Content: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Background: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Pattern: Blank Waves Notes Sharp Wood Rockface Leather Honey Vertical Triangles
Welcome to TerraFirmaCraft Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

  • Announcements

    • Dries007

      ATTENTION Forum Database Breach   03/04/2019

      There has been a breach of our database. Please make sure you change your password (use a password manager, like Lastpass).
      If you used this password anywhere else, change that too! The passwords themselves are stored hashed, but may old accounts still had old, insecure (by today's standards) hashes from back when they where created. This means they can be "cracked" more easily. Other leaked information includes: email, IP, account name.
      I'm trying my best to find out more and keep everyone up to date. Discord (http://invite.gg/TerraFirmaCraft) is the best option for up to date news and questions. I'm sorry for this, but the damage has been done. All I can do is try to make sure it doesn't happen again.
    • Claycorp

      This forum is now READ ONLY!   01/20/2020

      As of this post and forever into the future this forum has been put into READ ONLY MODE. There will be no new posts! A replacement is coming SoonTM . If you wish to stay up-to-date on whats going on or post your content. Please use the Discord or Sub-Reddit until the new forums are running.

      Any questions or comments can be directed to Claycorp on either platform.
lipki

Shelf in plank.

23 posts in this topic

Here's something I'd like to see one day :)

 

Ability to place clay items and ingot on top of the plank components.
And, Ability to place clay items and ingot IN the plank components.
Like this : (Fake screenshot)

 

Posted ImagePosted Image

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be a good idea, however the reason it is not implemented is because these items check for a solid block underneath. If this weren't the case, you could put a pile of ingots on a torch or something. The ability to place items within multiparts, that's an interesting though though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can already put pottery and ingots on plank shelves. You just need to create the shelves by chiseling a full plank block, instead of placing individual plank items.

 

As for placing blocks within blocks (Pottery within Planks), it's just not going to happen. Unless Mojang rewrites pretty much everything from scratch so you can have multiple things together (Like different slabs, or slabs and water) within the same space, it's essentially impossible.

 

Placing different plank items within the same block works because as a whole, it's still a plank block. Once you start trying to cram multiple block types into a single space, it gets extremely complicated very VERY quickly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely possible, just not with the current item placement system. Might have to be moved to a system where they remain as floating items that can intersect with blocks with cut down hitboxes rather than a block themselves.But that'd be putting more work on the mod for something that wouldn't be all that rewarding.

Though it would be neat to see things like the vanilla tag to disable an item's despawning property used...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can already put pottery and ingots on plank shelves. You just need to create the shelves by chiseling a full plank block, instead of placing individual plank items.

 

As for placing blocks within blocks (Pottery within Planks), it's just not going to happen. Unless Mojang rewrites pretty much everything from scratch so you can have multiple things together (Like different slabs, or slabs and water) within the same space, it's essentially impossible.

 

Placing different plank items within the same block works because as a whole, it's still a plank block. Once you start trying to cram multiple block types into a single space, it gets extremely complicated very VERY quickly.

Actually, you can. Forge multipart allows things like torches, levers, and buttons to share the same space as microblocks. You can also put 2 torches in a corner on both sides of the corner now. It also is the same functionality that allow covers to share space with pipes and conduits.

 

Posted Image

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, you can. Forge multipart allows things like torches, levers, and buttons to share the same space as microblocks. You can also put 2 torches in a corner on both sides of the corner now. It also is the same functionality that allow covers to share space with pipes and conduits.

 

Have you seen how much effort it took to get forge multipart working like that? And it still only works for that fairly short list of things, and there's a bunch of weird complications and rules about it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forge Multipart is a hack, a work-around. It's a specific solution to a small part of a much larger general problem, not something which can be easily extended to cover more.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen how much effort it took to get forge multipart working like that? And it still only works for that fairly short list of things, and there's a bunch of weird complications and rules about it.

I don't code so I have no idea how much is involved. I was simply pointing out that it is possible. Personally, I'd rather you guys spend your time on content, like you already do, than wasting time on an annoying little quirk that has always been a part of MC.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forge Multipart is a hack, a work-around. It's a specific solution to a small part of a much larger general problem, not something which can be easily extended to cover more.

By your logic, Forge itself is a hack because it allows modification of the base code of MC. Sadly without it, most of the mods we all love would not exist.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By your logic, Forge itself is a hack because it allows modification of the base code of MC. Sadly without it, most of the mods we all love would not exist.

 

Yeah... no. Forge itself is a framework that was set up with the help of actual Mojang staff members. It actually does not allow modification of base code, it allows extension of it. Forge multipart is a hack because it tries to overwrite base code of MC, and does so in such a workaround way that as Azdoine said, doesn't allow for much extension or expansion on it. Forge multipart in itself is extremely limited in what it can do, and even with the things that it can do, there are a bunch of weird random restrictions and rules for how it works in-game.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's technically possible, but a really bad coding practice and not something that should be done, so what Kitty said. I figure I'll mention this now so that it isn't brought up later.

 

If you HAD to do it for some reason, you could code a brand new block with it's own block id, tile entity and everything and use that. It would be kind of nasty though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impossible ... it's a way of saying "I do not want to spend time doing it,"

this argument does not stop me from making proposals :)

 

Another example of what I'd like to do.

 

Posted Image

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impossible ... it's a way of saying "I do not want to spend time doing it,"

this argument does not stop me from making proposals :)

 

Time is money, dude. Do you really think this is what the devs should spend that time doing?

 

Every moment that the devs spend implementing your suggestion is a moment they can't spend working on their goals for version 0.79. Not to mention, it's a moment they can't spend on their private lives outside of TFCraft.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time is money, dude.

 

This is what economists want you to believe. :D

 

Every moment that the devs spend implementing your suggestion is a moment they can't spend working on their goals for version 0.79. Not to mention, it's a moment they can't spend on their private lives outside of TFCraft.

 

Stays cool, it's just a suggestion ;) 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to what Azdoine said, "Impossible" is usually a very firm way of saying "NO."

 

There's a huge difference between making realistic proposals that actually have a chance of being added, and not taking no for an answer and wasting our time by posting stuff for us to read that is just going to once again be told NO.

 

Dunk made a joke a little bit ago talking about the difference between optimism and not taking no for an answer is that one of them will get you kicked out of bars. >.> Somebody else go find that quote for me because I'm too busy kthx. <3 Edit: I will give you the title of "Official Quote Fetcher" on the forums if you do it for me. >.>

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impossible ... it's a way of saying "I do not want to spend time doing it,"

this argument does not stop me from making proposals :)

 

Another example of what I'd like to do.

 

Posted Image

 

 

I'm pretty sure you can do this as well if you chisel a full plank block for the backing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to what Azdoine said, "Impossible" is usually a very firm way of saying "NO."

 

There's a huge difference between making realistic proposals that actually have a chance of being added, and not taking no for an answer and wasting our time by posting stuff for us to read that is just going to once again be told NO.

 

Dunk made a joke a little bit ago talking about the difference between optimism and not taking no for an answer is that one of them will get you kicked out of bars. >.> Somebody else go find that quote for me because I'm too busy kthx. <3 Edit: I will give you the title of "Official Quote Fetcher" on the forums if you do it for me. >.>

 

Here you go ;)

 

http://terrafirmacraft.com/f/topic/5455-tfc-build-79/page-2#entry91676

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to what Azdoine said, "Impossible" is usually a very firm way of saying "NO."

Speaking of. Forge has blockSolidOnSide check, if I understand it correctly. How about returning true if particular side has at least 4 planks placed with at least one gap (5/8 of the side or more is filled) between those planks? Not that I'm defending anyone, but I feel like that could be a descent equalizer to both stances, allowing players to do more nice things.

 

Having some blocks inside each other would still be out of the question obviously. (I didn't poke around in pottery TE code, or any TE code for that matter, enough to have my own opinion)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to what Azdoine said, "Impossible" is usually a very firm way of saying "NO."

 

There's a huge difference between making realistic proposals that actually have a chance of being added, and not taking no for an answer and wasting our time by posting stuff for us to read that is just going to once again be told NO.

 

Dunk made a joke a little bit ago talking about the difference between optimism and not taking no for an answer is that one of them will get you kicked out of bars. >.> Somebody else go find that quote for me because I'm too busy kthx. <3 Edit: I will give you the title of "Official Quote Fetcher" on the forums if you do it for me. >.>

 

 

 

 

Title updated as Kitty decreed :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of. Forge has blockSolidOnSide check, if I understand it correctly. How about returning true if particular side has at least 4 planks placed with at least one gap (5/8 of the side or more is filled) between those planks? Not that I'm defending anyone, but I feel like that could be a descent equalizer to both stances, allowing players to do more nice things.

 

Having some blocks inside each other would still be out of the question obviously. (I didn't poke around in pottery TE code, or any TE code for that matter, enough to have my own opinion)

 

We already use the blockSolidOnSide check for chiseled plank blocks. From what I understand correctly, that method doesn't work with placed plank items because of their individual hitboxes or something.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We already use the blockSolidOnSide check for chiseled plank blocks. From what I understand correctly, that method doesn't work with placed plank items because of their individual hitboxes or something.

This was WAY earlier and I'm unsure if this has changed since, but I recall placing 8 planks on the top 8th of a block against a wall (so they were constructing the top face of a block at say 0, 1, 0), then I was able to place ceramic items on them (the bottom of 0, 2, 0), as well as turn it into a cooking area with a knife.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Title updated as Kitty decreed :)

 

Haha! For real? I thought, that was a joke  :lol:

It's an honor ^^

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We already use the blockSolidOnSide check for chiseled plank blocks. From what I understand correctly, that method doesn't work with placed plank items because of their individual hitboxes or something.

Yes, fixing that one check to return true on occasion is exactly what I was talking about. Surely there's a way to see if at least one orientation of two possible ones conforms to the clause I described, or any other clause you'll be comfortable with, for that matter.

 

Note that I'm not asking your code to check each of 256 squares on each side to see if some percentage is filled, since this task can be greatly simplified.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites