Streetwind

Looks like 120 is the point where it goes from "large" to "very large" then, not from "very large" to "huge"? Which is odd, because then you have an enormous range somewhere in there. Assuming "medium" still ends at 39 as the wiki says, "large" would then be 40-120. That seems... a little much? Can you confirm that range? Not sure what the upper limit is, but I've seen people talk about doing debug experiments with a range as high as 50. It is a global world setting, and thus cannot be configured on a per-person level in multiplayer. This is unlikely to change, due to the way worldconfig settings work. They quite literally edit the world itself, not the player. And even if it was configurable on a per-person level, it still would not be useful in multiplayer, because worldconfig commands require admin permissions to use. In singleplayer you are always admin; in multiplayer, that is certainly not the case. As for the fact that the range can be changed without a restart once the mode is activated... that may well turn out to be classified as an exploit. I mean, I'm not a developer working on the game, but I know the history of node search mode. Tyron was very hesitant to add it in the first place, and to this day, it remains inactive by default in all presets except for Exploration despite the fact that it's a useful tool for prospecting. Indeed, perhaps it is too useful for his tastes? And if you can now manually circumvent the inherent tradeoffs it comes with, too... Your choice in node search range is meant to matter. Choose a higher number, and you can detect ore in a higher radius, but it becomes very tedious and work-intensive to triangulate the ore vein's position. Choose a low number, and you can easily pin down the position of a vein with just a small amount of effort, but you'll naturally detect fewer of them. Being able to change your range on the fly is doubly bad, because 1.) it circumvents an inherent and intended tradeoff in a feature that the developer is already very hesitant to offer in the first place; and 2.) it results in degenerate gameplay behavior, in which the player makes entering admin commands a core part of their gameplay. That is the antithesis of immersion, which one of the primary design goals of Vintage Story. So yeah, sorry to shoot down your excitement, but I would bet money on 20:1 odds that this is an exploit.

Not right now, I believe. The stock game allows only chickens, pigs, and sheep to be domesticated. There might be a mod that adds in hares, but I admittedly haven't checked.

Upper half slabs do not prevent spawns in Minecraft, and do not prevent spawns in Vintage Story either. Spawn logic cares about having a solid surface, where "solid" is defined as being level with the face of a full block. An upper half slab is level with the top of a full block. Therefore, monsters are perfectly happy to spawn on it - in both games. You're looking for lower half slabs, which are not level with the surface of a full block. This will prevent spawns in Minecraft, and it will also prevent spawns in Vintage Story. ...Except during temporal storms, where Drifters ignore almost all spawn rules and will quite literally appear out of thin air if that's what they have to do to get to you.

At first glance, it may seem that way. But is farmland actually a block like any other? Or is it perhaps a special block, and the act of tilling soil changes not only the texture, but also completely redefines the way the block is handled under the hood? The thing you have to keep in mind is that the entire world is made out of blocks. There are quite literally billions of them. And you need to save that world to disk, and stream it back at runtime to load in chunks as the player moves. So as a programmer, you have a vested interest in minimizing the amount of data required to define each individual block's properties. If you add one single number that all blocks must store, your world must save, load, and process an additional billion numbers during gameplay. So how many numbers does farmland store? Three for the maximum nutrient levels. Three for the current nutrient level. Three for the amount of fertilizer applied. One for the current moisture level. And likely several additional data fields that aren't exposed to the player. If you asked every single dirt block to store this information, you might well triple or quadruple the amount of data it would normally store. And while your field of a hundred-odd pieces of farmland will not have a performance impact - rest assured that tens of millions of dirt blocks certainly will.

That seems modding territory, honestly. I get your sentiment of wanting to play in the stone age, but Vintage Story is not meant to be a stone age simulator. It has a backstory (only rudimentary implemented right now, but planned to become more impotant in future updates), and the world it is set in is in an early renaissance type era. The player uses stone-age methods at the beginning to get started, since they spawn without any tools; but they already have all the knowledge necessary to create and work steel. They just need to prepare the setup required for it. (And then there's game design considerations, like having an engaging progression system that motivates you to reach the next stage of civilization and unlock the new tools and blocks it brings.) If you're looking specifically for expanded stone age content, you'll likely have to rely on the modding community. There's already multiple mods out there right now that expand on primitive techniques and items, such as Ancient Tools.

While I can appreciate the idea of making mining more of a minigame - do you really feel like we need to get more ore out of our veins? I've gone through three worlds, over a hundred hours in each, and I've never needed more than one tin vein. Never more than one iron vein. Never more than a single copper shaft, which usually hits 2-3 deposits. Never more than one olivine source. And so on. I wouldn't even know where to begin using additional veins worth of stuff. That's singleplayer, obviously; multiplayer might be quite different. But on the other hand, multiplayer has more manpower covering more area. It seems entirely fair to expect a group of multiple people to find multiple ore deposits to satisfy their needs. That's how we get interesting emergent gameplay like someone acting as a full-time prospector/miner, while other people focus on other things.

Not a bug. Any finished metal piece - be it a tool head or a bunch of scales - must first be placed with a chisel in the crafting grid to turn them into smeltable chunks. This is a new thing with version 1.15.

World size does not influence the generation of stone layers. So changing the size for singleplayer doesn't do anything to help with finding bauxite, limestone, or the like, I'm afraid.

Beyond a resource sink, anything that has durability is a potential trade good in a multiplayer setting. One player is too lazy to craft their own, another player makes piles of them, trade happens, much immersion.

In what scenarios do you need your mouse cursor unlocked that the game doesn't automatically unlock it for you?

Which version of the game are you running? Is this singleplayer or multiplayer? Do you have mods installed?

The need to break down finished metal products into chunks to re-smelt them is new in version 1.15. Previously, you could just chuck the thing into the crucible as is. So each item displays how many bars it smelts into, because that info used to be useful in older versions. It was not removed in 1.15. Either it was overlooked, or left intentionally so people could still tell what they would get.

Please head over to the Carry Capacity mod thread here on the forums and post your question there. Perhaps others have had a similar problem; perhaps the author is aware and already working on it.

It really does come down to that, I'm afraid. Bauxite is a stone layer, like granite, claystone, limestone, and so on. When it appears, you'll find dozens of square kilometers of it. Until then, you need to keep searching. Once, I saw a place where bauxite was not the top layer. It can spawn below other sedimentary stone. So it's worth occasionally (as in, every couple kilometers) digging down if you're in such an area, to check what's beneath. As soon as you find a stone type that's not sedimentary, you can stop digging. But honestly, Most of the time I find bauxite simply by walking and looking at the map. The color is very obvious when it appears as a top layer - no other stone type is that vividly orange-red. Especially the sand around bodies of water will show it. Do you have olivine yet? Olivine is only found within peridotite, which is another stone type. If you've got none of that, well, your exploration time just became twice as valuable, because you've got two different things to find. I'm also not seeing limestone or chalk on your map, so that's a third useful stone type you may run across on your travels. And you've already been lucky, too. Ilmenite is usually quite difficult to find. It's usually the last thing I need to hunt down. Anecdotal evidence says that stone types change more often in the east-west direction than in the north-south direction. But that may have just been my last world and one other person's similar musings. Could have been random.

@Silent Shadow No, wood does not give a bonus - it doesn't work for the cellar effect at all. It must be soil or stone, nothing else. See here where I wrote a bit about my experience with building them. And while temperature does play a role in food spoiling (it uses the location's average yearly temperature, from the climate data), it certainly isn't the primary deciding factor. A well-built cellar in the blazing desert heat keeps food better than a storage vessel standing around inside your kitchen in the arctic.

That would not do much, considering wind only ever comes from the same direction in the game Already exists - look up the brake in the handbook. ...Why? There's literally no downside to the mechanisms behind the windmill working faster. Processing speed for machines goes up. Why would you want them to run slower? You can have multiple windmill rotors on the same axle system if you need more power. Use the large gear to connect them. That may well exist someday, if/when the crafting grid is ultimately removed in favor of more in-world crafting. But it's a far future topic for the moment.

Before uninstalling anything, continue examining the status quo for clues. Look in %appdata%\vintagestorydata\logs\client-main.txt and check the first few lines of that file. It should list the graphics card the game identified. For example, on my end it looks like this: As you can see, it reports a Geforce GTX 1060 6GB, which is correct for my computer. Also, open your start menu and type "dxdiag". Run the program it finds. This will give you a system overview. Graphics card stuff is on the second tab. Vintage Story is an OpenGL game, not a DirectX game, but dxdiag is still a source of information about your computer and can report problems if there are any. If either the VS logfile or dxdiag (or both) do not correctly report the graphics card and/or driver you believe you should have, that's an indication that something is wrong. After that, you can start trying to replace the driver and such things.

You could start by reading the error message you got No, really, I'm not mocking you, I'm serious. Look at it. It says right there: "Your graphics card supports only OpenGL version 140 (1.40 - Intel Build 9.17.10.4459), but OpenGL version 330 is required. Please check if you have installed the latest version of your graphics card driver. If they are, your graphics card may be too old to play Vintage Story." That's clear and unambiguous: Vintage Story says that your computer cannot run the game. This leads to two possible options. Number one: VS is right. In which case there is nothing we can do to help you. However, you will get a refund on your purchase if you open a support ticket and explain your problem. Option two: VS thinks wrong. This can have any number of reasons. You could have no proper video driver, or just a very old one, installed. You could have a hardware failure in your video card. You could have a laptop with switchable graphics, and your laptop doesn't detect that it should switch when Vintage Story launches. Or even something else entirely. Each possible reason has its own solution, but you must first determine which it is. Start by looking at the minimum system requirements, particularly the "graphics" bit, and compare it to your computer's specs. If you don't know your computer's specs or how to find them, ask someone who can help you IRL.

Not really a bug, no. I can't really tell you how precisely cellars are coded, as I cannot read the code. But I can tell you how it works in practice in the game. Cellars are not truly 'rooms' - you don't need to build a completely enclosed space of certain specifications. No, they work through proximity of stone-type or soil-type blocks. Each storage vessel, chest, shelf, and so on will check around them in a radius of as much as five blocks away, to see if it can find valid cellar blocks. The greater the ratio of valid blocks to invalid blocks, the slower food spoils. The slowest possible food spoilage rate is achieved if the storage vessel detects only valid blocks - that is, there is a wall, floor, and ceiling made up of valid blocks in any and all directions, and none of them is more than five blocks away. It can be much closer - for example, a vessel buried underground by itself essentially occupies a perfect cellar of size 1x1x1. But if it's further away than five blocks in one direction, then it'll detect only air that way and it will no longer be perfect. This is why people tell you that cellars should be 5x5x5 rooms. Not because there's actually a room setup requirement, but because that ensures that there's valid blocks nearby in all directions. By removing the valid blocks in the floor and replacing them with invalid blocks (wooden slabs), you reduced the effectiveness of the cellar significantly. If you feel like you storage vessels aren't updating to the correct value, try picking them up and putting them back down.

Well, not saying that nothing should be done. Clearly there's room for improvements. But perhaps we can do better than offering the choice between two suboptimal setups. When you drill down into the problem, the real issue is the disparity in the passage of time between real life and game time. When you log in once a week onto a server that never goes idle, then somewhere around 200 ingame days will have passed... and at default settings a VS year only has 108 days. So almost two years will have passed since you last played. This does indeed ruin all your food storage except for the really long-lived things, like grain. And your crops will have had to endure the changing weather throughout all this time. But this timescale was actually tuned for singleplayer. With this configuration, it takes 86.4 RL hours of playing for one full ingame year to pass, and that is a lot. Most games on the market are designed for total playtimes shorter than this - and that's only the first year, in the first world you ever try. We definitely don't want an even slower progression of time for singleplayer. We can, however, accept slower progression in multiplayer. Even those players that are online every day probably don't play for much more than a third of a RL day, on average. So if we went and set the length of the month from 9 days to 30, a bit over three times the default length, then such a frequent player would have an experience very similar to singleplayer as far as it comes to seeing an ingame year pass by. And since the year now has 360 days instead of 108, the player who logs in once a week will see roughly half a year pass by since the last time they were there. Furthermore setting food spoilage to 0.3 will roughly triple the shelf life of foodstuffs to match the roughly tripled year length. And hey, if the server is meant specifically for casual players, you could slow things down even further. If you even need to - because whenever the server is allowed to go idle, less time passes for everyone. Unfortunately this approach isn't perfect yet, since the season integration isn't complete yet. Crops, berry bushes, and wild mushrooms, for instance, do not scale their growth times with year length at all. Nor do bee skeps, or the gestation periods and growing times of animals. All sorts of foodstuff you produce now keeps way longer, but still takes the same short amount of time to produce. At the same time, yield of food sources doesn't scale either, so preserving food for the now far longer winters requires much more work. Because of this, I'd say this is the area of the game that should be worked on in order to improve the experience on multiplayer servers. If the game can maintain its intended feel and challenge rating at any arbitrary time scale, then server owners will have a powerful tool to customize their worlds. In the meantime, though, the casual player who logs in once a week can also do some things to improve their own situation. Such as, for example: farming only grain, not vegetables. Vegetables won't keep a single RL week, but grain will last multiple. Select a type of grain that will survive the temperatures around where you've settled - or settle somewhere you know at least one type of grain will survive being left outside. You can trade your grain with other players to obtain vegetables, or set up in an area with lots of natural mushrooms to supplement your diet. Also, go heavily into animal husbandry and beekeeping. Animals never die of old age, and breeding them will actually be easier if you skip forward in time whenever you log off. That supplies you with on-demand meat and milk, taking care of two nutrition meters. Don't bother to make cheese, just drink the milk directly. Bee skeps, and even harvested honey, do not ever go bad either. Do not attempt to store fruit, but instead try to obtain berry bushes, so that you can harvest fruit whenever you log in. Use your honey to cook jam to stretch your fruit supply - it may not keep, but it'll let you get away with fewer berry bushes, which I understand may be in short supply on servers. If you do it right, you should be able to keep your nutrition meters reasonably well satisfied without storing any food at all beyond just grain. I mean... why would you even try to store all the food in the first place? You don't need to last the winter. Even if you happen to log on in mid-winter, you play a few hours and then log off, and you've skipped all the rest of it. Storage of any kind is almost entirely superfluous for you.

The server already stops the progression of time when nobody is online. If you play with a group of friends that gets online together and stops playing aorund the same time, then it won't feel any different from how singleplayer works. The problems you have heard of occur on larger servers that have players on them for most of the day, spread across different timezones. If the server never gets to pause because someone is always online, then 30 ingame days pass for every 24 RL hours. Your other suggestions are unfortunately not as clean-cut and easy as they sound at first glance. They either can be exploited for an ingame advantage, or they lead to unintended, un-fun, and immersion-breaking behavior (such as every single player on the whole server feeling pressured to run into their cellar before logging off, and emptying all of their shelves into their inventory, only to have to sort it all back onto the shelves when they next log back in).

Players can jump onto troughs and walk over it. That means that animals can, too.

Chickens go for small throughs and other animals for large ones. So you can have chickens pretty much anywhere, they don't get in the way. But if you have a sheep pen right next to a pig pen, and put in feed that both of them like, there's a risk. I mean, it's not guaranteed to go wrong immediately, but I have seen this behavior happen when I tried to subdivide my sheep pen so that only the "correct" generations had access to the trough. At some point, the other sheep went crazy.

Farmland blocks refill their moisture level only once every couple minutes. It's certainly not ideal, maybe this will change in the future. But for what it's worth - if such an update tick were to happen while it's raining, then the rain would indeed add moisture.

This is an impractical idea in general, because filled troughs cause nearby animals to want to eat from them. If an animal from pen A gets the bright idea that it must eat from the trough in pen B, it may start throwing itself against the separating fence until it eventually gltiches through. ...Or, at least, that's how it was so far. 1.15.6 is bringing some unspecified improvements to trough feeding behavior. Unsure if it addresses this. Will require testing after the patch goes stable.