actually
 

	@Override
	public ModIntNBT serializeNBT() {
		return new ModIntNBT(this.energy);
	}

public class ModEnergyStorage implements ModIEnergyStorage, INBTSerializable<ModIntNBT> {

 

8 minutes ago, TallYate said:

ModIntNBT

...did you implement your own NBT class?

yes because the IntNBT constructor is private so I copy pasted it and made it public

IntNBT.valueOf

 

@Override
	public IntNBT serializeNBT() {
		return IntNBT.valueOf(this.energy);
	}

	@Override
	public void deserializeNBT(IntNBT nbt) {
		this.energy = ((IntNBT)nbt).getInt();
	}

thanks
so I'm not supposed to use a modified version?

1 minute ago, TallYate said:

so I'm not supposed to use a modified version?

Why would you have to? It literally makes no sense that the game would have to ask you to serialize something to a given format and not have a working implementation of that format to serialize to.

I'm not even sure the game would know how to serialize and deserialize your custom NBT classes properly.

yeah that makes sense

Do you know why the energy keeps resetting?
I updated the github

https://github.com/TallYate/CrudeTechMod/blob/master/src/main/java/me/joshua/crudetechmod/Items/PowerArmor.java#L42

return a ICapabilitySerializable there

Override
			public IntNBT serializeNBT() {
				IntNBT nbt = null;
				getCapability(ModCapabilityEnergy.ENERGY, null).ifPresent(handler -> {
					nbt = IntNBT.valueOf(handler.getEnergyStored());
				});
				return nbt;
			}

That needs a serializeNBT and deserializeNBT. Do you know how I can make the handler return the nbt? Because "nbt cannot be assigned, since it is defined in an enclosing type"

Also I can't just put return IntNBT.valueOf(handler.getEnergyStored()); in the handler because it has to return nothing (void)

@Override
public ICapabilitySerializable initCapabilities(ItemStack stack, @Nullable CompoundNBT nbt) {
	return new ICapabilitySerializable() {
		protected ModEnergyStorage storage = newStorage();
		protected LazyOptional<ModEnergyStorage> storageHolder = LazyOptional.of(() -> storage);

		public <T> LazyOptional<T> getCapability(Capability<T> cap, Direction side) {
			if (cap == ModCapabilityEnergy.ENERGY) {
				return storageHolder.cast();
			}
			return LazyOptional.empty();
		}

		
		public Integer a = null;
		
		public void setA(int x) {
			a = x;
		}

		@Override
		public IntNBT serializeNBT() {
			getCapability(ModCapabilityEnergy.ENERGY, null).ifPresent(handler -> {
				setA(handler.getEnergyStored());
			});
			return IntNBT.valueOf(a);
		}

		@Override
		public void deserializeNBT(INBT nbt) {
			getCapability(ModCapabilityEnergy.ENERGY, null).ifPresent(handler -> {
				handler.setEnergy(((IntNBT) nbt).getInt());
			});
		}
	};
}

is this ok?

Edited June 27, 20205 yr by TallYate
more context

Instead of asking, try it.

We'll be here if it doesn't work

6 hours ago, TallYate said:

getCapability(ModCapabilityEnergy.ENERGY, null).ifPresent(handler -> { setA(handler.getEnergyStored()); }); return IntNBT.valueOf(a);

what on earth is this YOU HAVE ACCESS OVER THE ENERGY STORAGE

@Override
  public IntNBT serializeNBT() {
  int a = 0;
  getCapability(ModCapabilityEnergy.ENERGY, null).ifPresent(handler -> {
    a = handler.getEnergyStored();
  });
  return IntNBT.valueOf(a);
}

This doesn't work so I did that bad thing. Is there a better way that you know of?

Dude, seriously.

You have access to the underlying storage directly, there's ZERO reason to use getCap and the lazy optional.

public IntNBT serializeNBT() {
    return IntNBT.valueOf(storage.getEnergy());
}

and

public void deserializeNBT(IntNBT nbt) {
    storage.setEnergy(nbt.getInt());
}

 

Thank you. Everything works now!

using CapabilityManager.INSTANCE.register() is not needed right?

Thank you. Everything works now!

using CapabilityManager.INSTANCE.register() is not needed right?

@Override
  public IntNBT serializeNBT() {
  int a = 0;
  getCapability(ModCapabilityEnergy.ENERGY, null).ifPresent(handler -> {
    a = handler.getEnergyStored();
  });
  return IntNBT.valueOf(a);
}

This doesn't work so I did that bad thing. Is there a better way that you know of?

Define "doesn't work."

Oh sorry I think the forums glitched or something because I said that earlier in the thread

The forums have been acting oddly, but that's quite an odd result indeed.