The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20220115051644/https://github.com/PaperMC/Paper/issues/7312
Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Change timings' "ticking-distance" to simulation-distance on 1.18 #7312

Open
voidpls opened this issue Jan 10, 2022 · 1 comment
Open

Change timings' "ticking-distance" to simulation-distance on 1.18 #7312

voidpls opened this issue Jan 10, 2022 · 1 comment
Labels
good first issue type: feature

Comments

@voidpls
Copy link

@voidpls voidpls commented Jan 10, 2022 •
edited

Is your feature request related to a problem?

Currently, the ticking-distance that timings receives on 1.18 servers is the view-distance, rather than the new simulation-distance.

Patch in question:
https://github.com/PaperMC/Paper/blob/master/patches/server/0010-Timings-v2.patch

+        parent.put("worlds", toObjectMapper(MinecraftServer.getServer().getAllLevels(), world -> {
+            if (world.getWorld().getName().equals("worldeditregentempworld")) return null;
+            return pair(world.getWorld().getName(), createObject(
+                pair("gamerules", toObjectMapper(world.getWorld().getGameRules(), rule -> {
+                    return pair(rule, world.getWorld().getGameRuleValue(rule));
+                })),
+                pair("ticking-distance", world.getChunkSource().chunkMap.getEffectiveViewDistance())
+            ));
+        }));

Describe the solution you'd like.

Send simulation-distance, instead of view-distance

Describe alternatives you've considered.

Create a separate field for simulation-distance on 1.18 servers

Other

No response
@sulu5890
Copy link
Member

@sulu5890 sulu5890 commented Jan 15, 2022

a new field would be the way to go here rather than replacement. It would also be nice to have server.properties provided as a whole, but what should be redacted needs to be taken into consideration there (and, the current system for exclusion/redaction isn't very good with certain things hardcoded with other random options being in a config)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
good first issue type: feature
2 participants
@voidpls @sulu5890