All Activity

As i said that was the only crash error i ever got, and none crash before this log ever generated nor after no matter how many times i tried and how many times game crashed. I'm starting to think it's a RAM issue, but it baffles me why it would be fine before and suddenly not fine only for this one game.

No, mine came from knowing ballistics. I was completely honest when I explained why I recommended that you ask an AI- I thought that you might find it more convincing that some dude on the internet, and I didn't expect you to constrain the question my specifying kinetic energy. But the AI summary is a pretty good one: That being said, yes, your point about the models used in video games is well taken. But the bottom line remains that a thrust spear should do more "damage" than a thrown one. VS is not crunching the KE equation- it just has an arbitrary damage number.

No, I really didn't. I copied and pasted it and explained the disagreement of which it had full context. AI is notorious for mistakes. Don't trust them even if they agree with you. They are not experts. In the future I would refrain from using AI in your responses. All of mine came from Googling the topic of projectiles in motion and my own basic knowledge of forces in motion. But to get back on track, I think perhaps where the disagreement is coming from is that I'm using simple models that would be reflected in a video game where you're asking the game to perform a full ballistics simulation model on every projectile. That is simply not feasible because you would have to account for variations in spear head weight, size, and even shape as some spears will do more damage than others. One one hand I can sort of understand your arguments, but the instant you perform a full thrust with the spear instead of the "poke" that we do in game, you're lodging your spear deep into a target that's going to be very, very angry about it. You're also equating a thrust with a continuous push which is closer to charging your target with the spear and is clearly not what happens in game. A quick summary of thrusting a spear shows that the force of the spear would travel about as far as the user could push it. The mass imparting the force would be equivalent to the mass of the spear and whatever limbs were carrying it. The force itself would be equivalent to the force needed to move the spear that distance at that speed. The velocity is much much lower in this case, and thus imparts a lower impacting force on the target than the sheer force of a thrown projectile. At that point, the limiting factor would be the user's grip and whether the target was able to retaliate. These factors will severely limit the user's ability to impart the "continuous force" you seem to think should be happening here. Sorry but even if you are correct on a technicality, the way you're trying to apply the concepts is incompatible with how the game actually works, which is poking with a one-handed thrust vs hurling the spear. I've seen enough videos of people standing too close to the Olympic javelin toss to allow the thought that a thrusted spear could deal more damage.

Welcome to the forums! I'd like this too. I don't really care if they're functional though, as I just want them for aesthetics. I think drastically lowering the drops from creatures killed in this fashion would probably be deterrent enough. I dunno that I'd want them to be expensive to craft though, given that one of the main advantages to palisade is that it's fairly cheap and quick to construct. As for a durability value...I can see why that might be necessary if it's the type of fortified stake meant to impale creatures that run into it, but otherwise I'm not really a fan of durability as I tend to want to use stuff like this for decoration rather than actual function. Valheim used that mechanic and I always found it rather annoying to deal with.

But I'm OCD enough to want the vanilla game to be right, dammit. But I'm aware that's a me problem. I'm still working on myself.

Do keep in mind that the thrown spear damage only matters if the player actually hits the target. If the player misses, not only do they do no damage, but they're down a valuable weapon as well in most cases. I think if it's really a dealbreaker though, it should be easy enough to figure out which .json file governs spear damage values, and then modify them to your liking. Mods that edit values like that tend to be some of the easier ones to make.

sorry i said centos i meant CachyOS .. a great starting point for windows users .. there really isn't a best linux distro , just use distro's as a starting point , you can run any software that i've seen on any distro jet het the package handler that has the program that you need in it and then install it i am using Cachy0s using flatpacks for some softeare and aur for others its the same ..

Ah, so yes, you phrased it to get the answer that you wanted! Though it was almost certainly not intentional. I am absolutely not going to assume malintent on your part- that seems very innocent. AIs are not smart- it went straight to the kinetic energy equation because you mentioned it. I had a long learning session with AIs when they first became available, and asked it a lot about itself, and learned how they tend to give people the answer that they want. They are not terribly unlike social media algorithms that way. So as a proof of concept I fed ChatGPT this: Here is the answer: That effectively tells the AI: Use kinetic energy as the criterion Compare two delivery methods under that lens So the model will almost inevitably anchor on: KE=12mv2KE = \tfrac{1}{2}mv^2KE=21mv2 m1m_1m1 m2m_2m2 vvv m1m2 …and then reason: Thrown spear → higher velocity Thrust spear → lower velocity → therefore higher KE for the thrown spear That’s not wrong within that frame. It’s just incomplete. 2) It quietly excludes the actual point of contention Your argument (correctly) lives in: force over time impulse work during penetration continuous vs. one-time energy delivery But the question filters those out by design. An AI will usually not override the user’s chosen metric unless prompted. So it answers: “Which has higher KE?” → thrown spear Instead of: “Which is more effective at delivering force into a target?” → thrust often wins 3) Why that can mislead Kinetic energy is a snapshot at impact, not a full description of what happens next. Two key limitations: (a) KE ignores how energy is delivered Thrown spear: energy delivered in a very short impulse Thrust: energy continues to be added after contact (b) KE ignores force profile Force depends on how quickly momentum changes: F=ΔpΔtF = \frac{\Delta p}{\Delta t}F=ΔtΔp A thrown spear may: have high KE but lose it almost instantly on impact A thrust: may start with lower KE but keeps applying force over time and distance 4) Analogy (more faithful than the knife one) A better comparison than knives is: Hammer strike vs. hydraulic press Hammer: high kinetic energy, very brief impact Press: lower speed, but sustained force → more total work on the material If you only ask “which has more kinetic energy,” the hammer wins. If you ask “which deforms or penetrates more,” the answer can flip. 5) Bottom line Yes, her question biases the answer toward “thrown spear has more KE.” That answer is technically correct but incomplete It does not resolve the real-world effectiveness question, which depends on: impulse sustained force work during penetration control and alignment If you want to pin this down cleanly A more neutral question would be something like: “Which delivers more force into a target and achieves greater penetration: a thrown spear or a hand-thrust spear, and why?” That forces consideration of: KE and impulse and sustained force …and you’ll get a much more balanced (and realistic) answer. You have to be careful about phrasing questions for AI. They can be extremely powerful, but they are also focused and literal. I use OpenEvidence for medical issues, and you have to be careful even with phrasing for such a specialized AI, too. You could potentially claim that I just did the exact same thing- asked a leading question. But I think that I phrased it well. Play around with the AI and see what you think. Ask it a more open question, like mine. Because AIs do tend to give you the answer that you think you already are sure of if you are not careful. So I apologize- that was my fault in directing you to the AI. I also pasted your first AI quote into mine, and got: That’s true—but then it quietly treats them as if they should be compared using the same constraint (initial KE). That’s the flaw. Why it matters Thrown spear: Energy available after impact is capped at initial KE → once it hits, energy only goes down Thrusting spear: Energy is not fixed at impact → work continues to be added during penetration So the statement: “energy is the primary upper bound on mechanical work available at the moment of collision” is only valid for projectiles, not for systems where force continues to be applied. 3) The missing equation (this is the crux) Work during penetration is: W=∫F dxW = \int F \, dxW=∫Fdx A thrown spear: Large FFF, but over very small xxx (it rapidly decelerates) A thrust: Smaller FFF, but over much larger xxx (you keep pushing) That’s the whole game. 4) Why “KE at impact” is not decisive Her AI implicitly assumes: Higher KE → more work → better penetration That only holds if: all energy is actually transferred efficiently, and no additional energy is added afterward Neither is reliably true. Reality: Projectiles often lose energy to: deformation deflection non-ideal angle A thrust can: maintain alignment keep adding energy adapt to resistance in real time So KE is a ceiling for a thrown spear, but only a starting point for a thrust. 5) The “biomechanics limit” argument cuts both ways Her AI says thrust is limited by human strength—which is true. But that doesn’t rescue the conclusion, because: A human can sustain hundreds of newtons over significant distance That can yield comparable or greater total work than a light spear’s KE Example (order-of-magnitude, not cherry-picked): Thrust: 600 N over 0.3 m → W=180W = 180W=180 J Thrown spear: 150 J KE → capped at 150 J total So the thrust can equal or exceed the projectile in total work, despite lower velocity. 6) Where her AI is actually right (and where it isn’t) Correct: These are “different interaction models” Thrown = high velocity, short duration Thrust = lower velocity, sustained force Incorrect implication: It treats those as non-competing, when in practice they are competing on: penetration force delivered to a target lethality / effectiveness And in those domains, sustained force often dominates. 7) The clean rebuttal (short version you can use) If you want something concise to drop into the argument: You’re right that a thrown spear can have higher kinetic energy at impact, and that KE limits the work a projectile can do after release. But that comparison only applies to closed systems. A thrusting spear is an open system—energy is still being added during penetration. The relevant quantity isn’t just KE at impact, it’s total work: W=∫F dxW = \int F\,dxW=∫Fdx. A thrown spear has a fixed energy budget that rapidly dissipates on impact. A thrust can apply force over a much longer distance, adding energy continuously. So higher KE at impact does not imply greater penetration or force delivered overall—it just means a higher initial impulse. Bottom line Her AI gave a physically correct but narrowly framed answer It does not invalidate your argument The real disagreement is about: initial energy (projectile view) vs. energy delivered over time (contact mechanics view) And for spears used at close range, the second is usually the one that actually decides outcomes. I am very confident that I am correct. But at this point we're just posting AIs arguing with one another. I'm ready to bow out if you are.

I copied and pasted our entire conversation for context with a brief explanation: "The OP of this thread and I are disagreeing on this subject. My claim is that a thrown spear will have a higher Kinetic Energy (KE) than a thrusted spear. He deflected with a knife comparison, I challenged him on this as throwing knives aren't part of the game we're discussing and tried to refocus the discussion back on spears. This is his final comment to me:" And then posted your last comment. So like... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yesssss pleaSsssse!!! I have almost 500 hrs in game and I just stared turning off the block interaction help tooltips because I have finally memorized all of the different possible button combinations. I know veteran players will be upset with this change because they will lose their encyclopedia of muscle memory but this is sorely needed for new players. Just leave a “legacy controls” option for people who want to keep it the way it is.

I mentioned asking ChatGPT because you are clearly entrenched on the subject, and I thought that you might be swayed by an "expert" explanation. There is no way that a thrown spear does more "damage" (whatever that is) than a thrust one. That is so wrong that it hurts my brain. I suspect that you're framing the question to get the answer you want, and it is not intellectually honest to paste a response without including the question asked. So what was the exact phrasing you used? I'll lay my cards on the table, mine was exactly what I said: "Would a thrown spear have more force than one used in the hand?" Very simple, and it got the correct answer. No leading phraseology. And the response that I got was: So what was yours? I'm also honest enough to critique myself: The reason that I said "whatever that is" above is that damage and lethality are not simply a matter of energy application. It gets complicated. (As I said, terminal ballistics is sort of my thing.) The one point where a thrown spear might have an advantage over a thrust one is precisely the short time over which it's smaller energy is applied. That could conceivably lead to better armor penetration in some armors that have a high initial resistance, like plate.

Okay.... here's what it said verbatim: It is: thrust = lower peak velocity, longer controlled force application throw = higher peak velocity, shorter uncontrolled impact Those are different interaction models, not competing energy systems. In short, it sounds like the OP has a basic grasp of the fundamental concepts, but is missing the mark on how to correctly apply them. It then expressed an interest in ending the thread here: Then I asked if I could just copy and paste the response and it said: Well I copied and pasted it verbatim. lol. but hey you told me to ask it and I did.

Game balance can indeed be challenging. Yes, it's hard to implement the IRL advantages of some weapons. "Damage" means many things in real life, and that doesn't translate well to a computer game. I grok that. But seeing that thrown spear damage is more than twice thrusting spear damage makes my brain hurt. If we were using an atlatl then maybe that would make some sense. I guess that's just going to have to be my personal headcanon from now on...

I kinda have always shared a similar sentiment about firepits. it's always felt like it should be drygrass + other stackable fuel. trying to set up a quick crucible and ugh, gotta get firewood just to take it back out again so I can put charcoal in. but dry grass with fists? Dry grass is like a ton of other items in the game gathered with a tool, it's used for an insane amount of recipes vanilla or modded, so you need to collect a lot of it. There's scythes to make this easier, but a knife starts you off. without the knife or scythe being needed, you'd be pretty tempted to just forgo making any of those wasteful tools with things like durability and instead, take ages ripping out grass with your hands. I think it fosters better gameplay to just not let you do that, lol. You could make the argument that dirt already does this, but I don't think that's really relevant considering it's not as valuable of a crafting component at all.

We are talking about spears. You just go the physics wrong. Or the physiology, if you want to look at it that way. Yes, throwing around equations from your Physics 101 class always looks convincing. And throwing around terms like "order of magnitude" is icing on the cake. But you need to brush up on concepts like power, impulse, and work as well. And you missed an important point about force, specifically that it is a one-time short-term force application when throwing a spear but more of a prolonged ongoing process with a thrust spear. Terminal ballistics is sort of my thing, and it is a lot more complicated than merely measuring kinetic energy. But using the simple KE=mv^2 kinetic energy equation as a stand in for lethality is a mistake that many others have made, including professionals who should know better, so it is forgivable. A thrown spear is a projectile. Once it leaves the hand it is no longer getting force inputs, and it's impact depends solely upon it's momentum. As you quoted: p = mv Momentum is mass times velocity. When it hits, the spear decelerates over a short time, producing an average force: F = dp/dt Force equals change in momentum over change in time. So the total force is affected by how quickly the spear stops upon impact, and it is going to stop fast, because it has a very limited amount of energy stored in it and no more gets added as it is in flight. In fact air resistance and tumbling are going to reduce it. but a thrusting spear is different- it is still connected to your body, getting constant force inputs. This is where you made your mistake- you computed the energy of a thrust spear as merely it's mass and velocity... and that's wrong, because it is getting ongoing force inputs. It is not just delivering momentum- you are continuously applying force, so it is not limited to the little bit that you gave to the spear when throwing it. A thrust spear does not rely only upon it's own mass and velocity! It gets more. Force is related to impulse: J = Fdt = dp Joules equals force applied over time, which equals change in momentum. That's the whole refutation of what you said, but I can come at the problem in other ways if you like: A thrown spear has a fixed impulse determined before impact, because it had a single short application of force. But a thrust spear can increase impulse during impact because it is still connected to you and you are pushing it. The thrust spear delivers more Joules, not less as you assert! So, for a thrown spear force peaks briefly then drops as it slows, over milliseconds. But with a thrust spear the force is maintained over time. Then, penetration depends upon work done against the target, not just initial energy: W = Fd Work is force times distance. So with a thrust you apply more force over time, unlike a thrown spear. Or think of it this way. F=ma, right? So, would a target get pushed back (accelerated) more by a hit from a blunt spear you threw, or by shoving it hard with your hands with your body weight behind it (shoving being a proxy for how much force over time you could put into a spear thrust)? That is the difference in force application that we are talking about. So: Thrown spear, high velocity, high momentum, but brief impact force, so limited energy delivered. Thrust spear, possibly lower velocity depending upon technique, but continuous force application, so greater sustained force and ultimate energy delivery to the target. Your order of magnitude assessment is backwards. Seriously, ask ChatGPT. Edited because I really needed to cut that textwall down a bit.

I agree that this would be cool--albeit a bit niche--to include in the base game. But, just in case you were unaware, there is already a mod that adds this process! https://mods.vintagestory.at/japanesearchitecture

It's a definite oversight, but in case you didn't know, you can use a knife to turn excess roofing back into thatch, which you can then burn. In an effort to keep it simple, I think it's fair to say that the opposite applies as well when suggesting a change--sure, things could be done that way, but if the reasoning for the suggestion isn't a very compelling one then why say "sure, okay, let's do it that way instead"? Changing the way the firepit works requires changing to the code, which likely isn't as simple as just swapping textures/models or adjusting a numerical value. Since it requires a change in controls, essentially(at least that's how I see it), it seems likely that such changes could cause unforseen issues elsewhere. Does it really hurt to let the player make firepits before they have tools(and thus can do anything with the firepit)? No, but it doesn't seem very useful either, especially given that stone tools and firestarters are incredibly easy to craft in most cases, and the player should have a knife on them at all times anyway. The more compelling argument I see is to relax the firewood requirement for firepit creation so that the player can craft one from scratch from other reasonable fuel sources, like peat. Peat is readily available, and has a decent burn time making it a practical fuel choice; I don't always want to go raid my woodpile to create a new firepit, nor do I necessarily want to go make an axe and chop down a tree for firewood. I think the better question is why would the player ever bother with picking grass by hand when it's much faster to use a knife? Knives are perhaps the most useful/important tools in the entire game, and easy to make. There's really no reason not to carry a knife, thus I don't see a point to adding a mechanic like this one. To be frank, if the player dies in the middle of the night and respawns out in the dark somewhere, they're pretty much straight out of luck until daylight arrives or unless they had "keep inventory" enabled. However, I would also point out that if they can manage to find sticks and grass without dying to a creature or falling in a hole, then they should be able to find rocks as well. In which case, they can make a knife(nighttime doesn't hide the wire frame for knapping, last I checked), collect a bit of grass, and then use the firestarter to either light a torch or set the local plant life on fire while they collect more stuff. At the very best, it seems a very marginal beneficial option for a very specific scenario. I still don't think it's worth the effort to code.

As someone who deeply enjoys building castles and forts, I wish that players had the ability to craft and place the palisades, log spike walls, and spike traps found outside of various NPC structures that were functional for defense. I understand that issues of making hunting trivial could arise, but using a similar "crushing" mechanic for animals killed by spikes could heavily reduce that. Also making them somewhat expensive to craft/have a durability system could also be a deterrent to mass slaughter of wildlife. At the end of the day though, I would even be happy if they could be crafted at all in survival, even if kept unfunctional. I feel like the addition of defensive combat structures could also be a good incentive for players to invest more resources into their home and its security, beyond just putting lots of lights everywhere with a basic wall/perimeter defense. Having to "man the walls" against an incoming force of monsters alone or with other players could really be taken to the next level with this system.

Ratthew squealums type post for real. Definitely an improvement in the color department but this new logo just has so much wrong with it, from the line thickness changing in the illustration, to the typography overlapping with the art, and the font itself just being terrible, and the illustration being way too cluttered.

Dig a pit or throw spears. You can bait wolves into chasing you and then leap over a pit and they will run right in. And in the vast majority of cases, hitting a wolf from range will make it run rather than charge you, and you just hunt the wolf like any other creature. Use the bushmeat as fish bait or stretch it out further with fennel and water to create stinkbait. By making stinkbait, you can get a lot of food out of a single wolf.

Bannerdoria läuft nun unter Version 1.22! Wir sind der älteste Deutsche Server! 24/7 verfügbar, gemacht für Feierabendspieler, Familienmenschen, und allen anderen mit wenig Planbarkeit im Gaming. Ohne Druck. Ohne Pflichten. Ohne Donations. Aber dennoch persistent und immer für DICH da. Wir definieren Community. Spielspass und Entspannung auf allen unseren Servern, seit 2020. [DE] Bannerdoria | PvE | Gamingbanner.de https://discord.gamingbanner.de/ IP: 109.230.239.238

I personally love the change. Foraging still gets you tons of berries and it was trivial to obtain massive rows of bushes and plop them right outside your door. In my previous worlds, I could have easily lived off of berries, juice and wine if I had wished. It can be a bit harder to spot them now, but I find that it makes marking them more important. The fertilizer requirement doesn't seem to be an issues at all either. I haven't yet had to fertilize a bush but the patch notes mention that some bonemeal each year should be enough to keep them topped off. This doesn't seem like it would be an issue at all, I'm never facing a shortage of bones, especially with how powerful fishing is.

My mind boggles that you find the concept gathering grass by hand to be confusing. No controls would change, for instance. And it in fact seems intuitive to me. I tried to gather grass by hand on my first game, and a lot of other naive players will. Several "first time" players in videos that I have since watched also tried to do it. So let them. Heck, it annoys me that I cannot burn my excess thatch roofing.

Vintage Story has the additional tasks that Minecraft is missing to be playable long term, which is why I love it so much. Whether or not you're an amazing builder or a dirt hut enjoyer, you still have to take the time to smith your own tools

How do you hang them from the ceiling? It just keeps saying that I need a solid block there. Wall placement works fine, however. Beyond that, loving the new update. Fishing in games always tickles something for me and I am greatly enjoying the new berry bush rework. It was trivial to just grab every bush you saw and plop it down outside your house and have berries forever. Very happy to see that cultivating them is a thing now. And with the new traits, perhaps a breeding system for plants in the future?