RC/ReC/ElC/CC Policy Changes

[Celestialphoenix]

And while I hate some machines as being a bit magical in nature (the dc generator thing, the steam generator, the AC generator thing....all of which I *think* emit power with no fuel; I could be wrong) this problem is largely mitigated by the junction cap (which solution I also don't care for since its also somewhat magical in nature.)

DC motor harnesses the power provided by a redstone signal and converts it into shaft power. Its the redstone 'emitting power' rather than the engine (which makes sense given redstone power can open doors, play music or drive pistons ect)

Quick experiment: Calculate the maximum vanilla power output from a line of redstone and a button

• 16 pistons [signal length]
• lifting 12 blocks each [192 m³ total]
• of gold (the highest density "real" material) [19,300 kg/m³]
• through a vertical height of 1m in less than a second.

The AC motor uses an alternating magnetic field to drive a magnetised shaft core. Again redstone emitting power, the engine harnessing it and converting it to something useful.

Steam generator- you mean the turbine or friction boiler?

Seriously? It didn't even qualify for a response from me. I'm going to shorten this if you don't mind -phoe

Ok, WHY should content be watered down to appease secondary and tertiary audience of whom the content wasn't really designed for? (and at the indirect expense of the primary audience who'd better benefit from that same dev time invested into other features?)

Why an artist should compromise his/her unique designs?
That they must conform all their creations to the work of others to maintain a unified appearance?​

 

[Strikingwolf]

I don't want to see any dev (Reika or otherwise) feel compelled to subject his work to any kind of democratic process. Its his work, end of story. However: this is altogether different from hoping that dev's have the capacity to evaluate ideas, perform basic cost/benefit analysis, and implement properly as desired.

Understandable, but it is more like a democracy where the person would have full control over the process. If he doesn't like an idea he would have full power to veto it

Reika has refuted any number of my ideas in the past. Some of them he's pointed out errors in my proposal, and I've either gone back to the drawing board with the new information or abandoned them

I'd rather be refuted and be able to rework my design than believe mine is perfect

So far there have been zero logical arguments other than "I don't wanna" for the configs in discussion. ("I don't wanna" being pretty fair and logical btw. No sarcasm.)

I wouldn't go that far, there are some reasonable reasons

There's a lot of repeated talk using the exact same arguments ad nauseum, but those have already been fully debunked as illogical. Not everyone grasps this of course, but not everyone thinks the world is round either.

I actually mentioned this in a meta-discussion

As for your last point, regarding notifying the user about standards/defaults/whatever: normally this wasn't my preference but I'm strongly in favour of this idea in Reika's case specifically. He's extremely sensitive about the gameplay tweaks and I feel it could ameliorate his concerns if there was such a disclaimer.

That was the main reason I included such a thing

I dunno if your button idea would work in production? I don't think you can change configs at that point, but I'm not a modder.

You can preform automatic restart, or in the first button case you can insert that while configs are being loaded. Once you see the first modification

 

[RavynousHunter]

Anybody want popcorn? I got an air popper here and plenty of butter!

 

[Reika]

So far there have been zero logical arguments other than "I don't wanna" for the configs in discussion. ("I don't wanna" being pretty fair and logical btw. No sarcasm.)

There's a lot of repeated talk using the exact same arguments ad nauseum, but those have already been fully debunked as illogical. Not everyone grasps this of course, but not everyone thinks the world is round either.

Despite your addendum to the first section, I have a hard time believing your evaluation to be fair. It is not "I don't wanna" - which conjures images of a child throwing a tantrum - but "I do not want to Y because I fear X will happen". You can freely try to refute the likelihood of X, but so far you seem to have opted to more bluntly refuse to address the entire argument, except where you hinted that X was an acceptable cost to get Y.

As for your last point, regarding notifying the user about standards/defaults/whatever: normally this wasn't my preference but I'm strongly in favour of this idea in Reika's case specifically. He's extremely sensitive about the gameplay tweaks and I feel it could ameliorate his concerns if there was such a disclaimer.

Given how well the update checker went over, I doubt this to be viable. As soon as I implement such a feature it is going to me met with as much criticism from pack makers as the update checker was. In fact, probably more, as it will probably be characterized as "punishing the pack maker for deviating from 'muh vision'".

 

[Pyure]

DC motor harnesses the power provided by a redstone signal and converts it into shaft power. Its the redstone 'emitting power' rather than the engine (which makes sense given redstone power can open doors, play music or drive pistons ect)

Quick experiment: Calculate the maximum vanilla power output from a line of redstone and a button

• 16 pistons [signal length]
• lifting 12 blocks each [192 m³ total]
• of gold (the highest density "real" material) [19,300 kg/m³]
• through a vertical height of 1m in less than a second.

The AC motor uses an alternating magnetic field to drive a magnetised shaft core. Again redstone emitting power, the engine harnessing it and converting it to something useful.

Thanks Celestial. My issue, and its minor, is that without the "theme" you're providing, these are a tiny bit magic. Even if you say "redstone emits power", its hard to justify it when no redstone is actually consumed by the engine over time. I've actually posted a joke to the effect that the DC engine generates power due to the gravitational pull of the moon.

Steam generator- you mean the turbine or friction boiler?

There's a steam generator that consumes water and produces power. Theoretically it also consumes heat, but no heat is actually consumed: you just need an adjacent heat source block. Again, its a really cool idea, and I'm really fond of the rendering, but in a perfect world, that heat source wouldn't be infinite. Thermodynamics etc etc.

Ok, WHY should content be watered down to appease secondary and tertiary audience of whom the content wasn't really designed for? (and at the indirect expense of the primary audience who'd better benefit from that same dev time invested into other features?)

You're implying that I'm asking for a change to the content, and I'm not. I'm requesting new content. If it pleases you, I'm in effect asking Reika, for zero dollars, to implement a brand new mod identical to the current mod but that I play with my kids, or with mentally challenged persons, or with my casual-playing grandparents, or whatever. There's a desire in the community to try out emergent-fission without catastrophic explosions.

Why an artist should compromise his/her unique designs?
That they must conform all their creations to the work of others to maintain a unified appearance?​

He shouldn't. Your analogy breaks down because I'm not suggesting any such thing and there's no valid correlation between the two. I can't even counter-analogy really because the straw-man is too disconnected. See above about changes to content. (I'm actually fairly confident you'll get my point here)

 

[Pyure]

Despite your addendum to the first section, I have a hard time believing your evaluation to be fair. It is not "I don't wanna" - which conjures images of a child throwing a tantrum - and "I do not want to Y because I fear X will happen". You can freely try to refute the likelihood of X, but so far you seem to have opted to more bluntly refused to address the entire argument, except where you hinted that X was an acceptable cost to get Y.

Ignoring this but only because its cyclical. Entrenched positions, etc.

Given how well the update checker went over, I doubt this to be viable. As soon as I implement such a feature it is going to me met with as much criticism from pack makers as the update checker was. In fact, probably more, as it will probably be characterized as "punishing the pack maker for deviating from 'muh vision'".

I agree with you on essentially all counts here fwiw.

I approached it more informally: I'd have a single main thread for my pack, and it would be in big bold blue letters. The gist would be "Reika allowed this because he's nice to you and the pack wouldn't work otherwise, but if you have a normal-world game running you'll probably appreciate it more with the default settings."

 

[Strikingwolf]

Given how well the update checker went over, I doubt this to be viable. As soon as I implement such a feature it is going to me met with as much criticism from pack makers as the update checker was. In fact, probably more, as it will probably be characterized as "punishing the pack maker for deviating from 'muh vision'".

I can see this happening unfortunately. People would have to realize this is actually allowing them more flexibility than they originally had

 

[Reika]

I can see this happening unfortunately. People would have to realize this is actually allowing them more flexibility than they originally had

Just like how these new upcoming rules were accepted with open arms as allowing more flexibility than previously possible, and how absolutely noone characterized them as a further clamping down and rejection of anyone else's wishes, right?

 

[Pyure]

Just like how these new upcoming rules were accepted with open arms as allowing more flexibility than previously possible, and how absolutely noone characterized them as a further clamping down and rejection of anyone else's wishes, right?

Call me crazy but, while the support hasn't been 100% universal, hasn't the bulk of the criticism been "its not good enough" rather than "its worse than before?"

I'm speaking of this thread specifically, not to any reddits or anywhere else.

I personally have stated repeatedly on this thread that I feel very positive about the upcoming rules. Its the only reason I've been looking to revisit the mods at all.

 

[Strikingwolf]

Just like how these new upcoming rules were accepted with open arms as allowing more flexibility than previously possible, and how absolutely noone characterized them as a further clamping down and rejection of anyone else's wishes, right?

Exactly what I fear...

I think if people step back to think more often they can understand that what is happening is a step in the right direction, but unfortunately that usually doesn't happen

 

[Strikingwolf]

Call me crazy but, while the support hasn't been 100% universal, hasn't the bulk of the criticism been "its not good enough" rather than "its worse than before?"

I'm speaking of this thread specifically, not to any reddits or anywhere else.

I personally have stated repeatedly on this thread that I feel very positive about the upcoming rules. Its the only reason I've been looking to revisit the mods at all.

I would say the bulk of people did say that...although there were some that were not thinking about it logically...

 

[Reika]

Call me crazy but, while the support hasn't been 100% universal, hasn't the bulk of the criticism been "its not good enough" rather than "its worse than before?"

I'm speaking of this thread specifically, not to any reddits or anywhere else.

I personally have stated repeatedly on this thread that I feel very positive about the upcoming rules. Its the only reason I've been looking to revisit the mods at all.

On this specific thread, it has been far more reasonable, as these forums filter out the worst both through moderation and people holding their tongue more here than elsewhere. But in general the split is even (or possibly slightly worse than even). The reddit thread especially had a lot of "who is he to tell me how to play" again.

 

[Strikingwolf]

On this specific thread, it has been far more reasonable, as these forums filter out the worst both through moderation and people holding their tongue more here than elsewhere. But in general the split is even (or possibly slightly worse than even). The reddit thread especially had a lot of "who is he to tell me how to play" again.

Again pointing out why I don't visit reddit often for mc things...

 

[EyeDeck]

@Celestialphoenix had a similar idea here that might well work. It allows me to use the MC collision engine to control where radiation can go, but without introducing the problems of an asynchronous raytrace or of making radiation entities collideable.

However, there remains an unsolved problem: Radiation itself has AOE effects. It is not contact with a radiation entity that causes blocks to convert, or the poisoning to be applied; they randomly pick nearby coordinates or entities to apply their effect to. The range of that "nearby" is a function of the radiation "size" - usually about 16 blocks. This means that even containment would be somewhat insufficient to fully contain the effects. The only way I can think of to avoid this is to put the raytrace there, but that is even more expensive than the spawning algorithm, because it is called much more (each of say 20 entities calling it every few seconds) and for a much longer time frame.

I thought about it for a bit. At the moment, radiation entities select a target, makes sure it's within range, and just boom, irradiates it. What if we use the same logic the radiation uses now to select a target now (by which I mean replacing this line with the new code), but instead of instantly irradiating it, fire an invisible neutron-like entity - this one which can use the vanilla collision engine - from the center of the radiation entity at the target that, providing it hits, applies the same irradiation effect? I would think this might actually be more expensive in terms of total calculations over time than a ray trace, but as long as radiation fires irradiation entities infrequently enough I don't think it would be a problem.

I am unsure what to do about the block irradiation effects, however; perhaps simply make the radiation entities occasionally spit out a block-irradiating neutron in a random direction that does a little bit of irradiation splash damage.

 

[Reika]

I thought about it for a bit. At the moment, radiation entities select a target, makes sure it's within range, and just boom, irradiates it. What if we use the same logic the radiation uses now to select a target now (by which I mean replacing this line with the new code), but instead of instantly irradiating it, fire an invisible neutron-like entity - this one which can use the vanilla collision engine - from the center of the radiation entity at the target that, providing it hits, applies the same irradiation effect? I would think this might actually be more expensive in terms of total calculations over time than a ray trace, but as long as radiation fires irradiation entities infrequently enough I don't think it would be a problem.

I am unsure what to do about the block irradiation effects, however; perhaps simply make the radiation entities occasionally spit out a block-irradiating neutron in a random direction that does a little bit of irradiation splash damage.

This occurred to me. The problem is that it could risk the same chunkloading issues as plagued reactors, as well as yes, possibly being more computationally expensive than a raytrace. It is also a substantial rewrite.

Though it is more realistic, and might lend itself to alpha/beta/gamma/neutron irradiation differentiation.

 

[Strikingwolf]

Any problem with my radiation solution?

 

[Reika]

Any problem with my radiation solution?

The location caching? It is unstable; that is, it can quickly lose "sync" with the world state.

 

[Strikingwolf]

The location caching? It is unstable; that is, it can quickly lose "sync" with the world state.

yeah I thought so...maybe you could update the location grid every x amount of ticks so that you don't get to out of sync? That loses some of the computational efficiency, but should still be faster than raytrace or neutrons

 

[Reika]

yeah I thought so...maybe you could update the location grid every x amount of ticks so that you don't get to out of sync? That loses some of the computational efficiency, but should still be faster than raytrace or neutrons

It only reduces the syncing issue, and yes, loses efficiency. It actually loses efficiency at a faster rate than the syncing issue is fixed, so it is not really an effective solution.

 

[Celestialphoenix]

I've actually posted a joke to the effect that the DC engine generates power due to the gravitational pull of the moon.

They do.
The moon reduces it kinetic energy resulting in a lower orbit; and will eventually crash into your base

There's a steam generator that consumes water and produces power. Theoretically it also consumes heat, but no heat is actually consumed: you just need an adjacent heat source block. Again, its a really cool idea, and I'm really fond of the rendering, but in a perfect world, that heat source wouldn't be infinite. Thermodynamics etc etc.

Ah- steam engine. Works best with the everburning fire of netherrack
Though I will concede a point with lava providing infinite heat [and blowing the engine]. Works on the blast furnace too.

The engine itself is realistic and obeys thermodynamics. Vanilla MC doesn't. Though a lot of this falls into the limitations
of the game engine itself. Implementing such features like full on thermodynamics would be a massive undertaking.
​

You're implying that I'm asking for a change to the content, and I'm not. I'm requesting new content. If it pleases you, I'm in effect asking Reika, for zero dollars, to implement a brand new mod identical to the current mod

New content to provide a change to existing content. Therefore still changing existing content.

He shouldn't. Your analogy breaks down because I'm not suggesting any such thing and there's no valid correlation between the two. I can't even counter-analogy really because the straw-man is too disconnected. See above about changes to content. (I'm actually fairly confident you'll get my point here)

Why an artist Reika should compromise his/her unique designs?

(You are suggesting such a thing, because what you're asking for [when enabled] will remove a significant gameplay feature and compromise the overall design integrity)​

I will agree my second question was disconnected. My bad.