So I want to make a data pack that gives mobs poison if I block the damage with a shield. So my question is, how can I detect if I blocked a mob with the shield and how can I give poison to this one mob. Is this even possible with a data pack, or do I have to make a mod for that?
I'm doing this in the version 1.17.1
Related
I am writing a bukkit plugin for Minecraft that reacts on low food level, and then automatically moves a food item from the inventory to the off hand and then eats it. I managed the first parts, but I can’t find a way in the bukkit API (Player, HumanEntity, elsewhere) to make the player use an item.
Is that even possible, and if so, how?
You can send packets to make it look like other players are eating but as far as I'm aware; with vanilla clients, you cannot force the client to eat or show the eating animation. The client tells the server that it is eating and then the server sends packets to everyone else that they are eating.
If you can settle for others seeing them as eating, I believe it's the Player Digging packet that you would need to send with a value of 5. You could send this using ProtocolLib for which there's a decent tutorial.
yes, its possible. multiple hacked clients can do that. look into a clients source code and look for an "auto eat" module.
In my current scenario, I'm using NETLIGHT Pin (Pin no. 64) of SIM800 module with my PIC microcontroller to know whether my module is registered or not?
This way I built the circuit. Just I removed LED from VBAT. Then I connect collected of NPN transistor to pic micro input PIN.
I want to know whether any easy way using AT commands to find network registration status of SIM800?
Unfortunalty it's seem not to be really possible (or in fact detecting this state in only one way)
I use SIM800 and let it run for hours and I have seen many cases of network loose, while the AT+CREG? continue telling everything is OK.
Also, even with network down, the SIM800 continue sending you the name of the operator and the strengh of the signal.
The only way I've found is to monitor the serial port: when the SIM800 loose the network, it sends two messages:
+PDP: DEACT and
+SAPBR 1: DEACT
I suggest you to have a look at the document "SIM800 Series_AT Command Manual" and especially the chapter "19.3 Summary of Unsolicited Result Codes". You'll find +PDP and other interesting code (like under-voltage warning, DNS failed...) and see some of these messages are not linked to AT command.
From the manufacturer's documentation:
I'm looking to write a toy application for my own personal use (and possibly to share with friends) for peer-to-peer shared status on a local network. For instance, let's say I wanted to implement it for the name of the current building you're in (let's pretend the network topology is weird, and multiple buildings occupy the same LAN). The idea is if you run the application, you can set what building you're in, and you can see the buildings of every other user running the application on the local network.
The question is, what's the best transport/network layer technology to use to implement this?
My initial inclination was to use UDP Multicast, but the more research I do about it, the more I'm scared off by it: while the technology is great and seems easy to use, if the application is not tailored for a particular site deployment, it also seems most likely to get you a visit from an angry network admin.
I'm wondering, therefore, since this is a relatively low bandwidth application — probably max one update every 4–5 minutes or so from each client, with likely no more than 25–50 clients — whether it might be "cheaper" in many ways to use another strategy:
Multicast: find a way to pick a well-known multicast address from 239.255/16 and have interested applications join the group when they start up.
Broadcast: send out a single UDP Broadcast message every time someone's status changes (and one "refresh" broadcast when the app launches, after which every client replies directly to the requesting user with their current status).
Unicast: send a UDP Broadcast at application start to announce interest, and when a client's status changes, it sends a UDP packet directly to every client who has announced. This results in the highest traffic, but might be less likely to annoy other systems with needless broadcast packets. It also introduces potential complications when apps crash (in terms of generating unnecessary traffic).
Multicast is most certainly the best technology for the job, but I'm wondering if the associated hassles are worth avoiding since this is just a "toy application," not a business-critical service intended for professional network admin deployment and configuration.
We have developed an application on Windows.net mobile framework and it is used on a Windows 6.5 Smartphone. for our location based application. Our application is real time and tracks our employees. We are finding that the device loses its GPS signal.
Has anyone managed to restart the GPS receiver so that it starts giving the GPS signal again. I would be ever so gratefull if someone can help. We are using GeoFramework2.0 to deliver the geographic information that you need.
Regards
Sandy
The GPS is "shut down" when no application is using it. Just close your handles and re-open them.
If the GPS on your device is part of the WWAN radio (i.e. cellular phone) it may get put in to a low power state rather than being actually shut off. In that case, you can try restarting the radio.
If that doesn't work, some GPS's will allow you to send proprietary commands to them to force a reset or clear the memory. These commands are not standard and will differ significantly by manufacturer. If you have a SiRF GPS, take a look at the SiRF Binary Protocol Reference.
On my team at work, we use the IBM MQ technology a lot for cross-application communication. I've seen lately on Hacker News and other places about other MQ technologies like RabbitMQ. I have a basic understanding of what it is (a commonly checked area to put and get messages), but what I want to know what exactly is it good at? How will I know where I want to use it and when? Why not just stick with more rudimentary forms of interprocess messaging?
All the explanations so far are accurate and to the point - but might be missing something: one of the main benefits of message queueing: resilience.
Imagine this: you need to communicate with two or three other systems. A common approach these days will be web services which is fine if you need an answers right away.
However: web services can be down and not available - what do you do then? Putting your message into a message queue (which has a component on your machine/server, too) typically will work in this scenario - your message just doesn't get delivered and thus processed right now - but it will later on, when the other side of the service comes back online.
So in many cases, using message queues to connect disparate systems is a more reliable, more robust way of sending messages back and forth. It doesn't work well for everything (if you want to know the current stock price for MSFT, putting that request into a queue might not be the best of ideas) - but in lots of cases, like putting an order into your supplier's message queue, it works really well and can help ease some of the reliability issues with other technologies.
MQ stands for messaging queue.
It's an abstraction layer that allows multiple processes (likely on different machines) to communicate via various models (e.g., point-to-point, publish subscribe, etc.). Depending on the implementation, it can be configured for things like guaranteed reliability, error reporting, security, discovery, performance, etc.
You can do all this manually with sockets, but it's very difficult.
For example: Suppose you want to processes to communicate, but one of them can die in the middle and later get reconnected. How would you ensure that interim messages were not lost? MQ solutions can do that for you.
Message queueuing systems are supposed to give you several bonuses. Among most important ones are monitoring and transactional behavior.
Transactional design is important if you want to be immune to failures, such as power failure. Imagine that you want to notify a bank system of ATM money withdrawal, and it has to be done exactly once per request, no matter what servers failed temporarily in the middle. MQ systems would allow you to coordinate transactions across multiple database, MQ and other systems.
Needless to say, such systems are very slow compared to named pipes, TCP or other non-transactional tools. If high performance is required, you would not allow your messages to be written thru disk. Instead, it will complicate your design - to achieve exotic reliable AND fast communication, which pushes the designer into really non-trivial tricks.
MQ systems normally allow users to watch the queue contents, write plugins, clear queus, etc.
MQ simply stands for Message Queue.
You would use one when you need to reliably send a inter-process/cross-platform/cross-application message that isn't time dependent.
The Message Queue receives the message, places it in the proper queue, and waits for the application to retrieve the message when ready.
reference: web services can be down and not available - what do you do then?
As an extension to that; what if your local network and your local pc is down as well?? While you wait for the system to recover the dependent deployed systems elsewhere waiting for that data needs to see an alternative data stream.
Otherwise, that might not be good enough 'real time' response for today's and very soon in the future Internet of Things (IOT) requirements.
if you want true parallel, non volatile storage of various FIFO streams(at least at some point along the signal chain) use an FPGA and FRAM memory. FRAM runs at clock speed and FPGA devices can be reprogrammed on the fly adding and taking away however many independent parallel data streams are needed(within established constraints of course).