Basically the above. While is is certainly arguable whether the current implementation of MJ is good, the reason KL split off was simply due to his vision of power being different than Covert's.
King Lemming actually had a very strong influence on the new BuildCraft API. He got almost everything he asked for. The fact that he changed his mind and decided to make a new system for Thermal Expansion came as a surprise to everyone involved.
a weak desire then? moderate desire?Things may have changed, but I don't have a strong desire to watch it die completely.
Aggreed, I really miss the builder and the possibilities we had when it was semi-workingYou know, I'd love to see Buildcraft going back to its roots. At its heart, it helped you build things, hence the name. It also helped to automate things, or at least transport them. For a long time, Pipes (or RP2 Tubes) were about the only way to get items moving around without manually hand-jiving them. Logistics Pipes increased this ability by an order of magnitude. Several, actually.
I'd love to see Buildcraft go back to those roots. I want to see something like an actually functional Blueprinter and Builder. MFFFS3 has something similar already, so it *should* be possible. Something that can build pre-designed buildings or layouts. Something that can build in shapes other than squares or rectangles. Something that can build patterns in materials, provided access to those materials.
Interesting ideas and definitely worth a second thought.I'd love to see a couple of enhancements to the Filler. Specifically, removing the antiquated requirement for the bricks and glass whose only purpose was to define which activity the machine was to undertake. There's dozens of better ways to tell a machine what to do these days. This would make it a more intuitive machine to use, which can only be a good thing. I'm completely in agreement with it destroying blocks it clears out, that's the function of a Quarry, not a Filler, and will significantly help with item lag, so how about simply not generating items when destroying blocks with a filler? It just makes things a bit more smooth. I'd also like to see it handle irregular shapes. Perhaps a new tool that works in conjunction with Landmarks, outlining an irregular shape, with landmarks required at all points. Once you define the shape of the area, the rest is easy.
Now here i have to disaggree. Why should BC implement FMP support? If it did we could just remove the Facades all together and never bother with them again. Also i'd hardly call trashing the current pipe API 'improvements' it would be a rewrite. And the item pipes a pretty solid right now imho.(Not considering any computational improvements which could be made)I'd also like to see improvements to the pipe API. And by 'improvements', I mean largely trashing the latest version and starting with the older version. I'd like to see pipes go Forge Multipart compatible so you no longer need Facades. I'd like an effort to be made to determine what is viable and what isn't, and what people are looking to do with them rather than telling people what 'should' be done with them. Ask the mod authors what they'd like to see in the API. Then actually listen to them.
Of course, at this point, there's no way of knowing if Spacetoad is even going to bother picking BC back up, or start a whole new thing, so all this might well be just a pipe dream. But someday they'll find it... the Buildcraft Connection... the modders, the users... and me.
I'm all for removing facades and never bothering with them again.Now here i have to disaggree. Why should BC implement FMP support? If it did we could just remove the Facades all together and never bother with them again. Also i'd hardly call trashing the current pipe API 'improvements' it would be a rewrite. And the item pipes a pretty solid right now imho.(Not considering any computational improvements which could be made)
No.Isn't the point of an API to make things available to other developers while also ensuring how the interaction is handled thus limiting implementation freedom.
I'm not bashing BC, I'm wishing it hadn't been done the way it was. It is not intended in a derogatory fashion, nor is it intended as inflammatory. It is intended as a citation of what I perceive to be a negative example. In addition to the lack of user-friendliness, it also carries with it the implication that modders were 'too stupid to use it right', which I find to be somewhat offensive. BC itself has a lot of potential. Unrealized potential, perhaps, but potential. However, the API rewrite was basically a huge step in the wrong direction, in my opinion. It made it nearly impossible for anyone to work with the MJ system, which is going to eventually marginalize it. I feel it was a bad move. However, it was CJ's decision, and his right to make that decision.I really don't like the current scheme of bashing BC in our community and praising TE3 as an "end of all" thing which every other mod has to use or be left behind.
NOTE:
This is my personal opinion as a user not as a FTB Staff member!
I'm all for removing facades and never bothering with them again.
Among other things, I'd like to see pipes go to a 'first available inventory' logic like every other item distribution system ever made since. I'd also like to see the code cleaned up a bit. There's been a lot of advances since the code was written.
The inability to make a lossless machine connect to BC is an inherent fail and needs to go away.
No.
An Application Programming Interface (API) is a library used to facilitate the interaction between the core program and any other programs that would like to work with it. In the case of mods, it is supposed to make it easier to make machines and other things that run on MJ without copying large swaths of BC code. Unfortunately, it does the exact opposite of this.
If you want to talk about API's in general, I suggest you look at the GNU Project and things like FreeBSD. This is what an API is supposed to do.
I'm not bashing BC, I'm wishing it hadn't been done the way it was. It is not intended in a derogatory fashion, nor is it intended as inflammatory. It is intended as a citation of what I perceive to be a negative example. In addition to the lack of user-friendliness, it also carries with it the implication that modders were 'too stupid to use it right', which I find to be somewhat offensive. BC itself has a lot of potential. Unrealized potential, perhaps, but potential. However, the API rewrite was basically a huge step in the wrong direction, in my opinion. It made it nearly impossible for anyone to work with the MJ system, which is going to eventually marginalize it. I feel it was a bad move. However, it was CJ's decision, and his right to make that decision.
It's almost impossible to look at MJ and RF and not say 'RF is a power API done right, and MJ is a power API done wrong', because both are (in my personal opinion) true statements, and whenever you are discussing a topic, it is always good to have both a positive and a negative example to show you where your believe something should fall in, and these are two power API's which a large part of this community is familiar with.
As a result, any time a discussion of power networks comes up, this comparison IS going to be made. And it will be to the detriment of the BC power API. This is not an attempt at being derogatory, this is an attempt at offering constructive criticism, citing an example, and trying to present things in as clear and accurate manner as possible.
Again, these are my personal opinions on the topic, and my point of view.
Though I dislike how MJ is working now as a lossy system but that is the modder's vision, so I just play with BC's piping system and ignore the energy network for them.
That's like saying your work is shit use this one and never look back to the old system on which you spent hours upon hours to create. In all honesty i like facades and for me they serve a different purpose than FMP and thus i am against any move towards FMP. Also introducing a dependency on another mod should never be considered if it merely replaces a feature the mod already has. (Again my opinion!)I'm all for removing facades and never bothering with them again.
See i do not see Buildcraft as a Inventory "sorting" system. It is a factory piping system and that role it fits perfectly imo. Taking away on of the features which differentiate BC from all the other mods that have item routing isn't a good idea. That's what addons are for in this case Logistics Pipes!Among other things, I'd like to see pipes go to a 'first available inventory' logic like every other item distribution system ever made since. I'd also like to see the code cleaned up a bit. There's been a lot of advances since the code was written.
I have to say that i am not in perfect aggreement with the inherent power loss to the system. But that's how it works even in real life (i know that RL argument again....). Players often want things the easy way and take every chance they can to go that route. That doesn't mean every mod has to follow that route and BC is one mod in the huge pile of mods which actually is again different which i like.The inability to make a lossless machine connect to BC is an inherent fail and needs to go away.
I'll cite Wikipedia hereNo.
An Application Programming Interface (API) is a library used to facilitate the interaction between the core program and any other programs that would like to work with it. In the case of mods, it is supposed to make it easier to make machines and other things that run on MJ without copying large swaths of BC code. Unfortunately, it does the exact opposite of this.
If you want to talk about API's in general, I suggest you look at the GNU Project and things like FreeBSD. This is what an API is supposed to do.
As you can see it highly depends on what the creator of a mod thinks an API is. KL followed the first mindset in TE3 while the BC team thinks along the lines of a framework. Both are valid and have their uses. Of course we can now start a cite war to back up each of our words but i hope that isn't needed.An API is usually related to a software library: the API describes and prescribes the expected behavior while the library is an actual implementation of this set of rules. A single API can have multiple implementations (or none, being abstract) in the form of different libraries that share the same programming interface.
An API can also be related to a software framework: a framework can be based on several libraries implementing several APIs, but unlike the normal use of an API, the access to the behavior built into the framework is mediated by extending its content with new classes plugged into the framework itself. Moreover the overall program flow of control can be out of the control of the caller, and in the hands of the framework via inversion of control or a similar mechanism.[5][6]
That last sentencs of mine wasn't pointed at you only. You are one of the few persons i'd say who are not right of bash the current BC and rather discuss its current state.I'm not bashing BC, I'm wishing it hadn't been done the way it was. It is not intended in a derogatory fashion, nor is it intended as inflammatory. It is intended as a citation of what I perceive to be a negative example. In addition to the lack of user-friendliness, it also carries with it the implication that modders were 'too stupid to use it right', which I find to be somewhat offensive. BC itself has a lot of potential. Unrealized potential, perhaps, but potential. However, the API rewrite was basically a huge step in the wrong direction, in my opinion. It made it nearly impossible for anyone to work with the MJ system, which is going to eventually marginalize it. I feel it was a bad move. However, it was CJ's decision, and his right to make that decision.
It's almost impossible to look at MJ and RF and not say 'RF is a power API done right, and MJ is a power API done wrong', because both are (in my personal opinion) true statements, and whenever you are discussing a topic, it is always good to have both a positive and a negative example to show you where your believe something should fall in, and these are two power API's which a large part of this community is familiar with.
As a result, any time a discussion of power networks comes up, this comparison IS going to be made. And it will be to the detriment of the BC power API. This is not an attempt at being derogatory, this is an attempt at offering constructive criticism, citing an example, and trying to present things in as clear and accurate manner as possible.
Again, these are my personal opinions on the topic, and my point of view.
If you ask me, SpaceToad should team up with KingLemming to rebuild BuildCraft from scratch.
Granting SpaceToad's coming up with very first "Industrial" mod idea and generic machines which most of following "Industrial-like" mods based off and KingLemming's efficiency and awesome execution, (In my opinion, KingLemming has hit the sweet spot of what I'd expect from buildcraft to have), they should create the best mod out there.
If you ask me, SpaceToad should team up with KingLemming to rebuild BuildCraft from scratch.
Granting SpaceToad's coming up with very first "Industrial" mod idea and generic machines which most of following "Industrial-like" mods based off and KingLemming's efficiency and awesome execution, (In my opinion, KingLemming has hit the sweet spot of what I'd expect from buildcraft to have), they should create the best mod out there.