Finite Water?

  • Please make sure you are posting in the correct place. Server ads go here and modpack bugs go here

How do you feel about finite water?


  • Total voters
    84

arkwolf1995

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
17
0
0
"Manual" as in setting up a bunch of pumps only to have to move them around later. It's not much different from pumping lava from the nether.

As for collecting rain, because it's a fairly good idea, in Minecraft it doesn't rain a lot. I'd see having to make quite a few barrels/raintanks/etc to go off of it.
Depends on the server, one server I play on it it raining 75% of the time

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk
 

Azzanine

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
2,711
-6
0
Actually I don't think the water needs to be finite but preventing the creation of your own vanilla style infinite water source could enhance certain play styles.
You could make it so water from a bucket can't create a renewable source (like what you scoop is water, is treated like water by machines but it isn't water) but the water in a lake would replenish as it normally would. This would also make for more realistic hydroelectric mechanics for power gen as you'd have two types of water "Bucket water" and "fresh water" you could then code the machines to respond to only the flow of "fresh water" but ignore "bucket water". Becasue hydro electricity in modded Minecraft is a joke, not becasue of the modders either; The closest we have to a real style hydro gen is RotaryCraft's water wheel and even then when you use it you can get a lot of torque from a bucket and a 64 high pillar of dirt. Reika's made a nifty power gen machine, with realism in mind but when it comes to vanilla Minecraft's mechanics it's anything but realistic.

Also as I mentioned a distinction between sea water and river water would be beneficial to a more "real" playstyle. This might put a strain on wold gen though so I don't know how feasible it would be. You could even add a desalination plant that lets you convert seawater in to water useable in machines.

Also note, if a water mod like this was made I would strongly suggest the FTB NOT to add such a mod as it suits only a very niche playstyle.
 

Qazplm601

Lord of the Tumbleweeds
Sep 21, 2013
2,755
3,285
308
Where else?
they are both block based 3D voxel games, that is enough for the water to be able to be alike

terrarria and starbound have the falling sand model with a horizontal slope minimal slope,

dwarf fortress has connecting vats

while minecraft has source blocks and flowing blocks...
not 3D....
 

YX33A

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
3,764
0
0
not 3D....
Techically Dworf Fortess is 3d. Actually, not even technically. It has north, south, east, west, and up and down. QED it's 3d. Not first person, though. Sometimes people forget this matters. People often think of first person or third person games as the only 3d ones. Not even slightly true. It's just that 3d suits them much better. One could make a first person 2d game. And technically, all side scrollers are 3rd person, just not over the shoulder.
One can make a top down 3d game. It's just done in a layer system where to see the whole thing one has to peal away a layer to see what's below it, or the reverse.[DOUBLEPOST=1401067003][/DOUBLEPOST]
And recycling as well- I'd like to see a 'condenser' block you can attach to steam engines/turbines that returns most the water.
(a few turbines already do this actually- though it gets overlooked a lot)
Any reactor that doesn't do this but requires a fluid for coolant/steam is a poorly coded reactor, period. No, not even debatable, it may be perfect in every other way, but if it can't do this, it's poorly coded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Padfoote

ratchet freak

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2012
1,198
243
79
Techically Dworf Fortess is 3d. Actually, not even technically. It has north, south, east, west, and up and down. QED it's 3d. Not first person, though. Sometimes people forget this matters. People often think of first person or third person games as the only 3d ones. Not even slightly true. It's just that 3d suits them much better. One could make a first person 2d game. And technically, all side scrollers are 3rd person, just not over the shoulder.
One can make a top down 3d game. It's just done in a layer system where to see the whole thing one has to peal away a layer to see what's below it, or the reverse.
exactly Doom was essentially a first-person 2.5D shooter even though it used 3D graphics, no 2 rooms could be over each other so it might as well have been pure 2D
 
  • Like
Reactions: YX33A

YX33A

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
3,764
0
0
exactly Doom was essentially a first-person 2.5D shooter even though it used 3D graphics, no 2 rooms could be over each other so it might as well have been pure 2D
Doom could have rooms above each other, but one couldn't shoot a monster on a cliff above your weapon's FOV, plus Doomguy couldn't get past a knee high barrier(let alone jump).
 

CarbonBasedGhost

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
910
0
0
This would go good with a hardcore gregtech pack or blood n bones but for normal FTB packs I wouldn't use it.[DOUBLEPOST=1401117714][/DOUBLEPOST]
Techically Dworf Fortess is 3d. Actually, not even technically. It has north, south, east, west, and up and down. QED it's 3d. Not first person, though. Sometimes people forget this matters. People often think of first person or third person games as the only 3d ones. Not even slightly true. It's just that 3d suits them much better. One could make a first person 2d game. And technically, all side scrollers are 3rd person, just not over the shoulder.
One can make a top down 3d game. It's just done in a layer system where to see the whole thing one has to peal away a layer to see what's below it, or the reverse.[DOUBLEPOST=1401067003][/DOUBLEPOST]
Any reactor that doesn't do this but requires a fluid for coolant/steam is a poorly coded reactor, period. No, not even debatable, it may be perfect in every other way, but if it can't do this, it's poorly coded.
This would go good with a hardcore gregtech pack or blood n bones but for normal FTB packs I wouldn't use it.
--- Double Post Merged, 3 minutes ago ---

Dwarf fortress is 2.5d it minipulates 2d images to me them look 3d (2.5d us a real thing)
 
Last edited:

YX33A

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
3,764
0
0
This would go good with a hardcore gregtech pack or blood n bones but for normal FTB packs I wouldn't use it.[DOUBLEPOST=1401117714][/DOUBLEPOST]
Dwarf fortress is 2.5d it minipulates 2d images to me them look 3d (2.5d us a real thing)
I call side scroller games like Tomba 2.5d as they are side scrollers, but in some places one can go into the background(or the foreground). Dworf fortress has 3 dimensions, thus is a 3d game, not a 2.5d game where it has 2 dimensions but occasionally has a third.
 

MoosyDoosy

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
593
0
0
nope SC2 is still 2D with flying units making it 2.25 at best

3D graphics don't make a game 3D
Techically Dworf Fortess is 3d. Actually, not even technically. It has north, south, east, west, and up and down. QED it's 3d. Not first person, though. Sometimes people forget this matters. People often think of first person or third person games as the only 3d ones. Not even slightly true. It's just that 3d suits them much better. One could make a first person 2d game. And technically, all side scrollers are 3rd person, just not over the shoulder.
One can make a top down 3d game. It's just done in a layer system where to see the whole thing one has to peal away a layer to see what's below it, or the reverse.
 

ratchet freak

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2012
1,198
243
79
DF has more than 2 layers of movement

SC2 has ground units on just a 2D plane with offsets on the cliffs and ramps and frying units bypassing the obstacles
 

YX33A

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
3,764
0
0
DF has more than 2 layers of movement

SC2 has ground units on just a 2D plane with offsets on the cliffs and ramps and frying units bypassing the obstacles
Well... yes and no. Yes, DF has more then two layers of movement. But so does SC2. In fact they both have 3, even if only some units can fly and others can't. A good DM for Dungeons and Dragons knows the difference between the grid layout you can see, and the grid layout you can't see but is still present. That is, just like in real life, one has to account for north, south, east, west, AND what's above you, and what's below you. Planes must know what's below them, because AA guns for them translates to #Get_REKT, and for infantry, not knowing which plane is friendly, and which planes may be bombers, also translates to #Get_REKT for them.
 

ratchet freak

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2012
1,198
243
79
Well... yes and no. Yes, DF has more then two layers of movement. But so does SC2. In fact they both have 3, even if only some units can fly and others can't. A good DM for Dungeons and Dragons knows the difference between the grid layout you can see, and the grid layout you can't see but is still present. That is, just like in real life, one has to account for north, south, east, west, AND what's above you, and what's below you. Planes must know what's below them, because AA guns for them translates to #Get_REKT, and for infantry, not knowing which plane is friendly, and which planes may be bombers, also translates to #Get_REKT for them.
I meant layers as in Z layers, SC2 only have 2 planes where units can move in while DF has plenty
 

YX33A

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
3,764
0
0
I meant layers as in Z layers, SC2 only have 2 planes where units can move in while DF has plenty
Doom has maybe 3, and you can't even aim up and down. Still 3d. Quake rarely had more the 3, and you could not only aim up or down(or any direction really, the mouse aim option they added thankfully became the industry standard), you could jump up, fall down when you wanted to, etc etc.

If a Doom level only had 2 Z levels, that would be a very narrow level, a long line. You mean Y layers, as a reminder, and even then, 2 Y layers is 3d. 1 Y layer is 2d.