bdjnk wrote:Maybe it should be a highly composite number instead. I mean, I like 100 as much as the next fellow whose native base is 10, but it's divisibility is only slightly better than 99.
Casimir wrote:1, 2, 6, 12, 60, 420, 2520 . . .
Those numbers are divisible by all whole numbers without gap. e.g. 60 is divisible by 1,2,3,4,5,6. But that might not be the best for Minetest. If you want it to go up to 9 - because of the nine fields in the craft grid - you would need a stack of 2520.
12Me21 wrote:You don't need it to be divisible by ALL numbers, the important ones are:
2
3
4
6 (2 rows of crafting grid)
8 (all spaces except middle)
and 9 (all spaces filled)
Casimir wrote:(…) stack of 2520
bdjnk wrote:it's divisibility is only slightly better than 99.
Krock wrote:I know, realism it not a theme in Minetest but still, stacks with > 100 items just decrease the use of chests.
12Me21 wrote:the inventory fills up quite quickly
Gael de Sailly wrote:12Me21 wrote:the inventory fills up quite quickly
I fully agree but it takes part to the survival mode. We must put away numerous things. And, as you say, the problem is not the stack size. My aim is not to extend max stack, else it would be ridiculous to turn 99 to 100. Simply it's simpler to count.
For stacks of 99 :
14 stacks + 62... yes it's around 1462, but if you want want the precise number, it's 1400 + 62 - 14, which is... 1448, after severals seconds, or even minutes (we aren't all living calculators).
For stacks of 100 :
14 stacks + 62 ---> 1462. Pretty simple, isn't it ?
12Me21 wrote:Gael de Sailly wrote:12Me21 wrote:the inventory fills up quite quickly
I fully agree but it takes part to the survival mode. We must put away numerous things. And, as you say, the problem is not the stack size. My aim is not to extend max stack, else it would be ridiculous to turn 99 to 100. Simply it's simpler to count.
For stacks of 99 :
14 stacks + 62... yes it's around 1462, but if you want want the precise number, it's 1400 + 62 - 14, which is... 1448, after severals seconds, or even minutes (we aren't all living calculators).
For stacks of 100 :
14 stacks + 62 ---> 1462. Pretty simple, isn't it ?
I agree, 100 is probably the best. However, I would like to see some new types of chests that can hold more items, since we don't have double chests like in Minecraft. I'm not saying we should add double chests, though. (that's a bad idea, since then you can't place more than 2 normal chests next to each other)
Linuxdirk wrote:Why was it 99 and not 100 in the first place? Accidentally used … < 100 instead of … <= 100 and decided to leave it that way?
Hybrid Dog wrote:there should be a setting called "default_stack_max"
rubenwardy wrote:Hybrid Dog wrote:there should be a setting called "default_stack_max"
What a great idea! Who would code such a thing?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests