Camera Coupling API for 1.16.5

[Farenheith]

I'm opening a PR for Parcool (alRex-U/ParCool#374) to use the new coupled camera API.
I want to know if you plan to backport the new Camera Coupling API back to 1.16.5, because that's the base version for Parcool.

I have no problems if you're not planning to do that. I'm asking just to align it with @alRex-U for which branch I'm opening the PR

[Exopandora]

I was not planning on supporting 1.16.5 any longer. It's just too much work to keep it up, especially because offical class names cannot be used in the forge module. This problem also affects the pipeline, as a custom mapping file is required, which I will not publish for legal reasons. See here. Maybe I will make a final port for 1.16.5 later this week.

[Farenheith]

You don't need to do a final port if this is just because of the API I included; that's totally fine for me. If you have any other reasons, that's okay! I'll close this issue because I just wanted to know about.

Thank you for the answer!

[Farenheith]

@Exopandora, btw, this custom mapping is anything similar to what I'm trying to do here?

[Exopandora]

@Farenheith No, not at all. As you know, minecraft ships with obfuscated binaries. Back in the day, mojang did not share the original class, method and field names, so the community had to come up with their own names (called mappings). Forge used the MCP (ModCoderPack) mappings, while fabric used yarn mappings. Shoulder Surfing uses official mapppings for all its current branches. To make backporting easier, I also wanted to use official mappings in 1.16.5. Therefor, I created a custom mapping file, which maps obfuscated names to official ones. But there is one catch: Forge used MCP mappings for its classes in 1.16.5, which could no be changed. So the mappings file contains official mappings for fields and methods, and MCP names for classes That way, it is possible to have a common module, while also reducing the amount of work for backporting, because all field and method names should be near identical to newer versions of MC.

[Farenheith]

I see... well. I was trying to make porting easier on Parcool as the base version is 1.16.5, but I don't think the idea was really good as those wrappers looked like an infinite work. Not every idea is a good one anyway lol