First mention by jorb, 2016.
But what are they really?
[requesting for small explanation from devs about what it is and why we need them]
jorb wrote:[*] We have begun discussing the prospect of taking some time to fix "object controlled objects", a server engine upgrade which basically would allow for some objects to depend upon other objects in a more developed fashion. The immediate purpose of this would be to allow for objects which can actually be walked upon, which could potentially allow us to do things like walk-on-walls, rafts that can actually be walked upon and onto, non-pocket world houses, and bridges. It is a significant project, so it might be more than one week in the making. I'm not 100% that we'll go for this next week, but we want to do it at some point in the not too distant future, mostly because it seems like one of the more significant level ups we can give the game, but also because it is foundational enough that plenty of things could potentially come to depend on it, so it'd be nice to have out of the way.
jorb wrote:[*] An update to the server-client protocol is the next project in the pipe. It is a relatively limited scope project to allow for better definitions of objects in relation to other objects (E.g. bubbling retort standing on lit tripod burner with variable materials, standing on an Alchemist's table. That kind of stuff). One upside is that it could allow us to add variable materials to tools and equipment. This is necessary for the next project after, namely Object Controlled Objects, which we consider the next major milestone in development.
It is a significant project, so it might be more than one week in the making. - jorb 2016
jorb wrote:[*]It is a significant project, so it might be more than one week in the making.
Massa wrote:jorb wrote:[*]It is a significant project, so it might be more than one week in the making.
when one hears this, one generally does not round up to "4 years later"
Ardennesss wrote:Massa wrote:jorb wrote:[*]It is a significant project, so it might be more than one week in the making.
when one hears this, one generally does not round up to "4 years later"
Massa wrote:jorb wrote:[*]It is a significant project, so it might be more than one week in the making.
when one hears this, one generally does not round up to "4 years later"
shubla wrote:[requesting for small explanation from devs about what it is and why we need them]
Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 1 guest