| Time |
Nick |
Message |
| 00:00 |
|
specing_ joined #minetest |
| 01:56 |
|
est31 joined #minetest |
| 02:10 |
MTDiscord |
<exe_virus> Oh that was a different testing I promised to Xenith, my bad. What do you want me to benchmark for you? I could show you my lua processing times for boxgen, it's very compute intensive and will demo the differences starkly haha |
| 02:10 |
MTDiscord |
<exe_virus> I can show luaJIT vs PUClua5.1 vs luaJIT with JIT off, and lua 5.4 if desired |
| 02:11 |
MTDiscord |
<Jonathon> see ping in #modding |
| 02:12 |
MTDiscord |
<exe_virus> kk, I'm caught up, Give me a bit here to get that typed up |
| 02:12 |
MTDiscord |
<Jonathon> ty |
| 02:27 |
MTDiscord |
<exe_virus> Here's my test program I'm using so far. It's bad because os.time() is only accurate to seconds, does provide some info though: lua a = {"one", "two", "three", "four", "five", "six", "seven", "eight", "nine", "ten"} local time = os.time() b = {} c = 0 for i=0, 5000000, 1 do for i, v in pairs(a) do b[i] = v end end print("Pairs executed in " .. os.time()-time .. " seconds.") time = os.time() for i=0, 5000000, 1 do for |
| 02:27 |
MTDiscord |
i, v in ipairs(a) do b[i] = v end end print("IPairs executed in " .. os.time()-time .. " seconds.") time = os.time() for i=0, 5000000, 1 do for i=1, #a, 1 do b[i] = a[i] end end print("Indexing executed in " .. os.time()-time .. " seconds.") |
| 02:38 |
MTDiscord |
<exe_virus> For PUClua 5.1, That resulted in: 2 seconds for pairs() 4 seconds for ipairs() 2 seconds for indexing() For luaJIT that resulted in: 0 seconds for all.... So I took the for-loop max variable size and increased it by a factor of ten for each, resulting in: 1 seconds for ipairs() 5-6 seconds on average for pairs() 1 seconds for indexing. I am testing luaJIT again to compare indexing to ipairs better now |
| 02:40 |
MTDiscord |
<exe_virus> Scaling up another factor of ten, indexing was 12 seconds and ipairs was 12 seconds, but realize my method of access is probably less than ideal using indexing. Often indexing is fastest on luaJIT. roughly 5-10% gains in my experience. Now for PUClua 5.4 |
| 02:40 |
MTDiscord |
<exe_virus> and luaJIT in interperter only mode |
| 02:52 |
MTDiscord |
<exe_virus> For luaJIT in interpreter only mode with the same setup as PUClua 5.1, I got: Pairs(): 0 seconds |
| 02:52 |
MTDiscord |
<exe_virus> IPairs executed in 1 seconds. Indexing executed in 0 seconds. |
| 02:53 |
MTDiscord |
<exe_virus> so much faster than PUC lua in all regards, same relative relationships |
| 02:56 |
MTDiscord |
<exe_virus> Finally, results from PUClua 5.4: Pairs executed in 2 seconds. IPairs executed in 2 seconds. Indexing executed in 1 seconds. |
| 02:57 |
MTDiscord |
<exe_virus> @wsor, user of things Based on my tests, yeah luaJIT still kicks butt in either interpreted mode or JIT mode. Pairs is better for interpreters for speed, but you also don't have nicely sorted output. |
| 02:57 |
MTDiscord |
<exe_virus> It also shows that indexing is likely better on PUC lua in general |
| 02:58 |
MTDiscord |
<Jonathon> thank you |
| 03:00 |
|
Surfer2011_ joined #minetest |
| 03:36 |
|
nuala2 joined #minetest |
| 03:43 |
|
PjotrOrial joined #minetest |
| 03:43 |
|
PjotrOrial joined #minetest |
| 04:00 |
|
MTDiscord joined #minetest |
| 05:10 |
|
delta23 joined #minetest |
| 05:20 |
|
proller joined #minetest |
| 05:43 |
|
Flabb joined #minetest |
| 05:46 |
|
illwieckz joined #minetest |
| 06:42 |
MiniontobyPI |
hey |
| 07:42 |
|
hlqkj joined #minetest |
| 08:00 |
|
ShadowNinja joined #minetest |
| 08:11 |
MiniontobyPI |
hey |
| 08:17 |
MiniontobyPI |
how to resize a picture for a hud image |
| 08:21 |
|
Lunatrius joined #minetest |
| 08:21 |
MiniontobyPI |
like this |
| 08:21 |
MiniontobyPI |
[combine:8x8:-8,-8=character.png |
| 08:21 |
MiniontobyPI |
how to do this for an hud image |
| 08:23 |
|
hlqkj_ joined #minetest |
| 08:31 |
|
FeXoR joined #minetest |
| 08:38 |
|
calcul0n joined #minetest |
| 08:43 |
|
Taoki joined #minetest |
| 08:53 |
MiniontobyPI |
can someone help me? |
| 09:12 |
|
SwissalpS joined #minetest |
| 09:30 |
|
Fixer joined #minetest |
| 09:50 |
|
entuland joined #minetest |
| 09:54 |
|
proller joined #minetest |
| 10:11 |
entuland |
MiniontobyPI: reading the API seems like there are fields you can pass to decide the scale, there shouldn't be any need to use those image filters |
| 10:11 |
MiniontobyPI |
hmmm |
| 10:11 |
MiniontobyPI |
sad |
| 10:12 |
entuland |
why sad? doesn't matter how you achieve it, the point is achieving it, no? |
| 10:16 |
MiniontobyPI |
idk how |
| 10:31 |
whosit |
found a cause for some broken recipies in mods: empty fields in recipies (now?) are treated same as skipping them? |
| 10:31 |
whosit |
so {"mymod:diamond_fragments", "", ""}, is equivalent to {"mymod:diamond_fragments"} |
| 10:32 |
whosit |
but modding book says that empty fields must also be matched for recipie to work |
| 10:32 |
whosit |
this breakes recipies like this: |
| 10:32 |
whosit |
https://github.com/runsy/jonez/blob/master/init.lua#L277 |
| 10:33 |
whosit |
for palace_window_top and palace_window_bottom |
| 10:33 |
whosit |
since "" are just thrown away, those recipies are conflicting |
| 10:33 |
whosit |
when this change has happened? is it a bug? |
| 10:53 |
|
riff-IRC joined #minetest |
| 11:09 |
|
basxto joined #minetest |
| 11:13 |
MTDiscord |
<entuland> there is a ton of such recipes leveraging on partial use of the crafting grid, if those empty strings were ignored, lots of default minetest recipes would either stop working or work in different ways |
| 11:13 |
MTDiscord |
<entuland> say, the simple torch |
| 11:13 |
MTDiscord |
<entuland> are you sure that is the exact spot of the problem? |
| 11:18 |
whosit |
sorry, it's hard to explain it clearly, but I will try :) |
| 11:20 |
MTDiscord |
<entuland> uhm... maybe the torch wouldn't be affected in that case, gotta check the source |
| 11:20 |
whosit |
there are "shaped" recipies, and modding book says that you can either specify empty slots in them (with empty strings "") or leave them out. And recipie matching behaviour will be different |
| 11:20 |
whosit |
if you leave them out - the recipie should be movable around the grid |
| 11:21 |
whosit |
if you specify empty strings, for example around torch, then it will match only placed in the center of the grid |
| 11:21 |
whosit |
that's how Modding Book says it should work |
| 11:22 |
whosit |
and I found some recipies (like jonez mod) that depend on this behavior of "matching empty strings" |
| 11:22 |
whosit |
but, currently, that does not work in the engine |
| 11:22 |
whosit |
and {"mymod:diamond_fragments", "", ""}, is equivalent to {"mymod:diamond_fragments"} |
| 11:23 |
MTDiscord |
<entuland> yes, I get the point, I'll try to repro it |
| 11:23 |
whosit |
so, book says: first will match only in the left slot of the grid, and second recipie you can move around the grid |
| 11:33 |
MTDiscord |
<entuland> I can confirm that no matter the emtpy strings, 5.4.1 allows for moving the items around the crafting grid as if they weren't there |
| 11:34 |
MTDiscord |
<entuland> can't tell if it's a bug or if it's an intended change of behavior and the book hasn't been updated to match the change |
| 11:37 |
|
entuland joined #minetest |
| 11:51 |
MTDiscord |
<entuland> I'm no expert in the core engine code but my understanding is that the way recipes are checked hasn't changed in a few years, I'm afraid you'll need to get the attention of more knowledgeable people around |
| 11:52 |
whosit |
should I ask about this in #minetest-dev? |
| 11:53 |
MTDiscord |
<entuland> I think it fits there, yes |
| 11:53 |
whosit |
ok, thank you |
| 11:53 |
MTDiscord |
<entuland> yw |
| 11:54 |
|
tech_exorcist joined #minetest |
| 12:01 |
|
specing_ joined #minetest |
| 12:01 |
|
tech_exorcist joined #minetest |
| 12:13 |
|
Verticen joined #minetest |
| 12:15 |
|
kamdard joined #minetest |
| 12:28 |
|
ghoti joined #minetest |
| 12:28 |
|
proller joined #minetest |
| 12:42 |
|
ghoti_ joined #minetest |
| 13:06 |
Bombo |
anyone got the draconis mod? there is a book called 'Bestiary' but i can't read it, can't place it anywhere |
| 13:21 |
|
Thomas-S joined #minetest |
| 13:21 |
|
Thomas-S joined #minetest |
| 13:26 |
MTDiscord |
<wwar> @ElCeejus, Synthwave Warlord ^ |
| 13:34 |
|
olliy_ joined #minetest |
| 13:35 |
|
bingfengzs joined #minetest |
| 13:52 |
|
craigger joined #minetest |
| 14:15 |
|
Taoki joined #minetest |
| 14:15 |
|
hlqkj joined #minetest |
| 15:16 |
|
Hawk777 joined #minetest |
| 15:28 |
|
absurb joined #minetest |
| 15:29 |
|
big_caballito joined #minetest |
| 16:01 |
|
Fixer joined #minetest |
| 16:15 |
|
olliy_ joined #minetest |
| 16:16 |
|
FeXoR joined #minetest |
| 16:19 |
|
delta23 joined #minetest |
| 16:20 |
AntumDeluge |
Bombo, on ContentDB it says "Most other info you may need to know is detailed in the Bestiary". But I don't know how to use it either. Maybe its a work-in-progress. |
| 16:27 |
AntumDeluge |
There is a bug in the code. I'm looking at it now. |
| 16:34 |
AntumDeluge |
Oh, I think it might not be a bug... |
| 16:36 |
AntumDeluge |
It has something to do with the "draconis:lectern" node. It looks like you have to use it to fill out the bestiary. |
| 16:41 |
|
Verticen joined #minetest |
| 16:52 |
|
fizi joined #minetest |
| 16:56 |
|
specing joined #minetest |
| 17:08 |
|
Talkless joined #minetest |
| 17:09 |
|
Dyedefra joined #minetest |
| 17:11 |
|
erlehmann joined #minetest |
| 17:13 |
|
proller joined #minetest |
| 17:26 |
|
proller joined #minetest |
| 17:40 |
|
tech_exorcist joined #minetest |
| 17:42 |
MTDiscord |
<appguru> @ElCeejus, Synthwave Warlord |
| 18:01 |
|
Dyedefra left #minetest |
| 18:02 |
|
Peppy joined #minetest |
| 18:29 |
Bombo |
AntumDeluge: hm i tried it, i put the bestiary in the lectern, looks good, but still no text |
| 18:30 |
Bombo |
hm there are two slots in the lectern |
| 18:50 |
|
ghoti_ joined #minetest |
| 18:52 |
AntumDeluge |
Bombo, the other slot is for "draconis:manuscript". But I still don't know how it works. |
| 19:02 |
Bombo |
AntumDeluge: yes i saw that too, and i put the manuscript there, nothing happens |
| 19:16 |
MinetestBot |
[git] sfan5 -> minetest/minetest: Fix swapped vertex colors on GLES2 69c70dd https://git.io/JsJfe (2021-05-11T19:15:39Z) |
| 19:16 |
MinetestBot |
[git] SmallJoker -> minetest/minetest_game: Attachments: Proper data cleanup in callbacks (#2865) 71ea0c6 https://git.io/JsJfv (2021-05-11T19:15:47Z) |
| 19:25 |
AntumDeluge |
I have a problem with formspec security. I have created a shops mod ( https://forum.minetest.net/viewtopic.php?t=26645 ). The problem is that the formspec is associated with node meta. So if a second player interacts with the formspec, it affects the transaction of the first player. I'm using node meta to set formspec because I need the "allow_metadata_inventory_put" functionality.... |
| 19:27 |
AntumDeluge |
I've thought about trying to suppress showing a formspec if it is already in use by another player, but I'm not sure if that is possible with using node meta data... |
| 19:27 |
AntumDeluge |
I also came across the ActiveFormspecs mod ( https://forum.minetest.net/viewtopic.php?t=19303 ), which looks like it could be a solution if it does what I think it does... |
| 19:28 |
AntumDeluge |
But I wanted to know if someone knows something I don't about securing formspecs. |
| 19:28 |
AntumDeluge |
If I can avoid depending on another mod, I'd probably rather do that. |
| 19:35 |
AntumDeluge |
Is there a way to retrieve a formspec instance & store it an a variable/table? |
| 19:35 |
sfan5 |
formspecs do not have instances |
| 19:35 |
sfan5 |
you use a node's inventory in a formspec completely disconnected to the node |
| 19:35 |
sfan5 |
though this would still mean multiple players can't put items at the same time |
| 19:36 |
AntumDeluge |
Isn't there a Lua or C++ object that is created when a formspec is shown? |
| 19:36 |
sfan5 |
Lua certainly not, C++ probably; but it's all on the client |
| 19:37 |
AntumDeluge |
So, no wait to retrieve & manipulate that. |
| 19:37 |
AntumDeluge |
*way |
| 19:38 |
|
Andrew__ joined #minetest |
| 19:38 |
sfan5 |
if you want to control what gets shown to who use minetest.show_formspec() |
| 19:38 |
sfan5 |
(obviously) |
| 19:39 |
AntumDeluge |
Yes, but as I understand it, I won't be able to retrieve the "allow_metadata_inventory_put" callback. |
| 19:40 |
AntumDeluge |
Or am I mistaken about that? |
| 19:41 |
sfan5 |
the callback happens on the node |
| 19:41 |
sfan5 |
you can tell the formspec to show the node inventory and it'll function like usual |
| 19:42 |
AntumDeluge |
Oh, I see. Thanks sfan5. I'll explore that. |
| 19:44 |
AntumDeluge |
"though this would still mean multiple players can't put items at the same time" Actually, I don't think that will be a problem for me as the inventory itself doesn't actually hold anything. It is simply used to drag items onto to invoke the "allow_metadata_inventory_put" callback. |
| 19:45 |
AntumDeluge |
However, I do store a value in the nodes metadata that is important. But that should be easy to get around by using a key with the player's name. |
| 19:54 |
AntumDeluge |
Does it make a difference whether "meta:get_inventory():set_size()" is called in "on_construct" or "after_place_node"? |
| 19:59 |
|
tech_exorcist joined #minetest |
| 20:05 |
|
entuland joined #minetest |
| 20:13 |
|
FeXoR joined #minetest |
| 20:13 |
|
TomTom joined #minetest |
| 20:13 |
|
n_to joined #minetest |
| 20:13 |
|
Fusl joined #minetest |
| 20:13 |
|
[m]testman joined #minetest |
| 20:13 |
|
Noclip joined #minetest |
| 20:13 |
|
z812 joined #minetest |
| 20:13 |
|
Quiark joined #minetest |
| 20:14 |
|
Fusl joined #minetest |
| 20:33 |
|
proller joined #minetest |
| 20:34 |
AntumDeluge |
Bombo, I got a response about the bestiary: https://github.com/ElCeejo/draconis/issues/9 |
| 20:38 |
|
Noclip joined #minetest |
| 20:38 |
|
z812 joined #minetest |
| 20:41 |
|
rschulman joined #minetest |
| 20:42 |
|
FrostRanger[m] joined #minetest |
| 20:42 |
|
Quiark joined #minetest |
| 20:42 |
|
freshreplicant[m joined #minetest |
| 20:50 |
|
_Zaizen_[m] joined #minetest |
| 21:08 |
|
IceDragon joined #minetest |
| 21:10 |
|
wsor4035 joined #minetest |
| 21:10 |
|
LoneWolfHT joined #minetest |
| 21:11 |
|
kb1000 joined #minetest |
| 21:12 |
|
moreavy[m] joined #minetest |
| 21:12 |
|
Panquesito7 joined #minetest |
| 21:17 |
|
est31 joined #minetest |
| 21:17 |
|
entuland_ joined #minetest |
| 21:23 |
|
[m]testman joined #minetest |
| 21:24 |
|
freshreplicant[m joined #minetest |
| 21:26 |
|
Verticen joined #minetest |
| 21:27 |
|
rschulman joined #minetest |
| 21:28 |
|
Noclip joined #minetest |
| 21:29 |
|
Quiark joined #minetest |
| 21:30 |
|
z812 joined #minetest |
| 21:38 |
|
_Zaizen_[m] joined #minetest |
| 21:38 |
|
proller joined #minetest |
| 21:42 |
|
calcul0n_ joined #minetest |
| 21:45 |
|
Kray joined #minetest |
| 22:03 |
|
delta23 joined #minetest |
| 22:09 |
|
illwieckz joined #minetest |
| 22:21 |
|
Fixer joined #minetest |
| 22:24 |
|
est31 joined #minetest |
| 22:25 |
|
Fixer_ joined #minetest |
| 22:36 |
|
Verticen joined #minetest |
| 23:05 |
|
v32itas joined #minetest |
| 23:13 |
|
Verticen joined #minetest |
| 23:35 |
beanzilla |
Hi all, I would like to know how to do a goto within my mod. (I keep getting a `'=' expected near 'skip'`, My paste is https://pastebin.com/y4SvDMbY) |
| 23:37 |
entuland |
your code seems malformed to begin with |
| 23:37 |
MTDiscord |
<Jonathon> Don't use goto unless you know everyone that uses your mod will use luajit |
| 23:37 |
entuland |
you were missing a doublequote before the steel definition |
| 23:38 |
entuland |
and yes, please try and avoid that goto, you don't need it there for sure |
| 23:38 |
entuland |
this is a better spot to post your code for the future as well: https://ideone.com/w4lg6E |
| 23:39 |
entuland |
as you can run it there and verify if it's okay (assuming it doesn't contain any call to minetest-specific stuff or the alike) |
| 23:40 |
beanzilla |
So I guess really to not use the goto I'd need too do ... https://ideone.com/P8qlfz |
| 23:41 |
entuland |
yeah that may work, or use the inequality operator, really matter of tastes there likely |
| 23:42 |
beanzilla |
Anyway, thank you Jonathon and entuland for the help. |
| 23:42 |
entuland |
yw |
| 23:44 |
AntumDeluge |
Is there no way to catch "put" & "take" events in the player inventory? |
| 23:48 |
AntumDeluge |
Oh, maybe I don't need to do that. I misunderstood something sfan5 said. |
| 23:48 |
MTDiscord |
<entuland> uhm... isn't that just a formspec like any other which you can intercept with on_player_receive_fields? |
| 23:49 |
MTDiscord |
<GreenXenith> Put/take doesnt seem to be a field |
| 23:49 |
AntumDeluge |
on_player_recieve_fields works for buttons & other fields. But not for put/take for "list". |
| 23:50 |
MTDiscord |
<entuland> oh okay |
| 23:50 |
MTDiscord |
<GreenXenith> Seems like an oversight |
| 23:51 |
AntumDeluge |
I think I actually want a "detached" inventory, not "player". But I think I still end up with the same problem. |
| 23:51 |
MTDiscord |
<GreenXenith> Ah, minetest.register_on_player_inventory_action |
| 23:51 |
AntumDeluge |
Oh, nice. Thank you GreenXenith. |
| 23:51 |
entuland |
that sounds promising indeed by the name :P |
| 23:51 |
MTDiscord |
<GreenXenith> Knew there had to be something :] |
| 23:52 |
MTDiscord |
<GreenXenith> No idea if it will work for detached inventories |
| 23:52 |
entuland |
there always is a way (tm) |
| 23:52 |
entuland |
sometimes it involves threatening with a large mallet, but hey |
| 23:52 |
MTDiscord |
<GreenXenith> Detached inventories actually have their own callbacks |
| 23:53 |
MTDiscord |
<GreenXenith> defined when registering them |
| 23:54 |
AntumDeluge |
I'm guessing detached is what I want to use, as sfan5 said. |
