02:00 <+bridge> [ddnet] check in wireshark 05:09 <+bridge> [ddnet] so i got wireshark 05:09 <+bridge> [ddnet] uhhh how to i find ddnet packets LOL 06:57 <+bridge> [ddnet] i think i'm losing my mind trying to get this to work 07:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] Try with port 07:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] Or by receiver ip 07:38 <+bridge> [ddnet] reciever ip should be my ip, right? 07:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] Server ip you are sinding packets to 07:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] Server ip you are sending packets to 07:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] If you struggle with something specific just name it 08:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] Huge discount on all stuffs for the end of year, click link to see what my vendor has for you https://t.me/pacexoitic 08:44 <+bridge> [ddnet] 08:44 <+bridge> [ddnet] this is how you make it, kinda 08:44 <+bridge> [ddnet] im not wireshark guru 08:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] also there are wireshark plugins afaik, maybe someone already made one to decipher tw packet, ot you can do it yourself :brownbear: 08:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] also there are wireshark plugins afaik, maybe someone already made one to decipher tw packet, or you can do it yourself :brownbear: 08:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] oh, heinrich made one, but its in rust, so idk how to install it 08:58 <+bridge> [ddnet] ok nvm, there is a guide 08:58 <+bridge> [ddnet] 09:20 <+bridge> [ddnet] @Jupeyy_Keks no complaints from nightly users yet on Vulkan default, nice 10:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] Probably not many using nightly tho^^ 10:36 <+bridge> [ddnet] More than beta 10:36 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/293493549758939136/1052881753448128552/Screenshot_2022-12-15_at_10.36.07.png 10:36 <+bridge> [ddnet] More than RCs 10:49 <+bridge> [ddnet] does the beta branch also have the updates of RCS? cuz i always run on RCS but if nightly updates earlier then i don't see a point in using it instead if nightly 10:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] Usually yes. But sometimes one day delayed 10:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] E.g. If not merged yet 10:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] Versioning is sometimes different tho 10:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] But that's not related to the implemented features 10:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] also, when running DDNET on steam, you can select whether to run the game or run starting with vulkan renderer, so wouldn't it make sense to make that button OpenGL now, since vulkan is default? 10:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] We want to remove that again 10:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] As long as the client starts some how it's fine 10:52 <+bridge> [ddnet] That's nice to hear actually, its slightly annoying to always have to press an extra button when running from steam 10:52 <+bridge> [ddnet] Definitely 11:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] Will be removed in next version if all goes well. In the meantime you can right click on the game and create a shortcut to desktop 11:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] then it's without the option I understand 11:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] The point is that RC is more stable than nightly, but less stable than release. We need it to stabilize things for a week until release to catch the bugs without adding new features in the meantime 11:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] The point is that RC is more stable than nightly, but less stable than release. We need it to stabilize things for a week until release to catch the bugs without adding new features (and thus potential new bugs) in the meantime 11:30 <+bridge> [ddnet] Right, thanks for the explanations 14:00 <+bridge> [ddnet] @Ryozuki have you seen gccrs got merged? 14:01 <+bridge> [ddnet] It will be shipped on gcc 13.1 14:02 <+bridge> [ddnet] It doesn't even have the borrow checker yet, but still it is a start 14:04 <+bridge> [ddnet] I think they told people not to get hyped over it 14:04 <+bridge> [ddnet] it's not usabel 14:04 <+bridge> [ddnet] it's not usable 14:07 <+bridge> [ddnet] tbh i dont know what to think 14:07 <+bridge> [ddnet] its good cuz gcc supports more 14:08 <+bridge> [ddnet] but i hope it doesnt become a problem like c++ 14:08 <+bridge> [ddnet] where u gotta care about diferent impls 14:08 <+bridge> [ddnet] do you have to care about different impls in c++? 14:09 <+bridge> [ddnet] i.e. can you give an example? 14:10 <+bridge> [ddnet] I hope gcc backend is faster than llvm , performance of binary wise, like on c 14:11 <+bridge> [ddnet] I never touch gcc except for release builds xd. It's just too good 14:12 <+bridge> [ddnet] If you care about different implementations in C/C++ you are very likely doing something wrong 14:13 <+bridge> [ddnet] I can foresee a problem with Rust where there is no standard to resolve implementation differences though 14:14 <+bridge> [ddnet] isnt there implementation defined behaviour? 14:14 <+bridge> [ddnet] if gccrs follows rustc exactly same i got no problem 14:14 <+bridge> [ddnet] yes. I was asking where **you** care about different implementation behavior 14:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] not some hypotheticals 14:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] just the fact it exists is bad design to me 14:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] i havent done much c++ lately so idk rn 14:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] then rust is a lot worse 14:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] rust only has 1 impl 14:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] so its not a problem 14:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] rustc is the only way rust is 14:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] yes, and that implemetation will change behavior 14:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] since we have no spec, we don't know which behavior is correct 14:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] well for me the one from rustc 14:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] rustc which version? 14:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] Implementation defined behaviour is veery specific stuff. Like locale specific behaviour 14:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] good stuff of only having 1 14:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] anyway ur probs right it probs doesnt matter 14:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] The very latest version I presume 14:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] but its the main concern 14:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] i seen in rust reddit 14:17 <+bridge> [ddnet] rust is mostly backwards compat 14:17 <+bridge> [ddnet] actually it is 14:17 <+bridge> [ddnet] It’s imo good. This sort of uncertainty will finally hopefully force rust to write down the rules 14:17 <+bridge> [ddnet] I just repeat what others say, without understanding it? ^^ 14:17 <+bridge> [ddnet] c++ compilers are mostly compatible with each others 14:17 <+bridge> [ddnet] also in rust docs they often clearly say when something should not be assumed 14:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] I hope not tbh 14:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] except when they don't and it changes 14:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/ 14:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] there is this tho 14:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] I think it's great that rust can™️ just break any struct layout if it thinks it's faster 14:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] Doesn’t mean they have to employ the wg14 method of standardization where nothing can change ever again 14:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] That's true^^ 14:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] It’s good to have a book of rules that you can refer to that concretely tells you what the prescribed behaviour is 14:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] It also depends on if u want to mix both compilers 14:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] this seems unrelated to having a spec 14:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] in fact the spec currently says what you say 14:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] in fact the reference currently says what you say 14:20 <+bridge> [ddnet] Didn't we talk about implementation defined behavior? 14:20 <+bridge> [ddnet] it doesnt break, it just says u cant rely on the order u put the fields cuz rust automatically moves them around to find the best align 14:20 <+bridge> [ddnet] or fitting idk 14:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] Ok but if u static link a lib that could break between compilers can't it? 14:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] u use repr(C) 14:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] So it's not guaranteed 14:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] for when u want known order 14:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] Anyway I'm confused now bye 14:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] hmm idk if it can break between compilers 14:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] oh ok bye 14:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] yes, that's implementation defined behavior between versions of rustc, even 14:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] that implementation defined behavior seems alright to me 14:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] ye 14:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] Implementation defined behaviour is really niche stuff. The amount of bits in a byte. The way integers are represented. The values of signals 14:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] anyway what we comment has no change on what will happen 14:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] we dont control rustc kek 14:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] hence we shouldn't talk about it? 14:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] meh 14:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] and wdym? user input can change rustc decisions 14:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] in fact, that's e.g. why `usize` is called `usize` in rust 14:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] well i think no matter the amount of input u cant stop someone from implementing gccrs 14:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] this was a proposal that users had, which was declined once and then still added because people really didn't like the old names 14:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] I don’t agree that all discussions have to lead to concrete change. It’s also for self improvement. I learn a lot of stuff just during idle discussions with people 14:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] yeah my bad 14:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] xD 14:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] idk if a spec is good rn 14:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] maybe the language can still improve 14:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] well it can 14:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] i wonder how a spec makes changingg more difficulñt 14:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] i wonder how a spec makes changingg more difficult 14:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] also there is one spec made 14:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] or an attempt 14:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] but not oficial 14:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://spec.ferrocene.dev/ 14:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] I doubt it’d change much. It just adds a bit more work to changes, you have to actually think about the prescribed behaviour 14:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] Aaaanyway, we’ll see in due time how they decide to handle the fact that there will now be more than one rust compiler 14:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/293493549758939136/1052940518381863003/image.png 14:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] with this u can do the typical standard mention 14:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] they do in c++ 14:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] ur wrong! point 4.3.2.1 says this! 14:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] As you said, no one can really stop people from implementing a gccrs 14:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] Idk how much value there is in a descriptive unofficial standard. Because the reply to this would be “rustc does this, so u and ur unofficial standard are wrong” 14:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] With C++ you can say “your compiler is wrong, period’ 14:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] i know, but they did this standard following what rustc does 14:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] dont think as c++ here 14:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] its not wrong to use rustc as the base point for the standard 14:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] since its the only one 14:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] rn 14:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] also its done by very important ppl in the rust scene 14:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] ferrous systems did rust-analyzer 14:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] and rust-analyzer is like a second compiler 14:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] made just to check 14:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] xD 14:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] But at some point if the rustc and the standard disagrees. It’s what rustc does that’s important, right? 14:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://rust-analyzer.github.io/ 14:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] yeah 14:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] thats why at some point the standard needs to be made "oficial" 14:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] and then rustc follow the standard and not the other way around 14:34 <+bridge> [ddnet] I guess something like gccrs can be a good push for that change 14:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] i wonder if gccrs will split the compiler devs 14:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] its already lot of work to do one 14:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust 14:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] is insanely big 14:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] by amount of contributors too 14:36 <+bridge> [ddnet] 210.000 commits lol 14:36 <+bridge> [ddnet] That is actually a concern, hopefully gccrs does get a dedicated team without pulling from rustc people 14:37 <+bridge> [ddnet] How big is the rustc team anyway? In clang and gcc there are a lot of small collaborators but there are some people that do an insane amount of work on their own 14:41 <+bridge> [ddnet] anyone can make prs 14:41 <+bridge> [ddnet] but the team is here: 14:41 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://www.rust-lang.org/governance 14:42 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://github.com/oli-obk 14:42 <+bridge> [ddnet] this guy does a lot 14:43 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://www.rust-lang.org/governance/teams/compiler 17:12 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://github.com/obsproject/obs-studio/pull/7926 17:13 <+bridge> [ddnet] uses rust ^^ 18:08 <+bridge> [ddnet] This suggestion was quite interesting to me, sometimes you don't want the guy to know you are looking at his points (while not knowing the website exists), it also makes the chat spammy imo, and as you mentioned (deen), I don't really think beginners need to deal with such numbers. It doesn't matter anymore because the guy ran away and closed the issue :cammo: 18:08 <+bridge> [ddnet] join with dummy 18:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] What if u're already playing with it 18:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] Did u mean like hiding? 18:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] yeah just meant fake identity xd 18:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] @Jupeyy_Keks perhaps I have misunderstood something? 18:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] Oh ok 18:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] dunno, i guess u simply didnt read deens msg xD 18:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] Yeah, did not real fully 18:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] Yeah, did not reald fully 18:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] Yeah, did not read fully 18:45 <+bridge> [ddnet] Yeah, did not fully read 19:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] Do you think we should move the borders button to the new Tools tab? 19:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] Sounds good 19:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] If you don't want someone to look at your points play on local server and host local db, or press kill on finishes on main servers and note in ut notepad that you did the map 19:37 <+bridge> [ddnet] The point was to have a way to check someones points easily without them knowing for whatever reason 19:38 <+bridge> [ddnet] uhm? you are free to give your opinion, but not to impose it. also, i wasn't really referring to someone looking at my points, but rather to the fact that you absolutely don't want the guy to know that you are checking his points, this can be for some reasons, like when you don't want to look "toxic" by checking someone's points because he did something wrong or because he is just bad 19:39 <+bridge> [ddnet] Instead of a whole new command maybe it would be better to just add another optional parameter to the points command. Something like `/points Aca^ local` would print out the points of the player to you only 19:39 <+bridge> [ddnet] Nouaa's reply sounded like he doesnt want someone to know how much points he has 19:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] can't you just switch the server? 19:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] or open the game twice and joining another server? 19:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] I didnt impose my opinion? Maybe my reply sounded a bit aggressive, but no hate was intended 19:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] it doesn't, someone can check my points without me noticing 19:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] or opening the game twice and joining another server? 19:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] If im playing then it would be easier to open a browser or another client 19:41 <+bridge> [ddnet] If guy want to be toxic he can just cope paste ur points into chat 19:41 <+bridge> [ddnet] If guy want to be toxic he can just copy paste ur points into chat 19:41 <+bridge> [ddnet] ye, no problem, so as not to create drama, let's forget it 🙂 19:41 <+bridge> [ddnet] ?????? 19:42 <+bridge> [ddnet] 0 points 19:46 <+bridge> [ddnet] I still don't see a bad reason not to add it @uwu, you think it's useless but it's actually useful to me because it improves the player experience by reducing "awkward" moments 19:47 <+bridge> [ddnet] this is my point of view, and in the meantime, showing the players points as suggested in the issue would be a fire 19:48 <+bridge> [ddnet] this is my point of view, and in the meantime, showing the players points as suggested in the issue would be fire 19:48 <+bridge> [ddnet] I think adding new command or argument to see them locally actually a good feature, but initial and heinrich's formulations made me thing you wont be able to look points publicly anymore 19:48 <+bridge> [ddnet] this is my point of view, and btw, showing the players points as suggested in the issue would be fire 19:49 <+bridge> [ddnet] yeah i think it should stay as it is where it shows globally but with an option to display it locally 19:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] no option/argument needed it it's shown directly in the scoreboard 19:52 <+bridge> [ddnet] no option/argument needed if it's shown directly in the scoreboard 19:53 <+bridge> [ddnet] I have trouble writing from my phone lmao, always need to edit my messages 20:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] Omg, why is Visual Studio git stuff so complicated... Another reason why I use VS Code 20:34 <+bridge> [ddnet] Just use jetbrains ides:greenthing: 20:34 <+bridge> [ddnet] Just use jetbrains IDEs:greenthing: 20:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] delete it 20:52 <+bridge> [ddnet] What do you think should replace it 20:53 <+bridge> [ddnet] nothing 20:53 <+bridge> [ddnet] i mean the button is shared with everything else 21:07 <+bridge> [ddnet] 🤓 21:12 <+bridge> [ddnet] windows notepad is the best for coding 21:13 <+bridge> [ddnet] Microsoft word 2007 is best IDE so far 21:57 <+bridge> [ddnet] happy kernel day to my os 🥳 21:57 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/293493549758939136/1053053327862136902/image.png 22:11 <+bridge> [ddnet] But had to reinstall nvidia drivers cuz they died for some reason 22:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/293493549758939136/1053059636321853450/image.png 22:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] fedora gang 22:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] What about the new gnome design 22:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] gnome 43 ? 22:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] Y 22:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] way better than the previous versions imo 22:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] they removed icons on the desktop 22:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] it's simpler and more efficient 23:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] Raspberry pi gaming...?:justatest: 23:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] better than the ppl with 1995 pc xd 23:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] but im scared about 32bit 23:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] i'd prefer it dies out xD 23:17 <+bridge> [ddnet] I should try running ddnet on arduino and later create issue so you guys take care of it:greenthing: 23:46 <+bridge> [ddnet] @Ryozuki is that you? 23:46 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/zmptw5/very_new_to_programming_how_do_i_deal_with_this/ 23:47 <+bridge> [ddnet] no 23:47 <+bridge> [ddnet] i dont use laptops 23:48 <+bridge> [ddnet] i have a master race pc 23:48 <+bridge> [ddnet] imagine not compiling ddnet under 24 secs 23:48 <+bridge> [ddnet] Xddddd 23:48 <+bridge> [ddnet] so i read both this and got the plugin, but when i build my client and try to test my changes in a map it isnt detected as TW 23:49 <+bridge> [ddnet] so i read both this and got the plugin, but when i build my client and try to test my changes in a map the protocol isnt detected as TW 23:52 <+bridge> [ddnet] Is a force push the only way the previous head of a branch gets orphaned? 23:53 <+bridge> [ddnet] You could also delete the branch 23:53 <+bridge> [ddnet] or rebase 23:53 <+bridge> [ddnet] or squash commits 23:53 <+bridge> [ddnet] oh, but for the remote branch, all of that requires a force push 23:53 <+bridge> [ddnet] git is append only