "Have EP3 only," etc.. What would the result be? Would the result only be absolute if you "have EP8 only ??" I mean, if you have EP8, you will have someone similar to Sarah McCarthy, but otherwise it would be random?

This piece of statement always seems random to me. How absolute are the results anyway? Will the result always be like that no matter what the conditions are? Will anyone notice it anyway? You're not even supposed to summon NPCs that requires EPs you don't have anyway, so expect things that will make the game go awry.

I'm saying this because even though the information is true, some information is just irrelevant and pointless to be stated. There's a reason we don't mention the name of each paint of the walls in the Goth's home because, well, it's completely unnecessary.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  04:42, September 9, 2014 (UTC)


 * While I don't mind them being mentioned in Sim articles, I feel like it's unnecessary to state it here.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  04:49, September 9, 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, the information has got to be put somewhere, and I was running out of potentially right places to put the information. This page was the only potentially right location I had left in mind. I'm not entirely sure where the information should go, but I certainly think it's worth keeping.

I mean, if you have EP8, you will have someone similar to Sarah McCarthy, but otherwise it would be random? I'm pretty sure the result isn't exactly random. I just haven't remembered what happens if you try and summon her without Nightlife and Apartment Life. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 04:54, September 9, 2014 (UTC)

Rename to Testing cheats
I'm proposing that we rename this page to "Testing cheats." The name of the cheat seems to change in each game. For instance, in The Sims 4, the cheat is activated simply by typing "testingcheats on" versus, for example, "boolprop testingcheatsenabled true" for The Sims 2. Giving it a generic name like "testing cheats" will make it easier to write the article without focusing particularly on any game over the other. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 05:52, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed! ~ Waikikamukow  ( Anyone wanna chat? )  08:31, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. I've kept thinking that we should figure out a generic name for this particular cheat. "Testing cheats" seems precise.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  09:15, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * The name change sounds like a good idea. I'm all for it. Beds (talk - blog ) 11:12, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * One thing. Are we going to keep it under plural or singular term? Although "testing cheats" is accurate since the cheat actually enables even more command cheats, remember that it's the same as bills but we renamed it to singular "bill" anyway.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  12:11, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.... that's a good point. In the case of bill/bills, the reason for the rename was because bills can exist in a singular form (i.e., you can have a singular bill, or multiple bills). I think in this case, the proper name for the cheat would actually be "testing cheat." The focus of the article is on only that specific cheat, not on any of the cheats that it enables. If you were also discussing the cheats enabled by this one, then the whole article could be called "testing cheats," since the article would describe more than one cheat. And while the article describes a cheat with multiple names/codes in different games, the cheat itself can be treated as one entity that has been modified between each game, in the same way that "Bella Goth" is "Bella Bachelor" in The Sims 3. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 16:48, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I'll go with "testing cheat."  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  04:38, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm more inclined to say that it should be "Testing cheats" since the code itself has always been referred to in the plural ingame, in addition, I suppose the article describes multiple cheats across multiple games? To me at least testing cheats makes more sense.

Vote
The quickest and easiest way to do this is probably to set it to a vote. Question: Should the name of this article be changed, and if so, what should it be changed to?
 * ''Option 1: Yes, change to "Testing cheat"
 * ''Option 2: Yes, change to "Testing cheats"
 * ''Option 3: Yes, change to another name not already stated
 * ''Option 4: No, do not change the name

At the end of the five-day countdown, if an option has a majority of the vote, it will be selected. If no option has a majority, the top two options will be voted on in an additional five-day voting period. If option 3 is selected, voting will stop while other names are discussed. Countdown: remaining.

Please cast your vote below