| Time |
Nick |
Message |
| 00:05 |
BillyS |
I'm back with more packets :P |
| 00:05 |
BillyS |
Trying to figure out the TOSERVER_INIT |
| 00:07 |
BillyS |
I can't figure out what parts are what though |
| 00:07 |
BillyS |
I know the form of it |
| 00:07 |
BillyS |
But I can't figure out where one part ends and another starts |
| 00:35 |
|
benrob0329 joined #minetest-hub |
| 00:40 |
BillyS |
I'm missing something here; I know that much ... |
| 01:11 |
rdococ |
WTFUYGPL: Do whatever you want with it, unless you're Google. |
| 01:21 |
|
sniper338 joined #minetest-hub |
| 01:22 |
|
twoelk left #minetest-hub |
| 04:35 |
|
FrostRanger joined #minetest-hub |
| 07:10 |
|
CWz joined #minetest-hub |
| 09:12 |
|
jas_ joined #minetest-hub |
| 10:41 |
rubenwardy |
https://i.rubenwardy.com/iJ8Zd.png |
| 10:48 |
|
Ruslan1 joined #minetest-hub |
| 11:01 |
|
Fixer joined #minetest-hub |
| 11:07 |
|
Fixer_ joined #minetest-hub |
| 11:37 |
|
calcul0n joined #minetest-hub |
| 12:03 |
|
IhrFussel joined #minetest-hub |
| 12:03 |
IhrFussel |
Is it a guest restriction or can the MT forum actually really not link you directly to the page of the search results? Like when I search for a term I only get linked to the general topic of where it was mentioned |
| 12:04 |
rubenwardy |
search posts, not topics |
| 12:05 |
IhrFussel |
Ah thanks...that makes more sense now |
| 12:20 |
|
T4im joined #minetest-hub |
| 12:47 |
|
aerozoic joined #minetest-hub |
| 13:24 |
|
_Xenon joined #minetest-hub |
| 13:27 |
|
Jordach joined #minetest-hub |
| 13:54 |
|
Fixer joined #minetest-hub |
| 13:55 |
shivajiva |
I'd like to publicly thank rubenwardy and Shara for their efforts promoting minetest at the recent Freenode Live event for the second year running. The minetest community is indebted to your efforts and behalf of us all thank you both :D |
| 14:27 |
|
Gael-de-Sailly joined #minetest-hub |
| 14:46 |
|
Jordach joined #minetest-hub |
| 14:54 |
|
jas_ joined #minetest-hub |
| 15:56 |
|
Jordach joined #minetest-hub |
| 16:09 |
|
aerozoic_ joined #minetest-hub |
| 16:10 |
|
aerozoic__ joined #minetest-hub |
| 16:15 |
|
aerozoic_ joined #minetest-hub |
| 16:20 |
|
aerozoic__ joined #minetest-hub |
| 16:25 |
|
aerozoic_ joined #minetest-hub |
| 16:30 |
rubenwardy |
shivajiva: thanks :) |
| 16:30 |
|
aerozoic__ joined #minetest-hub |
| 16:33 |
|
garywhite joined #minetest-hub |
| 16:34 |
|
MinetestBot joined #minetest-hub |
| 16:35 |
|
aerozoic_ joined #minetest-hub |
| 16:40 |
|
aerozoic__ joined #minetest-hub |
| 16:42 |
|
GreenDimond joined #minetest-hub |
| 16:42 |
GreenDimond |
So I did a register_decoration (copied it from kelp and modified it) but nothing is generating |
| 16:44 |
GreenDimond |
https://gist.github.com/GreenXenith/d61bb7a37718ae4895dd0abb9f2d42a8 |
| 16:46 |
|
aerozoic_ joined #minetest-hub |
| 16:51 |
|
aerozoic__ joined #minetest-hub |
| 16:56 |
|
aerozoic joined #minetest-hub |
| 16:58 |
Jordach |
GreenDimond: check engine version |
| 17:01 |
shivajiva |
you using a v7 map? |
| 17:01 |
GreenDimond |
Using a v7 map with 5.0 |
| 17:05 |
GreenDimond |
ill update my copy jic |
| 17:07 |
|
aerozoic joined #minetest-hub |
| 17:08 |
GreenDimond |
yeah still nada |
| 17:11 |
GreenDimond |
kelp spawns just fine |
| 17:32 |
garywhite |
GreenDimond: Is your server live? |
| 17:34 |
GreenDimond |
What? |
| 17:35 |
GreenDimond |
garywhite: Wth does that have to do with registering decorations? |
| 17:36 |
rubenwardy |
probably nothing? |
| 17:36 |
rubenwardy |
!server green |
| 17:36 |
MinetestBot |
rubenwardy: No results |
| 17:36 |
rubenwardy |
oh wait, do you have a server? |
| 17:36 |
GreenDimond |
No |
| 17:36 |
GreenDimond |
Thats why im confused |
| 17:38 |
Fixer |
f--- |
| 17:38 |
Fixer |
left mouse button have died |
| 17:38 |
Fixer |
kinda |
| 17:41 |
garywhite |
I was just wondering cause 5.0 is not a good idea rn if you want to get any players |
| 17:41 |
|
Krock joined #minetest-hub |
| 17:41 |
* garywhite |
is now realizing how offtopic his comment was & fades out |
| 17:48 |
rubenwardy |
it's a good idea if you're making a game, garywhite |
| 17:48 |
rubenwardy |
by the time you finish the game, MTv5 will be out |
| 17:50 |
Krock |
(so please finish it soon) |
| 17:52 |
GreenDimond |
Well I aint making a game :P |
| 17:56 |
rubenwardy |
dooo ittt |
| 17:56 |
Krock |
ineeeedit |
| 18:00 |
IhrFussel |
No server that values playerbase will upgrade to 5.0.0 at release...you can also just shutdown entirely |
| 18:02 |
Krock |
Guide How To Start A Long Discussion Now: |
| 18:02 |
IhrFussel |
First hope that many people will find "Minetest" on the playstore since the 3rd-party apps don't intend to upgrade at release the official MT app will be the only way (it seems) to connect to 5.0.0 servers on Android ... 2. Accept that you lose iOS playerbase for now 3. Pray that the casuals decide to check for a new MT version on PC |
| 18:02 |
Krock |
> Just drop these low quality players and improve the quality of your server |
| 18:03 |
Krock |
Let's see whether it works :D |
| 18:04 |
|
benrob0329 joined #minetest-hub |
| 18:04 |
IhrFussel |
Face the fact that ~ 85% (or even 90%?) play on phones/tablets according to latest MT stats |
| 18:06 |
|
DI3HARD139 joined #minetest-hub |
| 18:06 |
IhrFussel |
The device you play on doesn't determine the build quality... some mobile users can build more creative than most PC veterans |
| 18:06 |
GreenDimond |
^ |
| 18:07 |
IhrFussel |
Also (already mentioned by someone in the past) -> Not every server needs good builders... what a server needs depends on the theme/mods it uses |
| 18:07 |
sfan5 |
you're misinterpresting correlation for causation |
| 18:08 |
Krock |
aren't the server list stats per-hit, rather than per IP? |
| 18:10 |
Krock |
yeah, looks like it. |
| 18:11 |
rubenwardy |
Could just turn off the server list for 0.4.x |
| 18:11 |
rubenwardy |
Players would leave unofficial apps fast |
| 18:11 |
Krock |
>:D |
| 18:11 |
rubenwardy |
(:< |
| 18:12 |
Krock |
that's one of the most evil but genius ideas here |
| 18:13 |
rubenwardy |
Occasionally, I can provide |
| 18:13 |
rubenwardy |
Being more serious: this is what a proprietary system would do |
| 18:13 |
rubenwardy |
Forced updates |
| 18:14 |
rubenwardy |
Tbh, a lazy app developer would just make their own server list |
| 18:14 |
Krock |
Don't worry, people only use it because it's needed for advanced production software and some games |
| 18:14 |
Krock |
^ "it" = the "Forced updates" system |
| 18:19 |
sofar |
rubenwardy: idea |
| 18:19 |
rubenwardy |
Oh no |
| 18:19 |
sofar |
rubenwardy: do not turn off the server list for 0.4.x, instead, put ONE server in it that has all the info for players to figure out what to do |
| 18:20 |
GreenDimond |
Why not just replace the server list with the info |
| 18:20 |
GreenDimond |
Oh right |
| 18:20 |
sofar |
static world with no edit privs, shows player why they see it etc. |
| 18:21 |
GreenDimond |
Because the servers in the list are the only part you can control without the client updating |
| 18:27 |
Krock |
Servers for 0.4.x clients: "Update to" "Minetest 5.0" "now, get it" "from the Appstore" "or the official" "website. kthxbai" |
| 18:29 |
sofar |
something like that, and direct all those to an actually running MT server where they can see further instructions (screenshots) after they log in |
| 18:29 |
sofar |
shouldn't be too hard to do :) |
| 18:29 |
sofar |
just make a skybox with screenshots and remove everything from the world |
| 18:39 |
garywhite |
That reminds me of a question: Does anyone have any idea as to the timeline for 5.0? Cause based on the usual release cycle it'd be in December, I think |
| 18:40 |
rubenwardy |
About there |
| 18:40 |
rubenwardy |
Depends on blockers |
| 18:40 |
GreenDimond |
plz get the set_sky and pitch/roll PRs merged |
| 18:40 |
GreenDimond |
plz |
| 18:45 |
GreenDimond |
oh and https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/6986 might be nice |
| 18:45 |
Krock |
PRs welcome |
| 18:46 |
GreenDimond |
I dont know C++ or I totally would |
| 18:51 |
Shara |
In case anyone here can solve it... I'm having issues with on_place when trying to capture the position a node is placed in |
| 18:52 |
Shara |
It can capture pointed_thing, but I could either be pointing at a buildable to node, or to a node at it's side... so pointed_thing won't always give the correct pos |
| 18:52 |
|
FrostRanger joined #minetest-hub |
| 18:53 |
Shara |
It feels like this is a thing that should be easily solvable but... drawing blanks |
| 18:53 |
T4im |
what do you mean correct pos? |
| 18:54 |
T4im |
switching above and under perhaps? |
| 18:54 |
Shara |
Okay, summary: |
| 18:54 |
Shara |
When placing grass I want to check if there is already a grass node in that position |
| 18:54 |
T4im |
yes, depending on whether you are pointing at the grass node itself or the node the grass is placed upon it might be either under or above of pointed thing |
| 18:55 |
Shara |
So I can point at the grass and check pointed_thing.under |
| 18:55 |
T4im |
yea |
| 18:55 |
Shara |
But if there is a node to the side that I target instead, suddenly I'd need pointed_thing.above |
| 18:55 |
Shara |
What I want is just to get the pos where I'll be placing the node, no matter where I'm pointing |
| 18:56 |
T4im |
well, that logic is happening inside of on_place; if you replace that funciton you will have to do the whole shebang yourself |
| 18:56 |
T4im |
if you want to avoid it, use after_place_node if you can |
| 18:56 |
T4im |
consider on_place a "low level" hook |
| 18:56 |
Shara |
That's after the node is actually placed though, which as far as I'm aware means it's, well, placed |
| 18:57 |
Shara |
And that defeats the whole purpose since I'm trying to prevent placement under certain conditions |
| 18:57 |
T4im |
alternatively try to call the default on_place from inside your own on_place |
| 18:57 |
T4im |
hmm |
| 18:57 |
Shara |
I really don't want to roll my own here. |
| 18:57 |
Shara |
I guess I am mostly curious why on_place is lacking the ability to capture something so basic |
| 18:57 |
T4im |
because it's a low level method |
| 18:58 |
T4im |
:D |
| 18:58 |
Shara |
Heh, kind of a non-answer really |
| 18:58 |
T4im |
there might be a need for a can_place perhaps |
| 18:58 |
T4im |
it might cover a bunch of use cases where people would otherwise roll their own on_place |
| 18:59 |
Shara |
Well, it's mainly to prevent placing grass on grass and losing grass (because buildable to) |
| 18:59 |
Shara |
But also because when using random plant placement on_place, it would stopt he plant randomly switching from what it was |
| 18:59 |
Shara |
It's a pretty minor thing really, but has been bugging me |
| 19:00 |
T4im |
hehe, yea |
| 19:01 |
BillyS |
meep! |
| 19:01 |
BillyS |
Hi everyone |
| 19:02 |
T4im |
well, check pointed_thing under, if it is self, abort, if it is buildable_to, pass to the default on_place, otherwise check above, if that is self abort again, otherwise just pass to the default placement function, that way you don't need to handle any actual placement, shift-pass-through, protection, etc |
| 19:03 |
T4im |
self, since you probably don't just want to do that with grass but also flowers :p |
| 19:03 |
Shara |
But you end up with weird situations where something can or can't be placed when it should/should not be |
| 19:04 |
T4im |
like what? |
| 19:04 |
T4im |
or practically only added 2 abort scenarios there and in all others pass through to the default |
| 19:05 |
T4im |
which sounded like what you wanted :) |
| 19:05 |
Shara |
Because how do we ever know which position was the one that needed to be checked? |
| 19:05 |
T4im |
you wouldn't need to know.. what for? |
| 19:06 |
Shara |
Feels like you are going to get false positives when checking |
| 19:06 |
Krock |
meep BillyS |
| 19:06 |
T4im |
you check under for buildable_to, which covers the replacement of buildable to scenario (in which case you either pass further or abort if you'd replace self) |
| 19:07 |
T4im |
and then you handle the rest |
| 19:07 |
BillyS |
meep Krock |
| 19:07 |
BillyS |
Trying to figure out MT packet code |
| 19:07 |
T4im |
think of pointed_thing.above to be the default placement, that is you place something on top of the face you are pointing at |
| 19:08 |
Shara |
Yes, though here the default is more likely to be .under |
| 19:08 |
T4im |
but then there is the exception case where you pointed at something that you can build to... something buildable_to, so you need to prefix a test for that scenario in which you would replace the thing you point at |
| 19:08 |
BillyS |
To quote VE quoting a modified quote of someone else: "If you think you understand MineTest networking, you don’t understand MineTest networking." |
| 19:08 |
Krock |
regarding buildable_to, this would be the relevant built-in code called by a default on_place https://github.com/minetest/minetest/blob/master/builtin/game/item.lua#L289 |
| 19:08 |
IhrFussel |
One can also always use minetest.remove_node() in any callback...the visual effect should be the same if placing it not allowed |
| 19:08 |
Krock |
BillyS: not quite true |
| 19:08 |
IhrFussel |
is* |
| 19:08 |
BillyS |
Krock: Okay, maybe celeron understands it. :P |
| 19:08 |
Krock |
remove_node sounds dangerous if there was something else in the same spot |
| 19:09 |
T4im |
Shara: practically i don't see a way for false positives there, because you are doing both possible cases and add an exception to each to them |
| 19:09 |
Krock |
BillyS: I don't find the packet structure too complicated, you might also want to ask nerzhul for more connection-based questions |
| 19:09 |
Shara |
It all feels rather messy when all I want is to check the pos I'm actually trying to place a thing on |
| 19:09 |
T4im |
but that pos isn't known until you checked for buildable_to |
| 19:10 |
T4im |
buildable_to *defines* the position |
| 19:10 |
Krock |
^ |
| 19:10 |
BillyS |
Krock: Yeah, the structure isn't that complicated. I'm just trying to figure out how to parse the actual data the packets contain |
| 19:10 |
Shara |
Well, buildable_to isn't always going to be relevant in this case either |
| 19:10 |
T4im |
it is, because it tells you if you want above or under |
| 19:10 |
Shara |
I'll poke it some more at some point though |
| 19:10 |
T4im |
it is *always* relevans |
| 19:10 |
T4im |
relevant* |
| 19:11 |
Krock |
*waits inactively for 1 hour to see whether Shara noticed that it will be relevant* |
| 19:11 |
T4im |
haha |
| 19:12 |
T4im |
think about grass for a second as if it was a solid block like dirt.. you can place something on top of that grass by using above |
| 19:13 |
T4im |
but now you actually don't want that, you want to replace things like that, that aren't considered solid, but replaceable |
| 19:13 |
T4im |
so you introduce a flag, lets call it buildable_to |
| 19:13 |
Shara |
You're trying to solve a slightly different problem from mine from what I see |
| 19:14 |
T4im |
no i'm trying to explain the idea behing above/under and why it is necessary to check buildable_to, and then in both these cases add grass or the flower as the exception in which you don't pass to the default on_place function |
| 19:14 |
Shara |
Yes, and for a slightly different problem than mine that would work |
| 19:14 |
|
Andrey01 joined #minetest-hub |
| 19:14 |
Shara |
What you actually seem to want is an excuse to belittle and "haha" at me. |
| 19:15 |
T4im |
maybe i missunderstood your problem then |
| 19:15 |
T4im |
no |
| 19:15 |
Shara |
Well I haven't gone into much depth because I mostly wanted to check if I was missing something that would just easily give me the position |
| 19:15 |
T4im |
pardon me, if i get over condescending, that is by no means my intention |
| 19:15 |
Andrey01 |
hi, is there any way to check whether is this area loaded where a player is being? |
| 19:15 |
T4im |
yes, buildable_to does |
| 19:15 |
GreenDimond |
If a player is in it, it is loaded, Andrey01. |
| 19:17 |
T4im |
there might be a utility function around that does the same thing somewhere |
| 19:18 |
T4im |
the problem with that code is that it will become annoyingly verbose, because of all the "is this defined or content_ignore?" checks |
| 19:18 |
T4im |
but i don't think that you'll get around that |
| 19:19 |
Andrey01 |
just if in minetest.register_on_joinplayer() call minetest.get_node(pos).name ("pos" is some known coordinates of a node near a player that has just joined) it will give "ignore" |
| 19:20 |
T4im |
Andrey01: ignore means in that case indeed, that the area is not loaded |
| 19:20 |
T4im |
node_or_nil would return nil in that same case |
| 19:21 |
IhrFussel |
Andrey01, put the check inside minetest.after() |
| 19:21 |
T4im |
yes ^ that should work |
| 19:22 |
* T4im |
missed the actual problem there :x |
| 19:22 |
IhrFussel |
minetest.after(0,functionname) I think... 0 should be enough |
| 19:22 |
Andrey01 |
ok |
| 19:22 |
IhrFussel |
It means it waits exactly 1 server step |
| 19:25 |
T4im |
Shara: well, i'm sorry, could certainly have handled all of that better, i hope you can forgive me :) |
| 19:51 |
IhrFussel |
Andrey01, let us know if it worked |
| 21:41 |
|
garywhite joined #minetest-hub |
| 21:45 |
|
Ruslan1 joined #minetest-hub |
| 21:58 |
|
Jordach_ joined #minetest-hub |
| 23:39 |
|
Gael-de-Sailly joined #minetest-hub |
