[Mod] Trucraft Lib [trucraft]

User avatar
PolySaken
Member
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 05:18
GitHub: PolySaken-I-Am
In-game: PolySaken
Location: Wānaka, Aotearoa
Contact:

Re: [Mod] Trucraft Lib [trucraft]

by PolySaken » Post

This is just meant to be a conversion for minetest game. You can make a more compatible fork if you want though.
Guidebook Lib, for in-game docs | Poly Decor, some cool blocks | Vision Lib, an all-purpose library.

User avatar
Imk
Member
Posts: 490
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2018 19:15
In-game: Imk
Location: Crimea, Russia
Contact:

Re: [Mod] Trucraft Lib [trucraft]

by Imk » Post

Ghaydn wrote:
Sat Sep 26, 2020 12:14
Do you plan to add support for ethereal? Seems like rocks and sticks don't appear on it's biomes. And ethereal trees can be cut down with bare hands.

Also, do you plan to add support for basic_materials? Some items are duplicated there, for ex. plastic sheet.
Привет, у нас на сервере где ты играешь камни падают из призраков
В будущем будит отключёна вся добыча дерева рукой кроме кустов)
Hello, on our server where you play, stones fall from ghosts
Image

Раздел вики https://vk.com/pages?oid=-54691697&p=trucraft
Section wi-ki https://vk.com/pages?oid=-54691697&p=trucraft

User avatar
LRV
Helper
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 17:29
GitHub: Mooncarguy
In-game: Mooncarman Mooncarguy

Re: [Mod] Trucraft Lib [trucraft]

by LRV » Post

Mod follows guidelines and was hence moved.
This is a cool signature. :)

User avatar
PolySaken
Member
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 05:18
GitHub: PolySaken-I-Am
In-game: PolySaken
Location: Wānaka, Aotearoa
Contact:

Re: [Mod] Trucraft Lib [trucraft]

by PolySaken » Post

LRV wrote:
Thu Dec 31, 2020 14:04
Mod follows guidelines and was hence moved.
ok cool
Guidebook Lib, for in-game docs | Poly Decor, some cool blocks | Vision Lib, an all-purpose library.

Merak
Member
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2016 20:34

Re: [Mod] Trucraft Lib [trucraft]

by Merak » Post

This could use more description or a video.
LRV wrote:
Thu Dec 31, 2020 14:04
Mod follows guidelines and was hence moved.
Used in this context, "hence" is ambiguous. Someone can read "was hence moved" the same as "was moved hence" which means "was moved away from this place" where 'place' could mean (sub)forum or category or something else. I know enough about how mods are handled in the forum to understand, and maybe most readers do. I'm just pointing out that it can cause a moment of confusion, in comparison to "therefore" which would be entirely unambiguous.

User avatar
LRV
Helper
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 17:29
GitHub: Mooncarguy
In-game: Mooncarman Mooncarguy

Re: [Mod] Trucraft Lib [trucraft]

by LRV » Post

Merak wrote:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 22:42
This could use more description or a video.
LRV wrote:
Thu Dec 31, 2020 14:04
Mod follows guidelines and was hence moved.
Used in this context, "hence" is ambiguous. Someone can read "was hence moved" the same as "was moved hence" which means "was moved away from this place" where 'place' could mean (sub)forum or category or something else. I know enough about how mods are handled in the forum to understand, and maybe most readers do. I'm just pointing out that it can cause a moment of confusion, in comparison to "therefore" which would be entirely unambiguous.
Ok I will use "therefore" in the future.
This is a cool signature. :)

User avatar
MisterE
Member
Posts: 693
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 21:06
GitHub: MisterE123
IRC: MisterE
In-game: MisterE

Re: [Mod] Trucraft Lib [trucraft]

by MisterE » Post

Please replace the screenshots

You can put you screenshots on github, then go to the image, right-click, select copy image location, and put that on the forums. Images are then on github which won't come down.

User avatar
MisterE
Member
Posts: 693
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 21:06
GitHub: MisterE123
IRC: MisterE
In-game: MisterE

Re: [Mod] Trucraft Lib [trucraft]

by MisterE » Post

where has this gone!?! it would be a shame for it to be lost, but the download link is broken

User avatar
PolySaken
Member
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 05:18
GitHub: PolySaken-I-Am
In-game: PolySaken
Location: Wānaka, Aotearoa
Contact:

Re: [Mod] Trucraft Lib [trucraft]

by PolySaken » Post

I'm not doing anything related to minetest modding/gamedev anymore because I've decided that for the original reason I learnt it (making my own voxel game) it will be both easier and produce a better quality result to make it a minecraft modpack.

I'm also not happy with the code quality or the textures I made for most if not all of my MT projects, and as such have either removed them from or privated them on my github (except for vision lib).
I might revisit trucraft, ocular networks, naturia, and guidebook lib (although that will be merged into vision lib if so) with sequels or updates; only, however, if I see a general increase in either the size of MT's community or the practicality of using it for its intended purpose.
Guidebook Lib, for in-game docs | Poly Decor, some cool blocks | Vision Lib, an all-purpose library.

User avatar
MisterE
Member
Posts: 693
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 21:06
GitHub: MisterE123
IRC: MisterE
In-game: MisterE

Re: [Mod] Trucraft Lib [trucraft]

by MisterE » Post

I would like to urge you not to take a "scorched earth" approach to leaving, making your mods private. That goes against the nature of opensource, which lets other people use the code to build upon or make something similar or better.


This was a really good idea, and a pretty good implementation. I managed to find a copy, but I was quite troubled that it had disappeared. It would be better, imo, to request that the topic be moved to "oldmods" forum subsection.
My usecase is to cannibalize it to make an in-world crafting system for a new non-mtg game.
Of course, I will be changing a lot of the code, but its a really good starting point.

please dont let your good work go to waste by locking it down so that others can't improve on it.
Thank you,

MisterE


On a different topic, RE your leaving, Im really sorry to hear that, you made some nice mods here. If I may, i'd like to point out some reasons why maybe you should consider staying:
1) Theres something to be said for building your game on an open source base. You have a great deal more control.
2) Minecraft breaks all its mods every time it updates. You would either have to update your mod every update, or require players to use an outdated version. Whereas Minetest only breaks mods with a major release, and then they are easy to update, and minetest helps you update them with deprecation error reports.
3) I have heard that minecraft is leaning more towards not being moddable?
4) Quality depends on what you mean by quality. Minetest will always be able to be run on old and slow hardware. Minecraft requires significantly powerful hardware. While the graphics quality of minecraft is far better, the quality of the game itself is driven by Microsoft's need to make money. If you design the game with minetest (OR with Godot for that matter), then you have complete control over the quality of gameplay. Your quality ideals might not match microsoft's.
5) with minetest, *if* you make a quality game, then you have the option to make a custom client for your game and make a brand for your game separate from minetest's brand, and distribute your game on your platform of choice. With minecraft, you are stuck with the minecraft community, which microsoft is slowly but surely putting up walls to joining (Needing a fast computer, needing to pay *microsoft*(not you) for the game, needing a microsoft account ... this list is likely to grow)

if you really think that minetest's graphics are too poor for you, consider building your game on one of these FOSS 3d game engines:

godot https://godotengine.org/ (Good graphics on any platform, simple python-like or visual scripting)
Open3d https://www.o3de.org/ (A newcomer, was Amazon's game engine, now FOSS, AAA graphics)
LOVR https://lovr.org/ (Mostly for VR, but also for desktop, programmed in lua, multiplayer built-in)
I hope you considered these things in your decision, and if not, I hope Ive given you something to think about...

User avatar
PolySaken
Member
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 05:18
GitHub: PolySaken-I-Am
In-game: PolySaken
Location: Wānaka, Aotearoa
Contact:

Re: [Mod] Trucraft Lib [trucraft]

by PolySaken » Post

MisterE wrote:
Tue Jan 18, 2022 14:00
I would like to urge you not to take a "scorched earth" approach to leaving, making your mods private. That goes against the nature of opensource, which lets other people use the code to build upon or make something similar or better.
People are free to use the mods however they like; you can share versions you still have if you want and continue updating it for your usecase. The reason I don't have them on my github any more is not because I changed my mind about open source or whatever, it's that I don't want the generally low quality code and textures I produced for those mods associated with my github which I still use for non-MT projects.
MisterE wrote: This was a really good idea, and a pretty good implementation. I managed to find a copy, but I was quite troubled that it had disappeared. It would be better, imo, to request that the topic be moved to "oldmods" forum subsection.
My usecase is to cannibalize it to make an in-world crafting system for a new non-mtg game.
Of course, I will be changing a lot of the code, but its a really good starting point.

please dont let your good work go to waste by locking it down so that others can't improve on it.
Like I said, feel free to redistribute it. I'm not going to request a topic move because as far as I know it still works fine in the latest version of minetest, and topic moves take ~600 years to complete.
MisterE wrote: 1) Theres something to be said for building your game on an open source base. You have a great deal more control.
The majority of minecraft mods are either open source or completely FOSS, contrary to popular belief. So is Forge, the modloader that minecraft uses. So there's not much of a benefit to running on an open source engine for me at least when everything I would want/need control over is already completely open.
MisterE wrote: 2) Minecraft breaks all its mods every time it updates. You would either have to update your mod every update, or require players to use an outdated version. Whereas Minetest only breaks mods with a major release, and then they are easy to update, and minetest helps you update them with deprecation error reports.
I'm using 1.12.2 anyway, so that isn't an issue. Most MC packs are still for 1.12 for a multiplicity of reasons, but also it's just the version I like the most myself. Lastly the pack is already so different from vanilla that the version it uses doesn't affect the experience, because it acts like its own game.
MisterE wrote: 3) I have heard that minecraft is leaning more towards not being moddable?
True, and MC mods are becoming lower quality and less involved in general with newer versions. However, the version I'm using is "outdated" (although still the main version for modded play) and had years to become the easiest to modify and configure due to the massive engine changes in 1.13 preventing forge from keeping up.
MisterE wrote: 4) Quality depends on what you mean by quality. Minetest will always be able to be run on old and slow hardware. Minecraft requires significantly powerful hardware. While the graphics quality of minecraft is far better, the quality of the game itself is driven by Microsoft's need to make money. If you design the game with minetest (OR with Godot for that matter), then you have complete control over the quality of gameplay. Your quality ideals might not match microsoft's.
By quality I mean visual, audio, gameplay and performance. MT might be able to run on a potato, and to be fair it runs just as well as it does on a supercomputer, but that's because MT's performance is terrible. Low tps, janky motion, slow networking, lack of optimization, and lack of general polish means that nothing I could do with MT will ever come close to what I can do with MC. I consider myself pretty good at optimizing, and I've been able to get my pack running on a pentium with 4gb of ram at a stable 40fps with no tps lag or stuttering.
MisterE wrote: 5) with minetest, *if* you make a quality game, then you have the option to make a custom client for your game and make a brand for your game separate from minetest's brand, and distribute your game on your platform of choice. With minecraft, you are stuck with the minecraft community, which microsoft is slowly but surely putting up walls to joining (Needing a fast computer, needing to pay *microsoft*(not you) for the game, needing a microsoft account ... this list is likely to grow)
Custom clients are a staple of minecraft modding and are really easy to make. I've actually found it easier to separate my pack from minecraft than separate a game from MT, because with minecraft I can distribute it under its own name, with its own launcher, through curseforge which has nothing to do with mojang or M$, and have it boot to a custom main menu with no name or icon of minecraft anywhere. That's still not possible with MT without major changes to the engine. In regards to paying for an MC account, you only need that if you want to play on premium servers or join a premium player's LAN game. Not really an issue. Also, minecraft is the single best selling game in the entire world, almost everyone has an account already.
MisterE wrote: if you really think that minetest's graphics are too poor for you, consider building your game on one of these FOSS 3d game engines:
godot https://godotengine.org/ (Good graphics on any platform, simple python-like or visual scripting)
Open3d https://www.o3de.org/ (A newcomer, was Amazon's game engine, now FOSS, AAA graphics)
LOVR https://lovr.org/ (Mostly for VR, but also for desktop, programmed in lua, multiplayer built-in)
I hope you considered these things in your decision, and if not, I hope Ive given you something to think about...
I've messed around with godot; too much effort to create all the boilerplate for what would essentially become a "minecraft clone" anyway. better to build it on a version of the MC engine and avoid that entirely.
Same story with the rest. All in all though I've just sunk too much time into making my game world and gameplay come to life through
MC, and I'm not wasting another year and a half porting it to a different platform for zero tangible benefit to me.

Ultimately, MT comes with far more baggage for far less potential; proper engines would take too much work to achieve the same result, and using minecraft means it's exposed to more people, has a better starting reputation, and ironically affords me better options to differentiate the pack from its parent game.
Guidebook Lib, for in-game docs | Poly Decor, some cool blocks | Vision Lib, an all-purpose library.

User avatar
MisterE
Member
Posts: 693
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 21:06
GitHub: MisterE123
IRC: MisterE
In-game: MisterE

Re: [Mod] Trucraft Lib [trucraft]

by MisterE » Post

thank you for giving an indepth answer. I'm sorry for accusing you of a scorched-earth approach. Your position makes a lot more sense now. May I suggest making a separate github or gitlab account for projects that you do not want to be associated with your main account for quality reasons, and then simply move those projects there? that would also give you the option to share quick proof-of-concept codebases that you may or may not ever work on again. It is fairly inconvenient and a little shocking to find that the links to the git repo are broken. I can make a fork of the mod and link it here but it would be much better if the op link worked.

I did not know that custom minecraft clients could be made and distributed. That makes it more appealing.

I knew that minecraft *mods* are opensource, and are even required to be so, but my point was that minecraft (the base) is not opensource. But if you are distributing clients then that might not matter so much

User avatar
PolySaken
Member
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 05:18
GitHub: PolySaken-I-Am
In-game: PolySaken
Location: Wānaka, Aotearoa
Contact:

Re: [Mod] Trucraft Lib [trucraft]

by PolySaken » Post

I might make a different account at some point to store my old code and so on but when that time arises I'll probably just be making the replacements I mentioned anyway.
Guidebook Lib, for in-game docs | Poly Decor, some cool blocks | Vision Lib, an all-purpose library.

User avatar
Blockhead
Member
Posts: 1623
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:14
GitHub: Montandalar
IRC: Blockhead256
In-game: Blockhead Blockhead256
Location: Land Down Under
Contact:

Re: [Mod] Trucraft Lib [trucraft]

by Blockhead » Post

Thanks for your time spent, your contributions and your insights PolySaken. I have some more questions though if you have time.
PolySaken wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 21:00
Like I said, feel free to redistribute it. I'm not going to request a topic move because as far as I know it still works fine in the latest version of minetest, and topic moves take ~600 years to complete.
Lol, correct. Same with wiki account requests and any non-trivial pull request.
PolySaken wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 21:00
The majority of minecraft mods are either open source or completely FOSS, contrary to popular belief. So is Forge, the modloader that minecraft uses. So there's not much of a benefit to running on an open source engine for me at least when everything I would want/need control over is already completely open.
How about the Forge vs Fabric debate though? How does it fare in multiplayer?
PolySaken wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 21:00
I'm using 1.12.2 anyway, so that isn't an issue. Most MC packs are still for 1.12 for a multiplicity of reasons, but also it's just the version I like the most myself. Lastly the pack is already so different from vanilla that the version it uses doesn't affect the experience, because it acts like its own game.
I just hope that that age of 1.12 doesn't mean it's lagging on security updates. Every time an exploit is found, does Forge/Fabric release a new version that fixes it? Are there 3rd-party security solutions? Or are you not particularly concerned because you expect modded servers to be few and whitelisted? I've played on a Tekkit public server before, that was fun but also definitely cowboy territory. Who knows who could have been cheating?
PolySaken wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 21:00
True, and MC mods are becoming lower quality and less involved in general with newer versions. However, the version I'm using is "outdated" (although still the main version for modded play) and had years to become the easiest to modify and configure due to the massive engine changes in 1.13 preventing forge from keeping up.
I've never felt Minecraft was actually particularly moddable, just heavily modded regardless and despite. Despite Forge you still need to do a lot of heavy lifting. By writing arbitrary Java code, yes, you can do anything. But what's so different from writing C++ for Minetest? Anyway this isn't your main point for modifying. We'll get to this in some of your later points anyway.
PolySaken wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 21:00
By quality I mean visual, audio, gameplay and performance. MT might be able to run on a potato, and to be fair it runs just as well as it does on a supercomputer, but that's because MT's performance is terrible. Low tps, janky motion, slow networking, lack of optimization, and lack of general polish means that nothing I could do with MT will ever come close to what I can do with MC. I consider myself pretty good at optimizing, and I've been able to get my pack running on a pentium with 4gb of ram at a stable 40fps with no tps lag or stuttering.
You're quite right that Minetest actually quite lacks in performance optimizations. It does need to become multi-threadable, needs much work especially in the IrrlichtMt area and more. Is MC 1.12+Forge/Fabric going to get better as a base game though? Minetest could theoretically overtake it. Anyway, I know theoretically isn't good enough, practically and presently is what matters.
PolySaken wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 21:00
Custom clients are a staple of minecraft modding and are really easy to make. I've actually found it easier to separate my pack from minecraft than separate a game from MT, because with minecraft I can distribute it under its own name, with its own launcher, through curseforge which has nothing to do with mojang or M$, and have it boot to a custom main menu with no name or icon of minecraft anywhere. That's still not possible with MT without major changes to the engine. In regards to paying for an MC account, you only need that if you want to play on premium servers or join a premium player's LAN game. Not really an issue. Also, minecraft is the single best selling game in the entire world, almost everyone has an account already.
This just feels like more of a complaint that customising Minetest isn't as well-known as customising MC, not that it's actually necessarily easier. Minetest is going to start way faster than Forge though, and that matters too. This is because of the critical mass of Minecraft's modding community really.

I still think it's super-trivial to create a customised Minetest experience with a different icon, different titlebar name (just edit some CMake files) and shipping with a different base game. Cheat clients for Minetest do this - can't name any due to forum rules. You can also change the ContentDB URL and server list URL that you ship. With a little bit more effort you can write your own main menu formspec, probably comparable in effort to a custom main menu for MC Forge/Fabric? Other than that in MC you already have nicer textures for menu entries. I guess the blurred world background with panning isn't possible yet, but a static background with clouds is possible.
PolySaken wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 21:00
I've messed around with godot; too much effort to create all the boilerplate for what would essentially become a "minecraft clone" anyway. better to build it on a version of the MC engine and avoid that entirely.
Same story with the rest. All in all though I've just sunk too much time into making my game world and gameplay come to life through
MC, and I'm not wasting another year and a half porting it to a different platform for zero tangible benefit to me.
Agreed, "start your own block game engine" is usually a dead end unless you have a couple spare people-years on hand to do it with.
PolySaken wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 21:00
Ultimately, MT comes with far more baggage for far less potential; proper engines would take too much work to achieve the same result, and using minecraft means it's exposed to more people, has a better starting reputation, and ironically affords me better options to differentiate the pack from its parent game.
The curse of critical mass in market share :( What do you think it would take to shift this? Minetest has the killer feature that all modded multiplayer just works out of the box. It lacks SSCSM though. Now if in our hypothetical game the modding was as good as MC and had the multiplayer out-of-box feature of Minetest plus SSCSM, do you think you could pivot MC players to it? Or is inertia just that hard?
/˳˳_˳˳]_[˳˳_˳˳]_[˳˳_˳˳\ Advtrains enthusiast | My map: Noah's Railyard | My Content on ContentDB ✝️♂

User avatar
PolySaken
Member
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 05:18
GitHub: PolySaken-I-Am
In-game: PolySaken
Location: Wānaka, Aotearoa
Contact:

Re: [Mod] Trucraft Lib [trucraft]

by PolySaken » Post

Blockhead wrote:
Thu Jan 20, 2022 05:16
How about the Forge vs Fabric debate though? How does it fare in multiplayer?
Fabric? I've not used it enough to know anything about it really, but from what I can tell it's better than forge in terms of its performance and ease of use yet lacks the population of mods and userbase that Forge has. It's also only for later versions so whether it can actually handle packs on the scale of forge remains to be seen.
As far as forge goes, multiplayer is pretty good. TPS can get pretty low when lots of techy mods are running, but that won't be much of an issue in my case at least.
Blockhead wrote: I just hope that that age of 1.12 doesn't mean it's lagging on security updates. Every time an exploit is found, does Forge/Fabric release a new version that fixes it? Are there 3rd-party security solutions? Or are you not particularly concerned because you expect modded servers to be few and whitelisted? I've played on a Tekkit public server before, that was fun but also definitely cowboy territory. Who knows who could have been cheating?
Gameplay exploits I can generally fix myself, and security issues like the log4j exploit usually get patched by either the forge devs or multimc, the launcher that most people use for loading modpacks.
Blockhead wrote: I've never felt Minecraft was actually particularly moddable, just heavily modded regardless and despite. Despite Forge you still need to do a lot of heavy lifting. By writing arbitrary Java code, yes, you can do anything. But what's so different from writing C++ for Minetest? Anyway this isn't your main point for modifying. We'll get to this in some of your later points anyway.
Minecraft itself is actively hostile to modding, but because of the significant time it took forge for 1.13+ to come out, 1.12 has ended up being the most modded/moddable version for years and still is.
Blockhead wrote: You're quite right that Minetest actually quite lacks in performance optimizations. It does need to become multi-threadable, needs much work especially in the IrrlichtMt area and more. Is MC 1.12+Forge/Fabric going to get better as a base game though? Minetest could theoretically overtake it. Anyway, I know theoretically isn't good enough, practically and presently is what matters.
Before I decided entirely to use MC for my game, I was experimenting with making my own minetest derivative. Everything is so tied together that IMO it would take a monumental effort to get it to the level of MC in terms of performance, and even then mods like optifine, performant, foamfix, etc will still outstrip it.
Blockhead wrote: This just feels like more of a complaint that customising Minetest isn't as well-known as customising MC, not that it's actually necessarily easier. Minetest is going to start way faster than Forge though, and that matters too. This is because of the critical mass of Minecraft's modding community really.

I still think it's super-trivial to create a customised Minetest experience with a different icon, different titlebar name (just edit some CMake files) and shipping with a different base game. Cheat clients for Minetest do this - can't name any due to forum rules. You can also change the ContentDB URL and server list URL that you ship. With a little bit more effort you can write your own main menu formspec, probably comparable in effort to a custom main menu for MC Forge/Fabric? Other than that in MC you already have nicer textures for menu entries. I guess the blurred world background with panning isn't possible yet, but a static background with clouds is possible.
The thing is with MC there are mods like fancymenu, which allow me to do all that with an in-game GUI and edit it all on the fly in real time. Granted I use the JSON files to tweak things anyway as the controls aren't perfect, but it's miles faster than the already simple method for doing the same with minetest.
Blockhead wrote: The curse of critical mass in market share :( What do you think it would take to shift this? Minetest has the killer feature that all modded multiplayer just works out of the box. It lacks SSCSM though. Now if in our hypothetical game the modding was as good as MC and had the multiplayer out-of-box feature of Minetest plus SSCSM, do you think you could pivot MC players to it? Or is inertia just that hard?
To be honest modded multiplayer in MC is close to how it is in minetest, the only issue is that players have to have most of the mods that the server does as well because entries like items and blocks are registered when the game loads, not when the world loads. (mostly because mods are written in the same language as the engine, but also because it gives performance benefits). If MT had the performance and engine features that MC has, while retaining the advantages it has now, I think it could easily take a roblox-like role as a platform rather than a game experience and become significantly popular.
Inertia is not so much an issue in and of itself as the stigma around minecraft "clones" specifically, since they are comparatively so easy to make and there are so many of them. Were minetest to rebrand as a semi-platform the way roblox is and distance itself from the whole "mine" thing, it would have no trouble being front and center for easy game and mod creation. Currently, though, it's very much designed for making one type of game and one type only: that being MTG.
To remedy that minetest would have to ditch a lot of the built in content, like the player object and all its related stuff like HP, HUDs and control schemes, and instead provide full API control over those things. That, along with the upcoming stuff like custom game menus and such would be enough to make it usable for its intended purpose at least, but the devs don't seem to want to go that way.
Guidebook Lib, for in-game docs | Poly Decor, some cool blocks | Vision Lib, an all-purpose library.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests