Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Impossible To Override Vanilla Biomes


jredfox
 Share

Recommended Posts

Since biome extends your registry now it's impossible to say just register it with this resource location to purposely override a vanilla biome. I know why you did this to prevent conflicts but, if you did that then you should have added a delete object, a replace object I only see in the registry a way to add something not to delete/replace. No I don't want to replace the biome or inject stuff in asm as that could cause compatibility issues that is not needed with my functions of only @client side stuff.

I also think this is an issue with blocks/items etc....

 

In earlier versions it was easy as reflectionhelper find field get at it's index and replace it
Edit: in earlier versions you didn't even need reflection helper just call the biome with the int argument and register it after vanilla's/mods

Edited by jredfox
not finished
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, diesieben07 said:

Actually, registries support this "overriding" just fine in 1.12.x.

Well is there a delete function in newer versions? Also does this work for any ids if no to any this is an issue and I can't edit the thread title to can't override any registries 

I can't do 1.12 since their eula makes it impossible to dev any coremods which is what I am doing now. A: sigining jar is just wrong my coremod is suppose to be open SRC, B: I need apis and libs to run my coremod C: the point of the mod is fixing vanilla I can't just literally do that with asm I need to have some mod and over half of the fixes is forge events. D: I can't seperate them by mods because, that would be against their eula as well for requiring 3+ mods for one function and a mod. So as you can see that's why no one is using 1.12+

Edited by jredfox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, jredfox said:

Well is there a delete function in newer versions?

No, except for special registries (IForgeRegistryModifiable), which currently is only recipes. Completely removing a biome or block, etc. from the game can break many things and is not supported.

 

13 minutes ago, jredfox said:

Also does this work for any ids if no to any this is an issue and I can't edit the thread title to can't override any registries 

You can overwrite any registry entry.

 

14 minutes ago, jredfox said:

A: sigining jar is just wrong my coremod is suppose to be open SRC

Signed jars do not make your mod closed source or "proprietary". Signing the jar ensures that it is not modified after being built by whoever compiles your mod (you or anyone else). It's a checksum.

 

15 minutes ago, jredfox said:

I need apis and libs to run my coremod

Uhm, ok? Then do so.

 

16 minutes ago, jredfox said:

the point of the mod is fixing vanilla I can't just literally do that with asm I need to have some mod and over half of the fixes is forge events.

Sure, cool. Do that then.

 

17 minutes ago, jredfox said:

I can't seperate them by mods because, that would be against their eula as well for requiring 3+ mods for one function and a mod.

Who is "them"? What are you talking about even?

 

17 minutes ago, jredfox said:

So as you can see that's why no one is using 1.12+

Please clarify where you got this impression from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Signed jars do not make your mod closed source or "proprietary". Signing the jar ensures that it is not modified after being built by whoever compiles your mod (you or anyone else). It's a checksum."

Well I want the ability for the jar to be modified what if a user has to patch a class directly or has to more commonly patch a texture I did this with almost every modpack because of conflicting guis

"Uhm, ok? Then do so."
Can't it's against their eula to have apis or libraries in a coremod which means no coremodding

"Sure, cool. Do that then."
again their new eula states you can only have a coremod in a coremod

 

"Who is "them"? What are you talking about even?"

Forge's new eula posted on top of the thing right there. I can't do anything can't have apis/libs / regular mod / split the mod up so I can't do anything


"Please clarify where you got this impression from"
Again I read the new EULA

Forge 1.12 and Announcement  

 

"You can overwrite any registry entry"
How since you can't register with the same resource name and you can't remove it. Also if you set the index to null does minecraft crash? My bleep this new forge is a mess why couldn't microsoft/forge just stop in 1.8 when it was already ruined

Edited by jredfox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, jredfox said:

Well I want the ability for the jar to be modified what if a user has to patch a class directly or has to more commonly patch a texture I did this with almost every modpack because of conflicting guis

Textures can be "patched" with a resource pack. If a class needs to be changed, the user can clone your Git repo, change the code and build their own version of the mod, which will then also be signed.

Moreover, this is another reason to separate your actual mod code from your coremod patching. The coremod should be signed, your main mod does not have to be.

 

19 minutes ago, jredfox said:

Can't it's against their eula to have apis or libraries in a coremod which means no coremodding

First of all, this is not a "eula". And please stop saying "they" when referring to Forge, you are on the Forge forum.

Yes, a coremod should not contain library or API code. Keep the API code in your actual mod, the coremod can then interact with it and e.g. call it from an ASM hook. All this is not hard and the fact that you do not understand these basic principles of modularity in programming disqualifies you as a coremod programmer already. Coremodding properly is hard.

 

22 minutes ago, jredfox said:

again their new eula states you can only have a coremod in a coremod

It does not state that. That does not even make sense.

 

22 minutes ago, jredfox said:

Again I read the new EULA

Forge 1.12 and Announcement  

Where in there does it say that "no one is using 1.12+"?

 

23 minutes ago, jredfox said:

How since you can't register with the same resource name and you can't remove it.

You can register with the same name.

 

23 minutes ago, jredfox said:

Also if you set the index to null does minecraft crash?

What "index"?

 

23 minutes ago, jredfox said:

My bleep this new forge is a mess why couldn't microsoft/forge just stop in 1.8 when it was already ruined

Microsoft has no involvement in Forge. Forge is a modding API for Minecraft. Minecraft is made by Mojang, which is owned by Microsoft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, diesieben07 said:

You can register with the same name.

That's what I tried in 1.10.2 I am not sure about newer versions one fix at a time. Slowly updating it

3 minutes ago, diesieben07 said:

What "index"?

Whatever index is in the registry whether it claims to use it or not I bet you it's still there you just don't see it

 

5 minutes ago, diesieben07 said:

Keep the API code in your actual mod, the coremod can then interact with it and e.g. call it from an ASM hook.

Can't do this I would have to put the library in all my projects like 6+ mods that's un-optimized and that's what  an api/lib is for one mod usually in a coremod with features.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, diesieben07 said:

Microsoft has no involvement in Forge. Forge is a modding API for Minecraft. Minecraft is made by Mojang, which is owned by Microsoft.

I was saying microsoft as in the minecraft team is still updating after they killed it they are trying to revive it with 1.13 which actually sounds decent. Forge as in supporting newer versions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jredfox said:

That's what I tried in 1.10.2 I am not sure about newer versions one fix at a time. Slowly updating it

The registry system has been overhauled in 1.12.x. Older versions support "aliases", which I don't think anyone ever got to work properly.

 

1 minute ago, jredfox said:

Whatever index is in the registry whether it claims to use it or not I bet you it's still there you just don't see it

Could you stop being so vague? A registry entry consists of 3 things: The registry name (a ResourceLocation) the actual entry (an IForgeRegistryEntry) and the internal numerical ID. Which one of these do you want to set to null? And why?

 

2 minutes ago, jredfox said:

Can't do this I would have to put the library in all my projects like 6+ mods that's un-optimized and that's what  an api/lib is for one mod usually in a coremod with features.

Extract the code into a library mod then. No, not a coremod.

 

Just now, jredfox said:

I was saying microsoft as in the minecraft team is still updating after they killed it they are trying to revive it with 1.13 which actually sounds decent. Forge as in supporting newer versions.

Whether or not you like current Minecraft is your opinion. Forge does not get into such opinionated discussions, Forge will always support the latest version of Minecraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, diesieben07 said:

Extract the code into a library mod then. No, not a coremod.

Still stupid and against the eula. It specifically says no libraries that the coremod should require.

So until their eula is fixed and not making it impossible for users to update I can't update to 1.12 even as bad as I want to that's also why the betweenlands people are avoiding that version like a plague 

 

So this issue is valid until the eula gets resolved then.

Edited by jredfox
not done
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jredfox said:

Still stupid and against the eula. It specifically says no libraries that the coremod should require

Nothing says that in the policy. Again, it is not a eula.

 

The policy says that the coremod itself should not provide APIs or be a library. Obviously the coremod can depend on other libraries if it needs to do so to perform it's function.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, diesieben07 said:

Nothing says that in the policy. Again, it is not a eula.

 

The policy says that the coremod itself should not provide APIs or be a library. Obviously the coremod can depend on other libraries if it needs to do so to perform it's function.

Well I forbid it that's stupid of forge to make users format their code. Might as well have only added in .json coding since it's so restrictive. 

Just talk to thebetweenlands team and they will tell you the same reason for not updating to 1.12

Edited by jredfox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, diesieben07 said:

This discussion is going in circles. These policies have good reason and if you do not see that you are in no position to be making coremods.

If you do not want to update to 1.12.x, go right ahead. Nobody is forcing you.

The point is forge made a modding api no one else and they are dictating how when where people are making their mods. I want to contact a real forge team member I don't care why there are restrictions they are enough from me and 80% of the modders I talked to from updating. Even the aether team isn't talking about 1.12

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, diesieben07 said:

No, it is not. You are just not willing to make changes because "eww change".

No it's more like have users download 10+ files have users be so restrictive have modders discouraged from using the only modding api out there since forge killed mod loader!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, diesieben07 said:

Forge allows you to package your dependencies inside your mod by using the ContainedDeps manifest attribute. I don't know of any documentation it yet (feel free to help out!), but you can check out the code.

This is better and reasonable but, no explanation on why they are making a simple concept so complex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, this is stupid. Jred you're a fucking moron. First you have no idea what a Eula is. Second you have no idea how to actually read and comprehend the Best practices that you're referring to.

 

Yes, there is a group of people out there who are in a circle jerk of misunderstanding and misinformation. People don't like working together, people don't like change. It's just how it is. 

 

The basic gist of it is that if you're screwing around with SOMEONE ELSES CODE. Which is LITERALLY the only reason to write a coremod, then you should be open to showing what you're doing. You're say you are doing vanilla and forge bug fixes. THEN SEND US THR BUG REPORTS SO WE CAN FIX THEM!

 

As for the packaging, you can have whatever the he'll you want in a single download. End use wise this changes NOTHING. Download one jar file. Put it in your mods folder. DONE. The point is to structure what's IN that jar file so that Forge or any other loader out there can separate things out and manage things properly so that the crap we have been dealin with for the last 4 years can end.

 

I could go on about the entire premis of the first post being stupid and clearly showing you lack of understanding of vanilla or forges code. But I neither have the time or the crayons to explain it to you.

 

seriously this is nothing but you showing that you have no idea what the he'll you're talking about. This is done.

 

PS: it's been a long time seince I've done a rant like this. Guys I've tried to behave but seriously this fucking guy...

  • Like 3

I do Forge for free, however the servers to run it arn't free, so anything is appreciated.
Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/lexmanos
Paypal: http://paypal.me/LexManos

BitCoin: 1Q8rWvUNMM2T1ZfDaFeeYQyVXtYoeT6tTn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.