Two other bug reports got me to test this out. Using the researched steel axe...
Unless it's the silo, which is = 1, all other entities take 60*x+1, rather than just 60*x.
I found this parameter in entities.lua (thanks for making stuff easy for people like me), and it correlated to my test:
https://youtu.be/zV5YxDvaiuQ
I didn't test without the steel axe.
[0.17.66] if minable = {mining_time = <1}, it takes an extra tick
[0.17.66] if minable = {mining_time = <1}, it takes an extra tick
Last edited by Jon8RFC on Tue Aug 27, 2019 8:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: [0.17.66] if minable = {mining_time = <1}, it's that many ticks plus one
Does it really affect anything relevant? The bar shows the correct progress. It just takes an extra tick for the entity to disappear.
I highly doubt it's an issue worth looking into.
I highly doubt it's an issue worth looking into.
Re: [0.17.66] if minable = {mining_time = <1}, it's that many ticks plus one
Well it's not just that it "doesn't disappear" and is a visual bug, it actually requires that extra tick before it's put into the inventory, unless it's the silo.
This report had me trying things in slow-motion, at which point I noticed that it took more ticks than I would've expected, given the progress bar.
It then had me thinking more about this report and how they said that it isn't immediate, but happens over time.
I guess it's a pretty unintelligent thought process of mine, which I now feel, but wanted to attempt to defend it so I don't look as stupid as I feel. I couldn't help but wonder if something was somehow being residual on the back end of things in 73458 since it was only over time of many pole placings/removals that the pole removal crash occurred. Just trying to offer a new thought and another pair of eyes.
This report had me trying things in slow-motion, at which point I noticed that it took more ticks than I would've expected, given the progress bar.
It then had me thinking more about this report and how they said that it isn't immediate, but happens over time.
I guess it's a pretty unintelligent thought process of mine, which I now feel, but wanted to attempt to defend it so I don't look as stupid as I feel. I couldn't help but wonder if something was somehow being residual on the back end of things in 73458 since it was only over time of many pole placings/removals that the pole removal crash occurred. Just trying to offer a new thought and another pair of eyes.