| Time |
Nick |
Message |
| 00:39 |
|
whitephoenix joined #minetest-dev |
| 00:47 |
|
torgdor joined #minetest-dev |
| 01:13 |
Hijiri |
do particle spawners get sent to all clients, so that a player too far to see a spawner will see it when he gets close? |
| 01:27 |
hmmmmmm |
paramat: reading through that issue, seems to me like it's a problem with the user's lua code, not the engine. |
| 01:27 |
hmmmmmm |
real life mapgen v6: http://i.imgur.com/Mgemkx0.jpg |
| 01:27 |
|
Tmanyo joined #minetest-dev |
| 01:27 |
hmmmmmm |
hijiri: yes |
| 02:50 |
|
SloanOnLinux joined #minetest-dev |
| 02:57 |
|
Miner_48er joined #minetest-dev |
| 03:03 |
|
Void7 joined #minetest-dev |
| 03:10 |
|
DI3HARD139 joined #minetest-dev |
| 03:19 |
|
STHGOM joined #minetest-dev |
| 03:42 |
|
Void7 joined #minetest-dev |
| 03:53 |
|
SloanOnLinux joined #minetest-dev |
| 04:10 |
|
ElectronLibre joined #minetest-dev |
| 05:09 |
|
Hunterz joined #minetest-dev |
| 05:33 |
|
burli joined #minetest-dev |
| 05:34 |
|
ElectronLibre joined #minetest-dev |
| 05:42 |
|
edgrey joined #minetest-dev |
| 05:43 |
|
edgrey joined #minetest-dev |
| 05:44 |
|
edgrey joined #minetest-dev |
| 06:23 |
|
ssieb joined #minetest-dev |
| 06:54 |
|
nrzkt joined #minetest-dev |
| 07:24 |
|
tenplus1 joined #minetest-dev |
| 07:24 |
tenplus1 |
hi folks |
| 07:24 |
tenplus1 |
pull game#1194 amended |
| 07:24 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/1194 -- Changed door groups to be more like material used by tenplus1 |
| 08:15 |
|
ElectronLibre joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:38 |
|
Krock joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:55 |
tenplus1 |
sapling height check before growing into tree: game#1195 |
| 08:55 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/1195 -- Sapling height check before growth by tenplus1 |
| 09:36 |
|
ElectronLibre joined #minetest-dev |
| 09:53 |
|
Krock joined #minetest-dev |
| 10:24 |
|
ElectronLibre joined #minetest-dev |
| 10:35 |
|
Fixer joined #minetest-dev |
| 10:47 |
|
Zeno` joined #minetest-dev |
| 10:53 |
VanessaE |
[07-14 06:52] <VanessaE> it just occurred to me that perhaps the easiest solution [to the protection issue] is to add a new node def field to saplings that specifies the [height/width/girth] of the fully-grown tree. |
| 10:53 |
VanessaE |
then the growth code could just check those specified values instead of trying to ascertain the tree's size the hard way |
| 10:54 |
tenplus1 |
isnt that overkill for a tree ? |
| 10:54 |
VanessaE |
why so? grown_size = {X, Y, Z} seems pretty simple to me |
| 10:55 |
VanessaE |
growth from the side is an issue also, that's what the discussion was mostly focused on |
| 10:55 |
tenplus1 |
and if ANY of the volume lays within a protected area it wont grow ? |
| 10:55 |
VanessaE |
e.g. a pine or acacia tree is fairly wide |
| 10:55 |
VanessaE |
that was the final decision I believe, yeah |
| 10:55 |
VanessaE |
paramat, *poke* |
| 10:55 |
VanessaE |
(let's see if he's awake and monitoring the log ;) ) |
| 10:56 |
tenplus1 |
so you would have to check each corner of the volume ? |
| 10:56 |
VanessaE |
I think the plan was to check the 6 cardinal sides, rather than the corners. |
| 10:56 |
tenplus1 |
please explain 6 cardinal ? |
| 10:56 |
nore |
hm, the corners would be better imho |
| 10:56 |
VanessaE |
centered above the sapling, below it, and to each of the four sides. |
| 10:57 |
VanessaE |
6 directions from the center of the sapling, rather than 8 corners. |
| 10:57 |
VanessaE |
(well five directions, you don't need to check downward) |
| 10:57 |
tenplus1 |
so you would need to store the player inside sapling metadata to check those |
| 10:57 |
VanessaE |
yes. |
| 10:57 |
VanessaE |
that was the plan. |
| 10:57 |
nore |
VanessaE: yes, but with that it is easy to modify an area owner by a player |
| 10:57 |
VanessaE |
nore: what do you mean? |
| 10:58 |
tenplus1 |
what if tree is large and the 6 cardinals lay outside check ? |
| 10:58 |
nore |
VanessaE: place a sapling in diagonal to the corner |
| 10:58 |
VanessaE |
ah right |
| 10:58 |
VanessaE |
you're right, checking the corners is better. |
| 10:58 |
nore |
whereas with the corners, if the area is a cuboid |
| 10:58 |
tenplus1 |
a house right in the middle of the tree growth will be replaced completely |
| 10:58 |
VanessaE |
but what of my idea to specify the tree's final size (plus some fudge factor) for the purpose of that check? |
| 10:59 |
nore |
the only risk is if some of the dimensionss are completely included inside the size |
| 10:59 |
tenplus1 |
that's why I opted for the line of sight check, from just above sapling to total height of tree... if it finds any block there it doesnt grow... |
| 10:59 |
tenplus1 |
and players tend to protect horizontally around houses to stop anyone from growing right at the sides |
| 10:59 |
nore |
hm, I guess specifying the tree size is indeed a good idea |
| 10:59 |
tenplus1 |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/pull/1195 |
| 10:59 |
VanessaE |
good :) |
| 11:00 |
VanessaE |
for L-system trees you could just specify the maximum height/width/girth a model can ever take |
| 11:00 |
|
ElectronLibre joined #minetest-dev |
| 11:02 |
tenplus1 |
so basically the dimensions are included in sapling, the sapling contains 'placer' name, and if all conditions set to grow it checks each of the 6 (or corners) if it lays within another protected area before growing actual tree ? |
| 11:03 |
VanessaE |
yes, and if it can't grow, the user should be warned |
| 11:03 |
VanessaE |
I think popping the sapling back out as a dropped item is best. |
| 11:03 |
VanessaE |
no one will ever reasonably expect a dropped item to re-plant itself. |
| 11:03 |
tenplus1 |
and if it despawns then they lose the sapling |
| 11:03 |
VanessaE |
oh well! |
| 11:03 |
VanessaE |
sucks to be them if they can't pay attention to where they're planting. |
| 11:03 |
tenplus1 |
how about changing infotext of sapling ? (cannot grow due to protection etc) |
| 11:03 |
VanessaE |
but I meant pop it out on place, |
| 11:04 |
VanessaE |
not when the timer expires. |
| 11:04 |
VanessaE |
infotext isn't a bad idea I guess |
| 11:05 |
tenplus1 |
hover over to see status (growing, cannot grow in protected area, someone pee'd on me) |
| 11:05 |
VanessaE |
if you really wanted to get fancy (and this is the domain of an add-on mod) you could draw a worldedit-like box around the sapling if it won't grow, and additional boxes inside of that showing where the protection conflict is :) |
| 11:06 |
tenplus1 |
right clicking saplign maybe shows growth box (like protector mod) ? |
| 11:06 |
VanessaE |
good idea. also best handled by a mod |
| 11:07 |
VanessaE |
same sort of idea could perhaps be used with other situations where it's easy to get tripped up by protection areas. |
| 11:08 |
tenplus1 |
also, waht if ownership of area changes hand and the saplings are all named to the original owner... would they even know to replace them all again ? |
| 11:09 |
VanessaE |
that's a corner case best ignored, I think. |
| 11:10 |
VanessaE |
changing ownership of an area is so uncommon that it's really not worth trying to code in a special case for it. |
| 11:11 |
tenplus1 |
thing is, we cant ignore that... I have players who build for other users then pass protection over... farms, tree farms etc... which under latest changes dont grow for up to 2-4 minetest days... I'm having many complaints over tree's themselvesd |
| 11:11 |
tenplus1 |
adding further complications and checks for somethign as simple as a tree is going to annoy players more |
| 11:12 |
VanessaE |
well the thing is, how's the tree/code going to know that ownership has changed? |
| 11:12 |
VanessaE |
the only way that can be reasonably handled is for the protection mod to do it. |
| 11:12 |
VanessaE |
i.e. have it check all around the protected zone for saplings owned by whoever's handing off their area. |
| 11:13 |
tenplus1 |
further complicating sapling growth code... K.I.S.S. is required here |
| 11:13 |
VanessaE |
exactly. |
| 11:14 |
VanessaE |
place sapling -> checks owner -> checks corners -> either it's planted or denied with a message. on growth, check ownership and corners, either pop out as an item if it fails or use infotext. |
| 11:14 |
VanessaE |
let the protection mod handle corner cases like area ownership changes. |
| 11:20 |
|
SloanOnLinux joined #minetest-dev |
| 11:30 |
|
edgrey joined #minetest-dev |
| 11:30 |
|
Fixer joined #minetest-dev |
| 11:32 |
VanessaE |
nore: done coding it yet? :D |
| 11:32 |
nore |
VanessaE: I'm at work :P |
| 11:32 |
VanessaE |
only kidding anyway :) |
| 11:35 |
tenplus1 |
I do like the idea of storing tree dimensions in the sapling node though |
| 11:35 |
VanessaE |
if you store them as a node def property, then they'll "just work" for everything already planted. |
| 11:36 |
VanessaE |
(at which point only ownership of old saplings is an issue, and we covered that already) |
| 11:42 |
|
ElectronLibre joined #minetest-dev |
| 11:49 |
tenplus1 |
will use that idea and add 'grown_height' to saplings for los checks :) see how well it works |
| 12:06 |
|
paramat joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:07 |
tenplus1 |
hi paramat |
| 12:08 |
paramat |
nore any comments on game#1194 ? |
| 12:08 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/1194 -- Changed door groups to be more like material used by tenplus1 |
| 12:08 |
paramat |
hello |
| 12:10 |
VanessaE |
I guess he wasn't paying attention to the log. :) |
| 12:10 |
tenplus1 |
lol |
| 12:10 |
paramat |
sapling placer doesn't need to be stored http://irc.minetest.ru/minetest-dev/2016-07-12#i_4649037 |
| 12:10 |
paramat |
well i just woke up and read it |
| 12:12 |
VanessaE |
ah right, I forgot about that part of the convo. |
| 12:12 |
paramat |
either check all nodes (if fast enough) or just some corners |
| 12:12 |
VanessaE |
paramat: what about my idea of hard-coding the max size of the tree as a node def property? |
| 12:12 |
paramat |
oh yeah, possibly good |
| 12:13 |
VanessaE |
ok. |
| 12:13 |
paramat |
but we know that already it will be coded into the volume check |
| 12:13 |
paramat |
so may be redundant |
| 12:13 |
VanessaE |
nonono |
| 12:13 |
|
STHGOM joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:13 |
VanessaE |
the point of it is to avoid the volume test entirely. |
| 12:14 |
paramat |
you mean just check corners? |
| 12:14 |
VanessaE |
yeah |
| 12:14 |
paramat |
yeah |
| 12:14 |
VanessaE |
use the hard-coded size to perform a corners-only check and forget the whole all-nodes test or trying to calculate the actual size. |
| 12:14 |
paramat |
seems good |
| 12:16 |
paramat |
it may need a few more ponts checked, like tree centre and lower corners etc |
| 12:16 |
VanessaE |
lower corners were implied :) |
| 12:16 |
VanessaE |
check all 8 corners, maybe the five faces excluding -Y if you're really paranoid :) |
| 12:17 |
|
edgrey joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:17 |
paramat |
maybe all 8 plus 1 central or something |
| 12:17 |
VanessaE |
yeah |
| 12:17 |
VanessaE |
anything more than that is overkill |
| 12:18 |
VanessaE |
and if the size of the tree is not perfect, it's a small matter to bump up the size specified in the sapling's node def. |
| 12:18 |
VanessaE |
(that way you can add some fudge factor, like to account for a bit of air space around the tree) |
| 12:19 |
paramat |
yes good |
| 12:19 |
|
proller joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:20 |
paramat |
est suggests a fast all-nodes check API may be possible, but until that arrives we could try this simpler way |
| 12:20 |
paramat |
i don't consider all-nodes check essential |
| 12:22 |
VanessaE |
yeah in retrospect I don't see a great need for it. |
| 12:22 |
VanessaE |
all that aside, another point was raised: |
| 12:23 |
VanessaE |
do a line-of-sight check between the sapling and the projected height of the tree (also I'd do the same for all 8 corners), and refuse to grow if there's an obstruction. |
| 12:26 |
VanessaE |
(I can't imagine this would be particularly cheap, but shouldn't be TOO expensive either) |
| 12:26 |
tenplus1 |
game#1195 |
| 12:26 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/1195 -- Sapling height check before growth by tenplus1 |
| 12:26 |
paramat |
hm |
| 12:26 |
VanessaE |
actually, line-of-sight just to the upper four corners, center, and top center. |
| 12:27 |
VanessaE |
you wouldn't want to check the lower corners, because that would stop someone from say planting a sapling right next to a bench for later. |
| 12:27 |
VanessaE |
(a perfectly safe operation since there are no leaves for the first few meters' height) |
| 12:27 |
paramat |
working upwards with checks every 2, 3, or 4 nodes perhaps |
| 12:27 |
paramat |
instead of every node |
| 12:27 |
VanessaE |
that might do. |
| 12:27 |
VanessaE |
it doesn't have to be perfect. |
| 12:28 |
paramat |
how small can protected areas get in common use? |
| 12:28 |
VanessaE |
in common use, as narrow as a few meters. |
| 12:28 |
VanessaE |
roads for example. |
| 12:29 |
VanessaE |
I've done areas that were like 3x3 meters wide, and hundreds tall |
| 12:29 |
VanessaE |
(like "fast drop to the bottom" mine shafts) |
| 12:31 |
VanessaE |
I think the smallest protected space I've seen was 3 or 4 nodes' worth, a street sign and its signpost |
| 12:32 |
paramat |
then i think check every 4 nodes is enough, that could miss a 3x3x3 volume but only very rarely |
| 12:33 |
VanessaE |
seems fair |
| 12:34 |
VanessaE |
once this goes live, for moretrees, I'll probably just do 8-corner checks and maybe line of sight to the upper four. |
| 12:34 |
VanessaE |
maybe you could make a generic API call that I could use? :) |
| 12:36 |
paramat |
possibly a good idea |
| 12:36 |
VanessaE |
note this for the record, people: paramat and I finally agreed on something from the first try :D |
| 12:41 |
tenplus1 |
lol |
| 12:42 |
tenplus1 |
I tried the node setting for tree height for ethereal and it works well vanessa :) |
| 12:43 |
VanessaE |
it's a good start :) |
| 12:43 |
VanessaE |
but trees aren't tall, thin poles :) |
| 12:43 |
VanessaE |
(well at least other than poplars and certain cypresses) |
| 12:46 |
tenplus1 |
paramat: changed game#1194 |
| 12:46 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/1194 -- Changed door groups to be more like material used by tenplus1 |
| 12:50 |
paramat |
yeah i saw +1 |
| 12:51 |
tenplus1 |
kewl :) |
| 12:59 |
paramat |
reading project channel i can see how essential this is now (shara's experience) |
| 13:01 |
paramat |
so i might code a prototype check soon, maybe later it can be improved with new APIs |
| 13:07 |
|
proller joined #minetest-dev |
| 13:35 |
tenplus1 |
is anyone looking into this particulat feature by any chance ?? #4215 |
| 13:35 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/4215 -- Lit Particle Effects. |
| 13:44 |
|
paramat left #minetest-dev |
| 14:01 |
everamzah |
#4317 |
| 14:01 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/4317 -- Documentation for checkbox[] incorrect |
| 14:04 |
Krock |
either the documentation is wrong or the parseCheckbox is incomplete |
| 14:05 |
everamzah |
i'll do a pr to fix the doc, but hopefully parseCheckbox could be fixed to match the doc instead |
| 14:05 |
Krock |
add a pull to make parseCheckbox complete :) |
| 14:05 |
everamzah |
like the f i could do that |
| 14:05 |
everamzah |
why is it easy? |
| 14:07 |
Krock |
oh wait. it's a documentation error because it's possible to add a tooltip to any element with tooltip[ |
| 14:08 |
|
ElectronLibre joined #minetest-dev |
| 14:09 |
|
nrzkt joined #minetest-dev |
| 14:14 |
|
ptv joined #minetest-dev |
| 14:23 |
|
whitephoenix joined #minetest-dev |
| 14:48 |
|
Void7 joined #minetest-dev |
| 14:50 |
|
tenplus1 left #minetest-dev |
| 14:54 |
|
lisac joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:05 |
|
ElectronLibre joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:07 |
|
whitephoenix0 joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:10 |
|
hmmmm joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:12 |
|
edgrey joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:26 |
|
proller joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:28 |
|
whitephoenix joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:28 |
|
T4im joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:43 |
|
proller joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:07 |
|
Void7 joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:08 |
|
Hunterz joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:18 |
|
rubenwardy joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:06 |
|
whitephoenix joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:08 |
|
whitephoenix joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:20 |
|
sofar joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:49 |
|
ssieb joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:55 |
|
paramat joined #minetest-dev |
| 18:07 |
|
Void7 joined #minetest-dev |
| 18:07 |
|
davisonio joined #minetest-dev |
| 18:10 |
paramat |
nore sofar any opinion on game#1190 ? (once the readme is done < rubenwardy) |
| 18:10 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/1190 -- Move Nyancats into a separate mod by rubenwardy |
| 18:11 |
paramat |
also game#1194 ? |
| 18:11 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/1194 -- Changed door groups to be more like material used by tenplus1 |
| 18:20 |
paramat |
also game#1164 |
| 18:20 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/1164 -- Variable and Value cleanup to prepare CI-Linting by t4im |
| 18:20 |
|
twoelk joined #minetest-dev |
| 18:25 |
paramat |
hopefully i can merge some of those later along with game 1191 |
| 18:25 |
twoelk |
-but trees aren't tall, thin poles- , ever seen the bambus biomes on Xanadu? |
| 18:27 |
|
proller joined #minetest-dev |
| 18:32 |
paramat |
yeah we have a proper check planned which checks the edges too |
| 18:54 |
|
damiel_ joined #minetest-dev |
| 18:56 |
|
Gael-de-Sailly joined #minetest-dev |
| 19:11 |
|
Tmanyo joined #minetest-dev |
| 19:47 |
|
troller joined #minetest-dev |
| 19:52 |
|
srifqi joined #minetest-dev |
| 20:09 |
|
davisonio joined #minetest-dev |
| 20:26 |
|
davisonio joined #minetest-dev |
| 20:40 |
|
Void7 joined #minetest-dev |
| 20:47 |
|
davisonio joined #minetest-dev |
| 20:48 |
|
Warr1024_ joined #minetest-dev |
| 20:49 |
|
DI3HARD139 joined #minetest-dev |
| 21:43 |
|
davisonio joined #minetest-dev |
| 21:46 |
|
edgrey joined #minetest-dev |
| 22:15 |
|
davisonio joined #minetest-dev |
| 22:48 |
|
Void7 joined #minetest-dev |
| 22:59 |
|
whitephoenix joined #minetest-dev |
| 23:03 |
|
TheReaperKing joined #minetest-dev |
| 23:05 |
|
paramat left #minetest-dev |
| 23:12 |
|
Calinou joined #minetest-dev |
