Thorfinn

Isn't there already one? Or is that only clayforming. TBH, never really paid much attention.

This is true of a lot of wifi, particularly the "free" ones. Even the moderately high end Hilton and Hyatt-Regency hotels do it. No one wants to have his company's wifi bill go up due to gaming, any more than from pron.

Pretty sure it does not. But you could always test it and see. Harvest a dozen or so and see if you get the max. If not, then either your friends are misinformed or they don't like harvesting. Also, there's no reason harvesting has to happen now, unless maybe it's going to frost-kill everything in the next 5 minutes. Furthermore, 80 turnip plots is more than enough food for you and your 3 friends, even if you don't get max harvest.

I suspect fruit trees and fern trees and the like are the archetype for future forests. That is, yeah, I think that's where it's headed. The question is going to be can one scale an entire forest on the fruit tree model without making massive lag. I think the deal is they wanted to make a woodlot practical instead of realistic. If instead of a few days to full maturity, it took several years to make it worth harvesting your woodlot for firewood, let alone planks, like it does with fruit trees, bye-bye old growth forest.

The game's ratios are just a little weird. 1m^3 of halite yields only 2 salt, which is only enough salt to cure 1 meat. Sea water is about 3.5% salt, IIRC, so you should need to boil about 28 m^3 to get the same 2 salt. Not the miniscule 10l (~0.01 m^3) this mod uses. Assuming I didn't blow a decimal point somewhere, it would take over 500 50l barrels to have the same amount of salt as a single block of halite.

Right. That's why you have to use the probability of it not being a success. That way, the odds of neither of two rolls being a success goes down, as it should.

Plug that into a calculator. I'm curious what the Mac says that is.

The carat is not multiplication, it's exponentiation. Tho maybe not on a Mac [EDIT] You are right about the independent thing though. That's harder to deal with. A first approximation would be to divide the column into not blocks but average vein thicknesses. But that's not very good, either. Take black coal. Its only in sedimentary layers, so once you dug down to igneous, all the rest of those blocks were averaging in a flat 0‰.

Almost everyone does this kind of statistics incorrectly, and, unfortunately, that includes many published papers. For somewhat esoteric reasons, in part somewhat related to because once you find something, you stop looking for it, when doing math like this, you need to use the chance of not p. You can do this with coins, but because p=q=0.5, it's easy to get confused. Think of a 6-sided die. p=1/6, q=5/6. Most reason that after 6 throws, you are 1/6*6=1. You expect to get whatever number you wanted. But if you've played dice games, you know that isn't right. The correct way to figure it is 1-(5/6)^n where n is the number of rolls, or, in this case blocks. This gives you the somewhat counter-intuitive answer that you expect a 1% chance to make good half the time in 70 tries. So for your particular ore question, p=0.00015, q=0.99985. That is, the odds of any particular block in that column of 120 not being ore is 0.99985, assuming they are all independent, which they are not. For example, if you are going through a limestone layer, your odds of a bountiful malachite are much higher than in a bauxite layer, and if any particular block in that column is bountiful malachite, odds are very good that at least one of its neighbors is, too. Crunching your numbers, 0.99985^120=0.982, or there is a 98.2% chance that none of those blocks is ore, or, equivalently, a 1.8% chance that at least one of them is. The numbers get a lot more complex when you consider the 13x13 node search, because, again, if any one of those is ore, odds are extremely good that at least one of its neighbors is, too.

Have you looked to see what attributes make a block suitable for a room, then add those attributes to a copy of the air block? Just let it use the same texture and all as the air block, and add those attributes?

.\assets\survival\blocktypes\cloth\bomb.json "attributes": { "blastRadius": 4, "injureRadiusByType": { "*-scrap": 15, "*": 10 }, "blastTypeByType": { "*-ore": 0, "*-stone": 1, "*-scrap": 2 } Probably, anyway. I have not tried it.

Likely, because of how you've quoted it, and how it's used in vanilla ruins and story locations, it refers to the entry in .\survival\worldgen\landforms.json, specifically, { "code": "veryflat", "comment": "Very flat lands near sea level", "hexcolor": "#79E02E", "weight": 12, "terrainOctaves": [0, 0, 0, 0.2, 0.3, 0, 1, 0.01, 0.01], "terrainOctaveThresholds": [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,0.4, 0.0, 0], "terrainYKeyPositions": [0.000, 0.425, 0.450, 0.455], "terrainYKeyThresholds": [1.000, 1.000, 0.400, 0.000] },

I'd be fine with that, but wouldn't look forward to all the complaints about not being able to craft bronze knives or copper axes. And we'd be linking those people to mods that add the old way back in.

This could all be true. I was quite interested in the new auto-looting falx, and gave it a whirl, but ended up going back to spears. Why? Because effective combat is a skill you have to develop, and I am not good enough to switch over in high stakes fights, which at 150% enemy damage, 33% fewer seraph base HP and permadeath, is basically all of them. It's not that its so much a pain to fight as it requires a level of player skill I just don't have. Yet.

I don't agree. Pick whomever you like that you think might be exhibiting that behavior, and then look at how they respond in a new thread. People tire of flawed arguments and unsubstantiated assertions, especially when repeated ad infinitum. It's not the disagreement. A case in point is that I see the other projects Anego is pursuing as diversification, not abandonment or distraction, which appears to be the other side of this particular discussion. Just saying it's a distraction for the 42nd time is not going to be persuasive. You have to explain why diversification is a bad thing, when financial gurus throughout time have counseled against putting all your eggs in one basket. You don't have to have much life experience to know first-hand that's a bad idea. BTW, some truly can be attributed to ignorance. I've never played that other game, so I'm ignorant any time people compare the two. I try to understand, but a foundational principle of teaching is if you cannot explain it, you likely do not understand it as well as you think you do.

You can't climb cliffs at all in VS. But if you do time your jumps properly, you don't even have to do things right with your mouse, whatever that means, you still retain your sprint speed. All step height does is if you don't time it properly, you end up on top of the block, but lose your sprint speed. I've never played that other game, so have no frame of reference. And if for no other reason than copyright, incorporating features from that game is a bad idea.

I'm not so sure. If you were sprinting and trying to jump up 1m (something most people can't do -- I certainly can't!) if you stub your toe on the edge, momentum is going to make you fall on your face. I do not think that's what the OP wants. I suspect it's more you succeed and land on your feet. Which is indistinguishable from increasing your step height to just over 1m.

Fair. Couldn't you accomplish the same thing by just doubling the size of your models? It's not like anyone actually cares about having a 14m ceiling anyway. That's sports arena stuff. Few great rooms are much over half that.

Sorry to hear that, @shakra. Are you running a machine way below recommended or something? Low VRAM, maybe? Anyway, the Wiki disables modding searches by default. You have to enable it. I forget where you find the initial, "I gotta know more!" link to modding, but if you start here, it gives you the invite after some cautions. Welcome to the forums, and may I be the first to welcome you to VS modding!

Extending a bit on @Professor Dragon's excellent post, if you've already tried shutting off leaf movement, you could try more involved patching. You must have an odd machine for it to make it that bad, but if you have properly diagnosed the problem, you could go into .\survival\blocktypes\plant\leaves\normal.json and find the codeblock }, sideopaque: { all: false }, and set it to true and see if that fixes it. Now this will mean you won't get to see things through the leaves, but it will have the effect of basically turning it into a block as far as rendering is concerned. If all else fails, you could copy the texture section from one of the dirt blocks and put it into the leaf code. If that doesn't fix the issue, then it's not a problem with the block per se, but something else, like the quantity of them in a forest. It's times like this that make the lack of a comment in .json a pain. Remember to make a backup in a completely different file tree, but if you screw up, you can always run ModMaker and select the option to put your files back to the default state. Option 3, I believe. Good luck.

Then... do it. .\survival\entities\land\bear.json

I didn't think my views on the game were that hard to understand. I'm a solid 80/20 rule guy in pretty much everything I do. Put in the 20% of the effort for 80% of the gains, then switch to something else you can make similar gains in. Combat? I figure it's a solid 80%. Herbalism? Maybe 5%. Waterpower? 0%. Oceans? 50%. Prospecting? >90%. There are lots of areas where the progress would be obvious at first glance. How about traders on the high seas? Probably not that hard to do, and they either are sitting at anchor or are sailing around at pseudo-random. But the point is that there would be SOMETHING to do rather than look at endless stretches of water. Would it take that much to tweak the various collision boxes? In theory, no. But it's going to take a metric crapton of testing to make sure the new box isn't too large, and eliminates too much or even all player skill from the equation. And the dirty little secret is that like crimson maple seeds, no one with the possible exception of @LadyWYT is going to notice if the bear's box has been changed. I say" possible" (and equate it to the seeds) because she's not likely to go toe-to-toe with them, since it's never worked before.

I looked into it a while back, and it's a very small radius. From worldspawn, I think you are correct. If everything in that radius has already been mapped out, it will fail. @NastyFlytrap, I think I'd just find a relatively flat space, about 60x60 (unless you know exactly where the chunk boundaries are) and spawn it in via the command.

@Streetwind already covered most of my initial thoughts, but I think he's understating what would be involved. Not only do you need to do a half-block version of every block that mapgen can place on the top layer (which is a prodigious amount -- each dirt, clay and peat type has, what, 5 grass variants) but also half-blocks of everything that could be placed on top of it. Otherwise trees, bushes, animals, etc. are all hovering if they are standing on one of the half blocks. You can already see how this works with slabs in the existing game. Everything looks wonky. I think I'd like to see it as a mod first, particularly if it turns out the only way you can get textures to align is to double the size of the atlas. Occlusion culling might end up taking way too many cycles with that many possible renders affected. [EDIT] I do agree it would be visually distinctive. I'm just wondering if there's a technological reason no one has done it.

Welcome to the forums, @Verdant Shade The handbook (press "H" in-game, or Alt-H to get information about whatever it is you are currently looking at) is your friend. It has guides on all the significant gameplay loops that I can think of. Once one knows the stuff there, it's a little hard to know whether it's understandable to someone new to the game, so it would not hurt to post things you find a little too cryptic in the handbook.