itemframes:frame_invis should spawn entity closer to the center of the collision box #6420

New Issue

Closed

opened 2024-03-08 20:38:36 +00:00 by whosit · 13 comments

whosit commented 2024-03-08 20:38:36 +00:00

Member

Copy Link

We tested this with AspireMint, and pos.z -= (1/16)*0.99 looks alright and has minimal z-fighting as you move away.

Sandwich on a table comparison:

Dolphin on a tapestry:

We tested this with AspireMint, and `pos.z -= (1/16)*0.99` looks alright and has minimal z-fighting as you move away. Sandwich on a table comparison:  Dolphin on a tapestry: 

image.png

196 KiB

Screenshot 2024-03-08 233324.png

23 KiB

whosit added the

1. kind/enhancement

label 2024-03-08 20:38:36 +00:00

whosit commented 2024-03-08 20:54:18 +00:00

Author

Member

Copy Link

If item can be made thicker, then it could both look like it's laying on the surface and peek a bit from behind tapestries.

Looks like items generated from textures are already thicker than the itemframe "frame". So with 0.99 shift they already clip inside the node a little bit.

~~If item can be made _thicker_, then it could both look like it's laying on the surface and peek a bit from behind tapestries.~~ Looks like items generated from textures are already thicker than the itemframe "frame". So with 0.99 shift they already clip inside the node a little bit. 

image.png

179 KiB

AliasAlreadyTaken commented 2024-03-08 23:34:23 +00:00

Owner

Copy Link

Is that rather integration or upstream?

Is that rather integration or upstream?

whosit added the

3. source/mod upstream

label 2024-03-08 23:53:14 +00:00

whosit commented 2024-03-08 23:55:05 +00:00

Author

Member

Copy Link

Could be changed with some integration hacks too...

Could be changed with some integration hacks too...

AliasAlreadyTaken commented 2024-03-09 00:09:35 +00:00

Owner

Copy Link

Let's ask this differently: Are we the only ones affected due to our unique mod composition (or other YL circumstances) or would others profit from a fix, too?

Let's ask this differently: Are we the only ones affected due to our unique mod composition (or other YL circumstances) or would others profit from a fix, too?

whosit commented 2024-03-09 06:32:13 +00:00

Author

Member

Copy Link

reported upstream:
https://codeberg.org/tenplus1/itemframes/issues/1

But maybe we should've kept this as YL-only feature, which would give us leading edge in server competition, and maybe in gaming industry as a whole and beating that-other-game in popularity.

reported upstream: https://codeberg.org/tenplus1/itemframes/issues/1 But maybe we should've kept this as YL-only feature, which would give us leading edge in server competition, and maybe in gaming industry as a whole and beating that-other-game in popularity.

👀 2 🎉 1 🚀 1

whosit commented 2024-03-09 15:14:42 +00:00

Author

Member

Copy Link

upstream issue closed, changed here:
8f39564306

upstream issue closed, changed here: https://codeberg.org/tenplus1/itemframes/commit/8f39564306e041996815e40281070a0ebf0576e3

whosit added the

4. step/ready to QA test

label 2024-03-09 15:21:12 +00:00

AliasAlreadyTaken added this to the 1.1.123 milestone 2024-03-10 14:58:53 +00:00

flux commented 2024-03-10 17:47:00 +00:00

Member

Copy Link

hm, wish i'd seen this discussion before the change was made. remember that not all wielditems are the 3d-extrusion of the wield texture, some are reconstructions of nodebox/mesh and other drawtypes in 3d, and if you shift those around, things become totally invisible in the frame.

hm, wish i'd seen this discussion before the change was made. remember that not all wielditems are the 3d-extrusion of the wield texture, some are reconstructions of nodebox/mesh and other drawtypes in 3d, and if you shift those around, things become totally invisible in the frame.

flux commented 2024-03-10 17:52:34 +00:00

Member

Copy Link

#1273, #4529. and if you want to make food sit on a table better, #2067

#1273, #4529. and if you want to make food sit on a table better, #2067

whosit commented 2024-03-10 18:19:35 +00:00

Author

Member

Copy Link

With this change stuff that was flush against the visible item frame, should become flush with the wall in case of the invisible frame, no?
I know lots of 3d stuff looks wrong in frames, but it should be fixed in some other way?

With this change stuff that was flush against the visible item frame, should become flush with the wall in case of the invisible frame, no? I know lots of 3d stuff looks wrong in frames, but it should be fixed in some other way?

whosit commented 2024-03-11 09:42:16 +00:00

Author

Member

Copy Link

      

Screenshot 2024-03-11 111517.png

21 KiB

Screenshot 2024-03-11 112521.png

38 KiB

Screenshot 2024-03-11 121700.png

144 KiB

Screenshot 2024-03-11 113104.png

36 KiB

Screenshot 2024-03-11 114503.png

84 KiB

Screenshot 2024-03-11 114444.png

18 KiB

Screenshot 2024-03-11 113228.png

120 KiB

whosit commented 2024-03-11 09:43:47 +00:00

Author

Member

Copy Link

I found one thing that looks broken now:

But in my opinion it's a win overall. People use "inventory image" items much more often and they definitely look better now.

I think this is done, but please someone else mark it as OK :p

I found one thing that looks broken now:  But in my opinion it's a win overall. People use "inventory image" items much more often and they definitely look better now. I think this is done, but please someone else mark it as OK :p

Screenshot 2024-03-11 113547.png

75 KiB

AliasAlreadyTaken added the

ugh/QA OK

label 2024-03-11 14:00:20 +00:00

AliasAlreadyTaken commented 2024-03-11 14:02:08 +00:00

Owner

Copy Link

QA

Looks good enough for me, but we may revisit this if more drawbacks surface

QA Looks good enough for me, but we may revisit this if more drawbacks surface

👍 1

flux added

5. result/fixed

and removed

4. step/ready to QA test

labels 2024-03-28 23:07:55 +00:00

flux commented 2024-03-28 23:08:01 +00:00

Member

Copy Link

live

live

flux closed this issue 2024-03-28 23:08:01 +00:00

Sign in to join this conversation.

No Branch/Tag Specified

Branches Tags

Labels

Clear labels   

1. kind/balancing

Depends on balancing

  

1. kind/breaking

something that alters or disables an existing game mechanic

  

1. kind/bug

Something is not working

  

1. kind/construction

A build needs fixing

  

1. kind/documentation

Needs proper documentation

  

1. kind/enhancement

New feature

  

1. kind/griefing

players despoiling builds or nature

  

1. kind/invalid

Not a valid report, e.g. created by mistake with no content.

  

1. kind/meme

issue is mostly a joke

  

1. kind/node limit

something which works for or against the node limit

  

1. kind/other

Something not within the other kinds

  

1. kind/protocol

something concerning how staff should react to player requests, or how players should treat each other

  

2. prio/controversial

not likely to happen w/out a lot of discussion

  

2. prio/critical

Very important

  

2. prio/elevated

something players are eager to have fixed

  

2. prio/good first issue

the resolution to this is could be done by a new minetest contributor, who doesn't yet understand the mod ecosystem

  

2. prio/interesting

one of us has real interest in getting this implemented or fixed. however, more research might be needed.

  

2. prio/low

Not so important

  

3. source/art

art needs to be created or found for this to exist. includes sound, 3d modelling, and in-game building.

  

3. source/client

Issue is with the minetest client, or with player client configuration or the technical details of their setup

  

3. source/engine

Issue is due to a bug or feature of the minetest engine

  

3. source/ingame

Problem and solution exist in-game, e.g. builds or player moderation

  

3. source/integration

Two or more nonbuggy mechanics conflict, or our attempts to rectify conflicting mechanics have created a new bug

  

3. source/lag

A problem which is caused or made worse by lag, due to server processing issues, client processing issues, or network issues

  

3. source/license

A licensing problem is involved

  

3. source/mod upstream

Problem is upstream (not engine/client)

  

3. source/unknown

  

3. source/website

Affects the website

  

4. step/approved

Alias has approved this feature, someone should implement it

  

4. step/at work

Being worked on

  

4. step/blocked

we plan to do this, but other work has to be finished first

  

4. step/discussion

issue is under discussion, a solution has not been dictated or agreed upon

  

4. step/help wanted

Need some help

  

4. step/needs confirmation

  

4. step/partially fixed

this is mitigated or partially solved, but more work needs to be done

  

4. step/question

More information is needed

  

4. step/ready to deploy

has been QA tested by another person. has no outstanding issues. might be installed on prod, but needs final testing

  

4. step/ready to QA test

the code is supposedly fixed, but needs to be tested.

  

4. step/want approval

Someone can quickly implement this if Alias approves the change/feature

  

5. result/cannot reproduce

  

5. result/duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists

  

5. result/fixed

problem is fixed

  

5. result/maybe

not planned currently, but maybe some day

  

5. result/wontfix

the reported issue won't be changed, whether it's intentional or not.

  

ugh/petz

yet another petz bugz.

  

ugh/QA main

That's something we can only wait and see whether it hapens again: On the main server

  

ugh/QA NOK

Fix didn't yield the expected results

  

ugh/QA OK

tested

No Label

1. kind/balancing

1. kind/breaking

1. kind/bug

1. kind/construction

1. kind/documentation

1. kind/enhancement

1. kind/griefing

1. kind/invalid

1. kind/meme

1. kind/node limit

1. kind/other

1. kind/protocol

2. prio/controversial

2. prio/critical

2. prio/elevated

2. prio/good first issue

2. prio/interesting

2. prio/low

3. source/art

3. source/client

3. source/engine

3. source/ingame

3. source/integration

3. source/lag

3. source/license

3. source/mod upstream

3. source/unknown

3. source/website

4. step/approved

4. step/at work

4. step/blocked

4. step/discussion

4. step/help wanted

4. step/needs confirmation

4. step/partially fixed

4. step/question

4. step/ready to deploy

4. step/ready to QA test

4. step/want approval

5. result/cannot reproduce

5. result/duplicate

5. result/fixed

5. result/maybe

5. result/wontfix

ugh/petz

ugh/QA main

ugh/QA NOK

ugh/QA OK

Milestone

Clear milestone

No items

No Milestone

1.1.123

Projects

Clear projects

No project

Assignees

Clear assignees

No Assignees

3 Participants

Notifications

Subscribe

Due Date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: your-land/bugtracker#6420

No description provided.