You might want to try Godot. It's very popular for making 2D games, open source with good documentation and tutorials. It's very beginner friendly, I think it might be easier to pick up than Unity, though I haven't tried the latter.

Adding to the good links already shared, Pollinator Posse has useful info on native plants in Northern California. They also link to partner sites like Calscape and pollinator.org for ecoregional planting guides, where I searched for Stockton and found this guide for the California Dry Steppe Province / Central Valley.

A Half-Built Garden by Ruthanna Emrys has some interesting ideas. There’s a model of multi-family households in which (at least) two sets of parents choose to jointly raise their kids together. Also it’s a first contact story with an extraterrestrial species that expects the leaders of other species to necessarily being those who bear the children, because this is socially determined in their culture and biology. The extraterrestrials have other complex family dynamics, and the humans have some interesting (if sometimes cumbersome) broader social organizing and decision-making systems. All set in a very solarpunk context centered on what it takes to develop and maintain an advanced sapient civilization that is compatible with a sustainable planetary ecosystem.

Check whether your table top is rotated and/or scaled, either in Blender or Godot. In Godot, it won't necessarily keep the same transform as in Blender (especially if you've set a different transform in Godot).

It looks like you probably have separate meshes for the table top and legs? And the table top is rotated on the X or Z axis, and or scaled differently on one axis than other(s), and/or maybe one set of legs are too. (Not quite sure what's going on with those legs, so I could be wrong, but worth a try.)

In Blender, with each object selected, go to Object->Apply->All Transforms. Then export and import to Godot again. Then if it's still weird, look in Godot at each mesh's Transform (in the Inspector on the right side of the Editor). To reset to normal proportions in Godot, make sure the Translation and Rotation are (0, 0, 0) and Scale is (1, 1, 1).

Definitely add solarpunk. Belongs in the lower right, maybe to the right of ecopunk.

If you're ok with Starfleet rather than freelancers, Star Trek: Strange New Worlds is great. Found family vibes, episodic shenanigans.

I'm in the camp that couldn't get into Terraria, tried a couple times and quit pretty fast both times. I love Stardew, and also BOTW/TOTK. One thing I'll add to the other great comments: part of what I didn't like (and didn't realize before Terraria) is that 2D side scrollers really don't engage me. They just feel much more limited in terms of where you can go. What I like most about games is the freedom to roam and explore an open space, with a lot of choices of where to go and what to do. But with 2D side view, there are only two linear paths you can take. If there are enemies in that path, you have to fight. Felt like I hardly got time to figure out how to build stuff (which I also didn't enjoy as much in 2D side view, not as intuitive visually, had a hard time figuring out how to attach doors to walls, make a back wall, etc). It sounds like a great game with a ton of depth, but I never found what I could do in it rewarding enough to overcome the frustration/limitations and keep going. If you already like other 2D side scrollers, then you probably won't have this problem.

I think the point of calling cyberpunk "punk" was also about the act of telling of the stories, not what was in the stories. Cyberpunk was always supposed to be a critique of run-away capitalism. Depicting the dire consequences of sticking to the course we're on, as a warning of what's to come if we don't change our ways, is what is "punk" about telling dystopian stories. The world they depict is not punk itself, it is complacent, it is just allowing an ugly future to come about. And the protagonists in those stories are sometimes fighting that system, but not always. Often they're just trying to make a buck, navigate that world, and survive.

The problem with telling dystopian stories as a form of activism via warning is that just focusing on the problem doesn't give people a useful idea of what to do instead. So genres like cyberpunk often lose their warning intent and start to feel inevitable, sensationalizing and even romanticizing the ugly future. In that way, cyberpunk has actually become a lot less "punk" than it used to be. No surprise that it's also become a very popular genre for big film and game studios.

Solarpunk was a reaction to the dead end of activism via dystopian story telling. It comes from a realization that in order to build a better future, we have to focus our energy on actually figuring out what the better solutions might be, and try them out ourselves to see what works. Build things, not just wring our hands, warn other people and try to convince them to do something (vaguely) different than what they're already doing. So solarpunk also isn't just about stories, it's about what we're doing to build that future. Again, the movement is "punk", the act of doing this. Not the future we strive for. It's punk now.

I think there is some unfortunate confusion that can be detrimental to solarpunk and to working toward a better future in general, that arises from two different ways people define capitalism.

Among solarpunks, I think what many of us mean by “capitalism” is a specific exploitative economic system, in which the owners of capital are not those using the capital (the laborers). This was what people meant when the term was used early on (according to Wikipedia). It’s an economic system in which there are separate classes of workers and owners, i.e. people who have money already and use it to buy up the rights to claim the profit from others’ labor, paying wages to those who do the work for them.

This type of economic system tends toward concentrated power, monopoly, pyramid schemes, political corruption, etc. Worker-owned businesses, including mom & pop shops and self-employment, are not part of this form of capitalism. Publicly traded corporations, venture capitalists, stock markets, and landlords who own other people’s homes and charge them to live in them, are. Also, owning your own home is not exclusive to capitalism, it only fits this definition of capitalism if you’re treating it as an investment (and therefore advocating for less housing so the price goes up as more people seek to live in fewer homes).

However, through the second half of the 20th century (especially during the Cold War), for many people (especially in the US) the term “capitalism” came to mean “everything about the US economy” or “the opposite of a USSR/PRC economy” (i.e. a state-owned economy run by a one-party political system, which is not what most people in this sub want either). This broader definition equates capitalism with any free market economy, any economy in which people have individual choice about where to work, in which they get paid for the work they do, in which they have choices about what to consume, and in which they can have personal property (i.e. stuff that they themselves are using, as well as owning stuff that other people are using).

The difficulty with this second definition is that it’s so broad and vague that it really doesn’t enable us to break apart what about our current (really mixed) economy is positive, and what is destructive that we want to get rid of. I’m really not sure what the best way to address this confusion is. I think you’re asking a well-intentioned question, but you’re uninformed about what “capitalism” in this sub’s welcome post means to those who wrote it. (Which is unfortunate, because I think it’s a great welcome post.) What do you think, is it possible you could be persuaded that there are more than two possible forms of economic systems? And that there might be a better system than exploitative capitalism, if it doesn’t mean doing away with every freedom you care about (though some of the things you’ve grown used to might go away)?

A related genre you might like is "solarpunk", hopeful futurism in which technology can be part of building sustainable, equitable societies. Becky Chambers' books are all fantastic, and her latest duology (the Monk & Robot series) is particularly solarpunk. You might also try The Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin, A Half-Built Garden by Ruthanna Emrys, and The Terraformers by Annalee Newitz.

The Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin depicts an imperfect but largely solarpunk world, on a twin planet to a world more like ours, and how they interact and view each other.

The Terraformers by Annalee Newitz is a sweeping saga over 1k+ years about the struggles to develop a sustainable ecological system and society without exploitation.

A Half Built Garden by Ruthanna Emrys depicts a communities ("watershed networks") that behave sort of like community land trusts with deliberative communal decision-making, juxtaposed against the remnants of capitalist states, when aliens arrive on Earth, and the challenges of communicating humans values and capacity to save the Earth to outsiders.

Someone else also mentioned Becky Chambers' books, which are amazing.

Blender is for developing 3D models. You'd want a tool for making 2D art instead. I'm less familiar with those (I do 3D art) but I think some popular free ones are Krita, GIMP, Piskel, and Aseprite. At least the latter (Aseprite) might be designed mostly for pixel art, but at least some or maybe all of others you should be able to use for a variety of other 2D art styles. If you revise your title or post again asking about 2D art software, there are probably others in this sub (and r/gamedev) who can give you better advice on those than me. Probably any of them should work with Godot as well, you'd just need to export .png files to import to Godot.

Becky Chambers' books are all optimistic scifi -- the Wayfarer series and the Monk & Robot duology are very good. She also wrote a stand-alone novella called To Be Taught, If Fortunate that's my favorite thing she's written.

Andy Weir's books are quite optimistic, especially Project Hail Mary and The Martian.

And I love the Murderbot Diaries by Martha Wells. There's more violence and conflict in those, but never overdone or too uncomfortable, and all wrapped in dry humor and unexpected kindness. They're ultimately pretty feel-good, deeply human stories.

Garden Galaxy is very chill and addictive. Terra Nil might also be a good fit.

I haven't tried split screen coop. The game is a bit different than other farming games that are broader small town life sims, in that this one has no existing town, NPCs or quests. (You can build a sort of town at your farm by placing different types of shop buildings.) There are no treasure chests or mini games that I recall. It's more focused on developing and expanding your farm, and decorating your farm and home. There are quite a few fish, and farm animals. You also can visit other people's farms, sort of like Animal Crossing.

Farm Together is good, if you haven't played it yet. Tons of crops, good farming mechanics, some other build-your-farm/decor related stuff, but really all about the farming.

You want to indent the last four lines (starting with "if selected") one more indent, so they're all nested under the "if event.pressed" condition. Then you're only printing something when you change the value of "selected".

Yes! We used to use the bags inside-out and then draw all over them.

Looks like you don't have on there: Martha Wells (Murderbot Diaries), Ann Leckie (Imperial Radch trilogy), or Becky Chambers (Wayfarers series), all excellent space operas.

If she liked Farmers Dynasty, has she played Medieval Dynasty? I've only played the latter, and I really enjoyed it. They're from the same publisher, who seems to have a bunch of these "Dynasty" games (though they're made by different developers). So I figure the concept is similar, and Medieval Dynasty is the best reviewed.

Also has she tried open world survival crafting games? They tend toward low story/more nonlinear do-what-you-want gameplay, and often have realistic graphics. Some of them also have low violence settings and are more relaxing than the violent side of the genre. If she likes space and alien planets, there's Empyrion and No Man's Sky (the latter is more popular, but I enjoyed the former more), which can be played with low threats (focus on exploration, mining, crafting/building). Raft is a really excellent game with a fully peaceful setting, if the slightly more cartoony graphics don't put her off (it's not cutesy cartoony). For an underwater setting, there's Subnautica, which is beautiful and fun. Also I really enjoyed Planet Crafter, a terraforming simulator with no violence.

If she prefers more realistic everyday life activity simulators (based on the games you mentioned), she might like Garden Simulator? I only played the demo (it's not my preferred type of game and I don't do well with first person), but the game seems well done and I enjoyed the part I played.

Can you explain how you duplicate nodes? If you just did something like this:

var node1 = Control.new()

var node2 = node1

You don’t have two duplicate (separate) nodes, you have two variables (named “node1” and “node2”) that are both pointing to the same single Control node.

In order to create a separate node that will persist after you free the first node, you need to make a new copy. E.g.:

var node2 = load(node1.scene_file_path).instantiate()

# copy over any other node properties too

node2.property1 = node1.property1

I often create a .copy() method in my item scenes that makes a new scene and copies over relevant properties, for anything I'm going to want to make copies of in the game.

All good points!

This is a great point, and I may not have a complete answer. But I think the NLP/CL example might be somewhat useful, because there actually can be high costs to doing computational research with large ML models. For low-budget researchers/hobbyists to do what they're able to do today, they often rely on free resources made available by companies that (at least up until now) have found value in supporting open research that leads to advances they can benefit from as well. That includes free computing on Google Colab, and research grants/credits from AWS and GCP. Also, the data and pre-trained models people use today can be very costly, it's just that until now many groups/orgs have made them available for free to others after building them for their own purposes.

Relying on large corporations to do this has downsides and isn't the ideal. But I like the idea of multiple, decentralized, non-governmental options/avenues for accessing research funding/resources, some of which might not even require applying for (which takes time/effort and can lead to weird gate-keeping requirements). While I'm less familiar with research needs in more physically intensive sciences, there might also be some precedents in practical creative activities. Like having community maker spaces with high-end machines available for anyone to use. Some of those require a training session before you can use them, and are run by volunteers, backed by donations from community members. Physical resources can't be used simultaneously by as many people as digital resources. But they still could be shared locally with others when not in use by the people who built or funded them.

Do you think that type of model might work for the sciences you're familiar with? A local municipality could decide to invest in a particular type of community lab, maybe unique to their geography (e.g. to do research in a marine or wetlands environment local to them). Another community land trust or other nonprofit might set up a different type of lab in another place, with different access rules and restrictions. Maybe universities, companies, and/or governments donate tools they're no longer using when they upgrade. Maybe tinkerers get together and build their own, with crowd-sourced funding, if they pledge to make what they build available to their backers and the wider community to use when it's ready.

I’ve seen some big difference between fields that might offer useful elements of a better way (if not a complete solution). For reference, I have a social science background but then got more involved in the natural language processing (NLP)/computational linguistics research community.

The systems that dominate social science research today are very much as you described. In particular, scholars have to publish their work in journals that are kind of an opaque capitalist racket, owned by publicly traded companies that aren’t accountable to the research community. Those companies get academics to do all the work of soliciting/reviewing/editing submissions almost entirely for free, then they put the content behind a paywall and take the money. The review process is incredibly slow and archaic, often combative and arbitrary. The researchers and reviewers are generally very isolated from real-world application, overvalue theoretical work and scoff at anything practical. Academic conferences are separate from the journals and are run very inefficiently, mostly pretty exclusive networking sessions.

Meanwhile, the NLP/CL community is completely different. That research community has always been very interdisciplinary (starting with computer scientists and linguists, with very different cultures), so they've tended to welcome different domains and types of participants. Research is usually published in conferences (more than journals), run by nonprofit scientific orgs. The research is peer reviewed (which is valuable, if done well), but the submission and review process is much much faster, more constructive and transparent. It has to be, because the research is heavily applied work, actively getting used in industry, and evolving rapidly. Also, a large portion (maybe even a majority today) is submitted by non-academics. [Edit: the reviewers are also often non-academics; there are so many submissions today that everyone who submits work also has to review, so both roles are open to anyone participating in the field.] Attending the conferences is costly, but there’s no paywall to access the content, and there are guidelines that incentivize making all code and data publicly available for others to use as well.

There are still problems with concentrated power and resources; a lot of leading research is produced by large corporations with huge budgets, like Google/Microsoft etc. But at least until recently, they actively supported an open source culture for research in this field, making their code/models publicly available and fully documented for others to use. (OpenAI has decided to go against that tradition, in the new wave of competition to profit from this tech, so the research community is likely to change.) But even with that concentrated power, there still haven't (yet) been nearly as high barriers to entry as other fields. Grad students or hobbyists with no budget and no connections, from a completely different field, can get papers published in an NLP venue if they get creative and make small contributions.

While it’s not a perfect system, and the latest hype and competition among huge corporations to control this field is definitely worrisome, I’d like to see other scientific communities be a lot more like the way the NLP community has functioned at least until recently. We wouldn't have gotten to the advanced tech in this field we have today if it hadn't been that way. (Although we might also not have gotten to the level of brazen do-whatever-you-want-with-it that's now causing a lot of other problems; that's always a risk, and as a society we have to figure out how to manage that now.) But if a solarpunk community facilitates more leisure time to do whatever creative/productive work people want to do, e.g. with a universal basic income, and the tools to be able to do many forms of research are widely available to everyone, you might see more open and democratic participation in research without needing to be part of an academic institution (or other rigid hierarchical system with monopoly control over who can participate and how).

Ah yeah that makes sense