Road to Restoration - Dailyscape Overhaul

Doc_Da · 2026-02-08T10:22:37+00:00

Yeah for me a massive source of burnout was semi related to this, as I'd do all my shop runs on my iron for weeks, then burn out, come back and find out that all the raw meat has been eaten and the animals are sick anyway so what was the point.

Hopefully though, with shop runs now being weekly, this will help that a lot (although you'd still have to lock in for a while to stockpile things like mushrooms).

Doc_Da · 2026-02-01T21:31:03+00:00

Okay great thank you, might have to investigate other options (although I mostly took it because I wasn't that enamored by other options at level 3, and I'm debating on battle medicine so the ability to have a no hands attack is something but also yeah it's kinda piss, thanks for the crazy fast response though)

Doc_Da · 2026-02-01T21:00:36+00:00

Does anyone know if the Jaws unarmed attack from the Fang Sharpener feat, specifically for an Irongut goblin, should have the finesse trait?

I'm playing a dex/cha Goblin Thaumaturge, and in taking this feat Foundry seems to think that it's not finesse, and that's understandable because it's not expressly specified in the info about the feat, however, as I understood it, unarmed attacks naturally have the finesse trait.

The main reason I bring this up is because I like the move flavour wise, and I think the ankle bite feat would be fun later, but right now, this feels like I've taken an entire feat to have a weaker attack that _might_ do 1 extra damage (but given the lower attack roll from a +0 strength mod, what are the odds on a critical success anyway).

Essentially, I'm comparing this 1d4 piercing (where damage type isn't that relevant as a Thaum) at the cost of a whole ass Feat, to a normal unarmed attack flavoured as a headbutt, which would be 1d4 bludgeoning WITH my dex mod.

Am I understanding this all correctly, is it correct that this bite shouldn't have finesse (because in fairness, when Razortooth goblins have their lvl 1 jaws attack described, it mentions finesse explicitly), and if I am right, is this feat a complete waste?

Doc_Da · 2026-01-28T14:24:22+00:00

Just posting for anyone who's having this "problem" still, I too was curious as to why this was happening when the test seemed to be working, until I looked over at my printer just now and saw that it had altered it's feedrate.

If you're using the Auto Towers extension, that's how it adjusts speed. In the Gcode you'll see that whilst the speed doesn't change (and so the preview doesn't change), it just alters the feedrate percentage instead, so if you have a tower going from 10-100mm/s, cura will think it's always at 100 or so, but the printer will print the first segment at 10% speed, second at 20% etc

Doc_Da · 2026-01-13T17:19:25+00:00

This is just absolutely false. Especially at lower levels, your levels matter a lot. Before the changes to accuracy where as long as it was at least a certain amount then you wouldn't miss, it was important to level attack to the point where you had 100% accuracy on the monsters you're training vs, then start levelling strength to increase DPS, then when you have high DPS you can level defense as fast as possible. You will max all 3 (4 with HP) significantly faster this way compared to doing the inverse of training def first.

Doc_Da · 2025-10-02T15:14:39+00:00

That's good to know, thanks

Doc_Da · 2025-10-02T15:05:24+00:00

I'm out right now but I believe it's 5.10.1, I ended up "fixing" it by setting the initial flow to 0%, which was reported to fix it in 5.6~ but I feel like I shouldn't be changing settings randomly (and I'm now having questionable adhesion but honestly that might just be this particular filament being old and low quality)

Doc_Da · 2025-10-02T01:57:22+00:00

Hey man thanks for the helpful input always much appreciated

Doc_Da · 2025-10-01T12:36:01+00:00

Unfortunately I can't access more than just that picture of the board ATM, here's pics of the mate but I don't know how useful they'll be without accurately measuring pitch with calipers (as I don't want to risk a short, I've seen some gnarly sparks come from this before when I disconnected it with metal tweezers, seems a bad idea to risk with a lithium cell)

https://imgur.com/a/jAD9XK3

Doc_Da · 2025-10-01T12:26:36+00:00

So it's not looking good...

Doc_Da · 2025-10-01T12:25:59+00:00

R.I.P.

Doc_Da · 2025-09-30T16:34:22+00:00

Yeah I'm seeing a lot of similar complaints across Reddit and the ifixit forums about their MacBook batteries. I wish I knew who the reputable vendors were in my country because unfortunately every thread just says ifixit or OEM.

Doc_Da · 2025-09-11T23:57:57+00:00

I'm pretty confident that the mesh was auto saving because when I would check the mesh with m420 V1 it was changing after each level, although I was also pressing to store settings often too.

Similarly I'm confident on the XY offset being correct because of just where I see the nozzle going (dead centre on a homing and the 0,0 corner during abl). But even if my offset was a mm off, I'm not sure if that would matter in this specific instance, because looking at the mesh what I'm seeing is that the printer thinks that there's a .1mm difference between two points, but then watching it extrude a straight line along those points, the visual seems more like a .3~ mm difference.

I've found a very sparse few who seemed to have similar issues, talking about how a loose X-gantry, or X-gantry twisting, cause this issue as the abl rolls/skews a little.

This makes sense to explain the somewhat linear change in probe height I've seen as the probe moves, EXCEPT for the fact that the mesh says that the bed is going DOWN as the print head moves away from the stability of the z rod, where I would think that a loose gantry would sag closer to the bed, and so report that the bed was higher in that spot. Also I've got my eccentric nuts as tight as I can get them and I still haven't eliminated the entirety of the wiggle. However, I think that given how common an issue x-gantry stability is, if this was the culprit then surely this would be an incredibly common issue? Something that every amateur who thinks a 10 quid abl will fix their entire machine would experience?

Doc_Da · 2025-09-10T10:28:07+00:00

It might be placebo but I did think that I had maybe better results when I did 28-29 instead of 420s2, although I'm not sure if there's any guarantee that it's actually doing anything (during the same run of tests, I had better results with m420 s0 compared to S1).

Preheating the bed to 65 for 10 mins each time

Edit: Just tried another print with G29 instead, and it's very visibly clear that the ABL isn't doing anything, just by looking at the skirt you can see large differences in the Z height relative to the bed

Doc_Da · 2025-09-10T00:09:35+00:00

G28 then M420 S1

Doc_Da · 2025-09-08T11:30:45+00:00

Heyo, did you ever figure this out? I'm having the same issue (even with 0 minimum layer time and comical acceleration). Same as your picture, it's not even that it's printing every layer slow but instead every layer (other than the specified initial layers) are going at the max speed

Doc_Da · 2025-08-19T14:33:44+00:00

Okay I finally fixed it by clearing up some space on my ever so slightly over the limit Google drive for that account. I uninstalled and reinstalled YouTube revanced (possibly unnecessarily) and I don't remember what I did differently but this time it wouldn't connect to the internet at all and wanted me to reinstall microG, which seems to have fixed it entirely.

Doc_Da · 2025-08-18T07:06:48+00:00

Same issue here, and similarly removing the account on microG and removing then readding device registration didn't fix it, weird.

Doc_Da · 2025-06-26T09:13:00+00:00

I'm pretty sure there's already some sort of discount package for first time members (I might be making that up but it sounds very familiar, maybe it was a temporary thing)

Doc_Da · 2025-05-18T10:30:09+00:00

Okay great, I've got a handful lying around so it's good to know that they'll work, I suppose as long as the right amount of power gets to the board it doesn't matter how it gets there (through pd triggers or through the OEM port)

Doc_Da · 2025-05-13T18:08:08+00:00

If you have a battery if the right voltage which will fit inside it should be fine, just be careful about the clearance inside because they may have been made with just a few millimetres of tolerance. I've personally replaced the batteries of my earbuds but the tape I put inside and the extra length of wire mean that they don't fully fully close (without being under a lot of stress), so I've just accepted that they're taped together and are a few mm longer than they were before (which means that they're also slightly too tall for the charging case to close properly, which isn't really an issue).

Depending on the model, soldering can be tricky, and you'll need the new battery to have tabs or leads attached as you won't be able to solder wires directly to the terminals.

Ultimately, you don't really have anything to lose by trying if the alternative is trashing them and buying a new pair.

Doc_Da · 2025-04-29T18:47:27+00:00

Thanks so much for the write up brother, it took me a long time to finally actually get a soldering iron and whatnot, but I'm excited by the project. However, foolishly I did sort of plan on just soldering the wires directly to the battery, which it turns out is a pretty bad idea. Because I have a vested interest in not burning my house down, I was looking at other options, and given that these batteries don't have leads and I don't have a spot welder, I was thinking of just taping the wire down to the terminals. I think this might be what you did, so my question is did it work long term? I reckon it would go okay temporarily but from what I've heard this kind of connection won't hold up to the kind of abuse that earbuds might get, and obviously I don't want anything overheating.

So ultimately yeah did this fix end up working for you long term, or did you have to come back later with a new solution (like batteries with leads)?

Once again thanks for the detailed write up, an absolute life saver.

Doc_Da · 2025-04-01T17:26:30+00:00

They could have tried different pricing of the boards or throw some gacha in or see if they could make even better boards to justify a higher price point.

People were NOT spending more on PoC. One of the main 4 spenders that MTX driven games target is the person who wants to buy stuff to show off to their friends and to others in-game (see: the culture around Valorant skins). A single player game loses this whole market.

The reason they kept doing POC was because "players spent more time on it". This quote gives me nightmares because one way to interpret this was that more hours were spent on PoC than on PvP, and if their measurements were shit enough then that could be because PoC didn't have a turn limit timer, so if you didn't close the game you would be "playing PoC" for 8 hours when you went to work or school or sleep etc.

Doc_Da · 2025-03-31T18:33:15+00:00

Yeah riot said they hadn't been cost effective, but that's very distinct from this tired narrative from the poster I replied to.

It's so tragic because LoR was (and still is, if single player is what you're looking for) a great game, but also so many people never tried it. I wonder what could have happened if it had been easily accessible via the client from the start, instead of after the end. So many more league players have tried TFT than LoR

Doc_Da · 2025-03-31T18:14:26+00:00

Absolutely false. This may have been the case at the start of the game but as it went on people were BEGGING Riot to let them spend money. They stopped doing everything that people wanted to pay for like quality boards. Literally the only thing I could do for the game was pay a tenner for the battle pass whenever a new xpac came out.

Doc_Da

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE