09:39 <+bridge> [ddnet] <smokjab> hey, server went down right as i was about to finish a map and i got disconnected, i have the full clip of the run
10:48 <+ChillerDragon> which map?
15:17 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> AFAICT that code is very much useful, wanna figure it out yourself why that is the case?
15:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> @Tater @Ryozuki ^
15:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> no, tiles aren't bound to be 64 pixels, they just are in the default tilesets
15:20 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> hmm
15:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> you declare a array on the stack, copy the addresses into it, then update the entry, without ever modifying the addresses, and then copy them back
15:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> idk
15:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> unclear, we'd have to talk about it
15:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> yes, really. the client respects the server settings for this IIRC
15:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> thats not my point. the point is that the server can not detect whether a client is using this, because we talked about these other prediction lines before
15:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> and that they are not detectable
15:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> and therefore, also the server can in theory not disable hooklines
15:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> yes. that doesn't make them not-cheats
15:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> thats not the point
15:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> okay, that point is enough for me
15:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> ??? but its completely out of context in that sense
15:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> .
15:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> And this was nuborns msg
15:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> Which I basically responded to
15:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> we will ban anyone who gets detected using one of these clients
15:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> Cuz the server can not really control it, if the client just renders it, like the prediction lines
15:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> Yeah, thats the thing, its not detecable xD
15:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> if you use one of these clients, you're not safe from being banned, should we invest some time detecting them
15:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> Same for hookline if it was forbidden
15:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> usually, this comes from a fixed number of cheat clients
15:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> sometimes, they behave differently in small ways
15:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> i know, i was just talking theoretically
15:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> great, I'm talking pratcially
15:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> nice, missed my point
15:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar> but they are part of the entry 😄
15:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> I basically want to inform people that your point isn't everything
15:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> yeah, thats obvious
15:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> it's nice that it's obvious to you
15:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> I wanted to make that clear for everyone
15:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> ah
15:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> ohh
15:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> > pEntry->m_Info = Info;
15:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> i missed this xd
15:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> ye the code makes sense
15:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> and the first thing I said was actually just that the hookline can be disabled, which seemed like a false statement on your part
15:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> yea, cuz thought a bit further it cant be disabled, if the client decides to render it not depending on the flag, as my example with cl_show_hook_coll_other 2 gave
15:28 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> yea, cuz thought a bit further it cant be disabled, if the client decides to render it not depending on the flag, as my example with cl_show_hook_coll_other 2 said
15:28 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> that's okay, but not what you said
15:28 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> hence my comment
15:28 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> .
15:28 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> yes, that config setting is disabled when the server requests it
15:28 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> that means, in the end the server can not control it
15:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> it can control it in the ddnet client
15:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> yes, but in the end the client can render it anyways.........
15:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> yes
15:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> but that's not what you wrote ^^
15:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> this setting shows, that the client can render it, not depending on the flag
15:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> you gave an example that doesn't work
15:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> it does work
15:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> as long as the server allows it, which can be changed in the client
15:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> was just an example
15:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> idk why you take it so hard xD
15:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> this is the important extra point
15:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> same for you ^^
15:30 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> you know exactly what i mean
15:30 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> it always takes two stubborn people to land in this situation ^^
15:30 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> and i didnt make it too unclear
15:30 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> I know I tend to be one, but you apparently also are
15:30 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> of course
15:30 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> :D
15:30 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> if you undestand that, why do you talk like I'm solely at fault here?
15:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> that's a bit annoying ^^
15:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> i didnt lol
15:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> why are you taking this so seriously?
15:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> why are you trying to make me look weird all the time?
15:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> its so useless
15:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> see? this reply from me was doing what you did above
15:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> wrong assumption
15:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> I wanted to demonstrate how you say that it's my fault
15:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> and it seems you agree that a statement like this assigns fault
15:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> because you went on to "defend" yourself
15:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> i clearly explained my points, and you just talk against it with things that are not involved
15:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> thats the difference
15:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> and you knew exactly how i meant it
15:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> I acknowledged your points, you didn't seem to acknowledge mine
15:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> oaky whatever dude :D
15:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> have a good one
15:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> Another heated developer moment
16:52 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> https://tenor.com/view/colbert-popcorn-popcorn-stephen-colbert-eat-popcorn-popcorn2020-gif-16075618
16:53 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> @Learath2
19:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> @c0d3d3v i dont know where you got that info from, regarding the spec inputs xd
19:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> its EXACTLY the other way around
21:46 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Chairn> i didn't see the info assignment in the middle 🙂
21:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> ^^
21:52 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Chairn> Although, you could use an assignemnt to TmpInfo
21:52 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Chairn> to have less code
21:52 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> how to? if it improves the clarity, you could make a PR
21:53 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Chairn> TmpInfo = pEntry->m_Info;
21:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Chairn> pEntry->m_Info = Info;
21:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Chairn> // restore other data from TmpInfo