11:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] why you guys dont suuport 0.7 version of teeworld? a lot of steam players can see the servers . 11:42 <+bridge> [ddnet] Because lack of development. It takes a lot of time and nobody is willingly to do it. Besides there are also people who dont even want to become 0.7 13:06 <+bridge> [ddnet] 0.7 succ 13:12 <+bridge> [ddnet] reasons? 13:12 <+Learath2> that's just hate for hates sake :P 13:13 <+bridge> [ddnet] it looks ugliewr overall 13:13 <+bridge> [ddnet] have u seen the chat? 13:13 <+bridge> [ddnet] it looks like 2000 13:13 <+bridge> [ddnet] and skins are way worse 13:13 <+Learath2> It's mostly that we just don't have enough developers to port all of this, and advocate for mods to the vanilla people (who've been very unreceptive in the past) 13:13 <+bridge> [ddnet] im happy we dont have enoughthen 13:13 <+Learath2> We can patch up all the issues we have with UI 13:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] I have ported current DDNet Server to 0.7 13:16 <+Learath2> (for the record I also much prefer the old look) 13:17 <+bridge> [ddnet] Me too Learath, but you get pretty used to it tbh 13:17 <+Learath2> I'd rather not get used to bad design decisions 13:17 <+bridge> [ddnet] some parts of the looks look really good 13:17 <+bridge> [ddnet] what bad decisions? 13:17 <+Learath2> fokkonaut, do you have commits somewhere for your port to 0.7? 13:18 <+Learath2> Like the chat that looks like nyan cat puked all over it 13:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] @Learath2 I have put everything in one commit, and the rest (small fixes) in seperates 13:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] I manually took things from the DDNet source 13:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] And somehow connected everything 13:20 <+bridge> [ddnet] So things like layers, command, rcon and that stuff works, also map settings work and yea 13:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] if ddnet is willing to port to 0.7, i will of course share it with you. At the moment it is in my private mod repo, but I can give you access to it 13:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] we not willing so dont worry 13:22 <+Learath2> Hmm, the most difficult part is probably the client stuff though 13:22 <+Learath2> with all the changes in the ui code 13:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] Yea, thats true 13:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] Lets take the old UI :p 13:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] I would actually welcome that 13:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] Learath, in theory you can check my server on 0.7, just type my name and you will find it. 13:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] check dm learath 13:41 <+Learath2> I'm having internet troubles at home, I can't really play tw, I can barely connect to irc 13:44 <+bridge> [ddnet] oof, thats bad... 13:47 <+Learath2> 70kbps 13:57 <+bridge> [ddnet] Bad internet for an developer damm that sucks 13:57 <+Learath2> good news they'll fix it in 3 days 13:58 <+Learath2> bad news it's 3 business days 13:58 <+Learath2> even worse news, tomorrow is saturday.... 15:02 <+bridge> [ddnet] Why not keep the current UI and port only the server and network protocol to 0.7? Sounds like a good compromise to me 15:02 <+bridge> [ddnet] Especially since fokkonaut already started 15:04 <+bridge> [ddnet] as long as the ingame physics stay the same I'd be open to run a few 0.7 servers first and then switch over once they prove themselves 15:08 <+bridge> [ddnet] dont count me in 15:14 <+bridge> [ddnet] Count me in instead :p 15:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] @deen we would need the skin system tho 15:30 <@deen> i don't care much about skins, sounds ok 15:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] Yea, but it is needed 15:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] There is no way around it 15:36 <+bridge> [ddnet] its quite a bit of work to port them, maybe a script would be needed, or make 0.7 users default skin 😄 15:38 <+bridge> [ddnet] would be nice to have something like a proxy, or overlaying API that just transforms 0.6 and 0.7 net code to a central one 15:41 <+bridge> [ddnet] @Jupstar ✪ I would heavily disagree with not using 0.7 skins 15:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] and where do i say to not use them? 16:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] What did they do to skins? 16:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] @Jupstar ✪ @heinrich5991 once talked of such a proxy, I doubt he ever made it though 16:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] 🤡 16:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] skins are more flexible, u can choose the eyes, feets and decoration independently 16:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] its quite nice indeed, would like to see that in the client some day 16:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] I'm sure we can handle that 16:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] only problem is 16:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] e.g. greyfox has decoration and it would be neede to redesigned 16:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] without decoration and the decoration seperatly 16:22 <+Learath2> oh the decoration on the tee? 16:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] yeah 16:22 <+Learath2> hmm that's troubling, we could probably get a script to do a lot of the work, but fixing the decorations will require some artist work 16:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] i mean for now u could just make it without removing decoration, but would be nice to have the freedom to select it 😄 16:48 <+bridge> [ddnet] or we give a shit about skins and only support new ones 17:06 <+bridge> [ddnet] ye lets remove all the work till today just for a update that provides nothing useful at all 17:06 <+bridge> [ddnet] :brownbear: 17:14 <+bridge> [ddnet] people can port their skins? 17:14 <+bridge> [ddnet] Just because you hate vanilla 17:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] I dont see skins as a blocker. Its not that ddnet doesnt work without skins. And artitsts like Whis are still active and for sure willing to recreate some skins. 17:58 <+bridge> [ddnet] is it possible to specify a storage.cfg file via command line parameters when starting the server? 17:58 <+bridge> [ddnet] I couldn't find any info about cli parameters... 17:59 <+bridge> [ddnet] storage.cfg is the one thing with truly fixed path 18:00 <+bridge> [ddnet] There are only 2 paths it'll try, one is the cwd 18:00 <+bridge> [ddnet] the next is if there is an absolute path to the executable in argv[0] it'll strip the executable name and look in the same directory as the executable 18:08 <+bridge> [ddnet] ty for the info 18:08 <+bridge> [ddnet] it could be quite usefull for a docker container to have the file in another directory than the executable, because then i could put it in a volume and not in the container... 18:14 <+bridge> [ddnet] may i try to implement that and create a pull request? 18:14 <+bridge> [ddnet] or is it not wanted, to be dynamic