+- Cuberite Forum (https://forum.cuberite.org)
+-- Forum: Off Topic (https://forum.cuberite.org/forum-9.html)
+--- Forum: Off Topic Discussion (https://forum.cuberite.org/forum-10.html)
+--- Thread: Random Chitchat 2012-2016 (/thread-434.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
RE: What we're doing - cedeel - 06-16-2012
(06-16-2012, 09:23 PM)Luksor Wrote: I have no idea where to implement this. Do I need to make a separate simulator just for setting metadata?
Here is my code: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/21041937/leaves.patch
Let me know if I you found any mistakes in the code. I'm still learning how to program.
A separate simulator would probably be the best way to go, since you are "simulating" leaf decay.
RE: What we're doing - xoft - 06-16-2012
The problem with leaves is that they need to check a relatively large area of blocks, possibly across up to 4 chunks. Using cChunk::UnboundedRelGetBlock() can get slow in such a case, we might need to do a "get area of blocks" first.
I don't think a separate simulator is necessary, this is more about block-ticking than simulating physics. A separate block-tick function would do (same as TickGrass, for example)
RE: What we're doing - cedeel - 06-16-2012
I'm trying to get authentication to work.
Current status: Works with a dirty hack.
However, it's really slow (some part of cBlockingTCPLink causing it as far as I can tell)
When I say slow, I mean 1 minute of waiting...
RE: What we're doing - xoft - 06-17-2012
(06-16-2012, 09:23 PM)Luksor Wrote: Let me know if I you found any mistakes in the code. I'm still learning how to program.
Your code that was checking the 9x9x9 neighbors for a log was flawed - if the block was less than 4 blocks away from a chunk's edge, it would have checked a wrong block, even could've caused a crash. cChunk::GetBlock() function only works for blocks inside the chunk, your code needs to check outside the chunk as well, so it needs to use cChunk::UnboundedRelGetBlock().
Onde more thing: The wiki says "and connected to the log by other leaf blocks". Your code only checks if there is a log block, but doesn't check for the actual connection.
As for the changes in neighboring blocks causing the leaves to be checked for decay again, that needs to be done in the cChunk::CheckBlocks(), it maintains a list of block adjacent to recently changed blocks, and checks them.
RE: What we're doing - xoft - 06-17-2012
I just got fed up with the cWorld::GetBlockEntity() deprecation warning, I'm gonna rewrite it into a safe and easy set of calls exported to Lua.
RE: What we're doing - xoft - 06-18-2012
Problems, problems everywhere.
To test the new ForEach functions I tried implementing a KillPickups command that would destroy all pickups within a chunk. But there's a problem:
- The only place where Lua can get a valid cEntity pointer is inside the callback function
- It isn't safe to call cEntity::Destroy() inside the callback function, because it breaks the entity enumeration
So how do I destroy entities in Lua?
I guess there's one more function I need to do - cWorld::QueueDestroyEntity(), accessible from Lua. And remove cEntity:Destroy() from Lua interface, since it's useless there. Oh man, it's getting difficult.
RE: What we're doing - FakeTruth - 06-18-2012
Huh? What??
The Destroy() function is actually there for (safely) queuing the deallocation of objects, there should be no need for another queue
RE: What we're doing - xoft - 06-18-2012
Remember that the callback is called while the entities are being enumerated in a for-loop? that for-loop fails because the iterator is no longer valid after Destroy() has been called (Destroy() removes entities from the chunk, invalidating any iterators)
RE: What we're doing - FakeTruth - 06-18-2012
Ah right... I think the Destroy() function needs to be changed then? It should always be safe to call the Destroy() function.
Another *fix* would be grabbing the next iterator before using the previous. That way, if the previous iterator was to be removed, you still have a valid next iterator. This fix feels like a hack though, and if for some reason the next iterator was to be removed, it would fail.
RE: What we're doing - xoft - 06-19-2012
(06-18-2012, 11:01 AM)FakeTruth Wrote: Another *fix* would be grabbing the next iterator before using the previous. That way, if the previous iterator was to be removed, you still have a valid next iterator. This fix feels like a hack though, and if for some reason the next iterator was to be removed, it would fail.
Actually that is the best thought on this. There is no way anyone should "grab" another iterator while this one is being used other than calling the ForEach() API inside the callback function, we can simply say this is unsupported.
There's no hack-ish about this solution - you're giving an iterator away and someone could trash it, so why not store the info you need out of it for later?