By saying reversible signal generators, do you mean auxiliary controllers (like having a third input of manipulation) or something along the lines of alternating current and clock off-steps?
EDIT: Gonna have to build yours in minecraft because I can't do the logic in my head lol.
EDIT 2: Yay for redstone being partially broken, but I get the gist of your creation. Looks like it needs to be defined as something of a monostable latch. When I think of your design being stacked I think of being used like a progress bar. And if by understanding that, it's a partial sum counter...
Do
If (a == 1){
q = q + 1 //q++
} else {
q = q - 1 //q--
}
Loop
So what would define that? O.o
It isn't really my creation. It was popularized by Hans Lemurson who originally purposed this sort of design, except that is was horizontal and much simpler. Basically, the outputs turn on from bottom to top and turn off from top to bottom. It is useful for circuits involving pistons where you need them to turn on in one order and then off in the opposite. Not really my creation. I am thinking that there might be other sorts of devices which cause special pattern sequences, so you should just group them together to a single address.
IRPE-27 and IRPE-28, except I think 27 could be a monostable, however, it holds a value of time itself with no timer necessarily needed. Unless you or someone else can better define it, that's the best birdshot I can come up with.
IRPE-27 and IRPE-28, except I think 27 could be a monostable, however, it holds a value of time itself with no timer necessarily needed. Unless you or someone else can better define it, that's the best birdshot I can come up with.
Well look at it this way: It works by moving a signal up a chain of inputs (fairly standard). However, to accomplish the reversibility, it also loops backwards while bleeding the circuit at every step.
So here is the simplest unit:
It is just a chain of loop each dependent on the previous until the last is dependent on the input itself. It could be extended to any length, potentially. There are no flip flops, no adding, and no shifting. It's just a special set of oriented delays.
So maybe just call these things "Delay-Based Sequencers". I can see a few practical things falling under that category, such as multi-piston extender circuits.
Well look at it this way: It works by moving a signal up a chain of inputs (fairly standard). However, to accomplish the reversibility, it also loops backwards while bleeding the circuit at every step.
So here is the simplest unit:
It is just a chain of loop each dependent on the previous until the last is dependent on the input itself. It could be extended to any length, potentially. There are no flip flops, no adding, and no shifting. It's just a special set of oriented delays.
So maybe just call these things "Delay-Based Sequencers". I can see a few practical things falling under that category, such as multi-piston extender circuits.
Yay for that schematic working nicely in 1.0. It is a latch due to no "active" flipping involve (because it only has one source of input). Also, confirmed it counts ticks of time which I have been looking everywhere for. :biggrin.gif:
So 27 good enough? 28 removed, unless someone is up to the task of creating and finding a function of 2-input sequential latch because I think it might have an always-on state problem.
EDIT:
Here's your posted schematic it stacked and all component repeaters to 1 tick only, also with a clock as input:
I agree with you meta, there are a lot of applications for this. :biggrin.gif:
Aw this sucks, your going to standardize everything? The variety is kind of what makes redstone computing fun. Every system should be different, but have the same networking standards and a bios-like interpreter for a general assembly language.
Aw this sucks, your going to standardize everything? The variety is kind of what makes redstone computing fun. Every system should be different, but have the same networking standards and a bios-like interpreter for a general assembly language.
He isn't trying to standardize circuits. Rather, he is trying to provide a standardized way of classifying circuits to avoid confusion and help keep things concise, as well as make sure every has the same understanding of what a certain device is.
What metapig said, also Chapter 5 should cover that, as well it was discussed in the original thread.
If everything was on pure standard basis there would be no wiggle room to hook up other creations, unlike in the real world because everything is small. The pin-out for a VGA or HDMI is the same in every device, yet, some of the chips that handle them may be a little different since some being from different manufacturers. Best to standardize the pins and function, not the chip that controls it.
First of all, I haven't read it all, but here is my feedback all in one random pool:
The 16 basic logic relationships are listed from their truth tables, but since you broke it by starting at 1, wouldn't it be better to group them out from properties, starting with OR, AND, NOR, NAND, XOR, XNOR...
What do you mean by "Gauntlet Game Systems"?
Also, it would make sense to have one entry for decimal 7-segment displays, and one for hexadecimal.
Motion sensitive units, like the proximity detectors.
Counters?
Since you are having so god damn many codes, wouldn't it make sense to split them into one group for static/combinatoric units, and one for dynamic/sequential units.
Did I missed locks?
In chapter one, you says that there are 8 different relationships, but there are 16.
Thumps up for doing something about this.
Stay in school kids, don't multitask while in class and then forget to read it after.
BRB while I fix that, and thank you for pointing that out.
Also I didn't break it by starting at 1, some use 0-index, some use 1-index in programming, it doesn't matter as long as you state which one you used.
There is a 7-segement display place holder and it's translating components combining a display code with a translator code means it's a display of whatever system.
I'll port some information from it's original thread for better understanding as well. But please, do read for better clarification or spot more corrections needed.
well, i think this will be helpful to people who don't know anything about redstone to learn it. and if they can't understand this on even the simplest level their minds aren't ready for redstone. you could kind of think of this as a filter, people who don't understand anything won't be able to use redstone.
I know little programing, sure i can make a calculator in java on my own, but where does this fall into redstone? Are redstone logic gates the syntax of the device or something along those lines? The most complex thing ive ever built is, well ****, its just a 3x3 piston door
Just remember, I'm only populating based on what I have seen in the past, present, and adjusting for the future. Even if I saw it, I do not attach a link to it unless it truly was made in the current release of Minecraft.
I was referring to myself for the "stay in school" comment.
Most of my type-ups are done in-between college classes rather quickly and sometimes after a lecture I do not re-read them for corrections, rather add to them. So forgive me if the post seemed arrogant as much of it is quickly typed up and "submit" before class starts on a "oh crap, hurry up type, then go." :smile.gif:
(also now reading your post in its entirety, just wanted to get the misunderstanding out of the way)
EDIT: Also the "back in the cave" comment was directed at my room-mate's post.
I think it is a great idea to have some kind of standard for redstone, but I am a little bit uncertain what exactly this is. In the original thread there is much focus on that this will be a huge database with numerous different designs of each entry. But is this thread there is not any focus on such database. Am I correct when I assume that it is because this thread represents the standard, while the database is based on this standard, but not incorporated in it? If yes, then what about the size calculations you proposed is the original thread.
This thread represents population of codes to link to the database. I know there are some disconnects between threads and no database up and ready to start throwing stuff in. Remember, I am only one person, who is in college, and approaching finals, after that, all fury will be set loose on this.
I personally think that this standard should contain of 256 groups with 256 individual entries each, and not more. it should be written is the format "IPRE-xxx.yyy", so you can easily see under which category in belongs under, and not like "IPRE-xxxxx" as you have done several times in the OP. The D should only be applied if you are referring to a category. If you were to make a database, you would require schematics, and the idea of being able to store things is 32-bit words disappears. How the different versions of the same entries are rated, should depend on the database, and I will here not comment on that.
You can write it like IRPE-xxx.yyy, or rather just "IRPE xxx.yyy" I see no problem in that and already expect people would. I doubt anyone would write out the full short-hand anyway. And as far as doing it with the bigger number format, that's more or less for organizational reasons (I like me some numbers, I'm sure others do as well.)
For my next point to be clear, we will have to throw up the basic question. What is the actual point of having this standard? Is it...:
...To be able to list every creation under an entry, so you will be having codes for each circuit?
...To prevent the never-ending postings of people that think they have created something revolutionary?
...To have a common reference for comparing circuits?
...To be able to use it as a base structure for a huge database of the different designs?
1) Yes.
2) Somewhat of a goal, though those that do not use google or read redstone guides will always post something.
3) Definitely Yes.
4) One function, many, many, many different designs. So yes.
We can quickly agree that there is no limits on how many different circuit designs we can make, so the ultimate goal here is already lost. If we group these by functionality, we have less to deal with. But still, as long as you keep making more complicated circuits, the possibilities grows too high. This means that we in some way will have to limits us to the simple creations for these standards.
There will always be people proclaiming they found something remarkable, but if we wish to use these standards to disprove it, we will have to have the most of the simple system covered with entries, since it is these that suffers from it.
Some circuits, like adders, will there be many different version of, and therefore these should maybe be split into different entries for the different concepts. But on the other hand, it won't work if there is entries with very few or none examples in them.
To have a database of large machines makes no sense to me, but having a database of components makes good sense. Therefore there should be room for all the components that you think is generally useful.
1) "No limit" is such a naughty word in mathematics, in a per perspective sense, yes, there are almost no limit to designs per function. In a technical sense, there is a chunk load & active limit also the height limit (which all can be changed, though many are set to default) thereby limiting the size of creations and thereby limiting what can be created. But yes, I completely agree with you, these standards should be meant for the simple creations. I have no plans for standardizing each massive full-working computer or redstone game map, that was kinda thrown out when I typed up the OP. Do to this I am even hesitant whether to even populate the 50-99 region. Thanks to your feedback I probably will not unless someone states otherwise it should be in there.
2) Yup.
3) Pardon my redstone illiteracy as I have never built an adder in redstone. I look at redstone logic creations from a broad viewpoint having been using hard logic in my professional (programming) and hobby (robotics in the past) life. A function is a function, there is only one RS/SR NOR function in logic, though you can build one in several different ways, the same with adders and other circuits. But yes I agree, no basic examples provided in either how it works or what it would look like in redstone would be a pitfall.
I personally think that #3 is most important, but the others are also very valid. In any case, I would say I can conclude several things of how the properties of such standard should be:
There should be entries for almost all the components with a general purpose that is made of redstone.
Popular circuits should be covered better than non-popular.
You should be careful on not to make them too complex.
Some very popular entries should have several entries if they are possible to make with different techniques/results.
One other thing that I think also should be present, is entries for tileable versions of the different components. A full-adder is good, but I would only use it if is can be tiled is a good way. The use of tileable circuits is very important if you get to do more difficult things.
Agree with much of what is stated. Tileable circuit designs have been addressed with adding a "t{v,h}" tag to the complexity of volume. Although some creations cannot be tiled, it's important to note that some can and should be stated so. If it needs to be clearer to the reader then it should be stated in the title itself.
The actual standard
You can see from my arguments above, that I really think there should be some modifications to the current list of categories and entries, before this will be really that useful as I hope it will be. I will here come with ideas to categories and entries that I personally think should be present. These are not set in stone, and will not be, since that will prevent improvements.
First of all, It is nuts that 70% (guess) of all redstone circuits designed is compressed into the first two D-categories, while you are having 150 is reserve for backward compatibility, bug abuse and special cases. How is backward compatibility preserved if you are storing the old version in different categories? You have also stated that make things ready for expansion, but compressing things doesn't do that. Also, some of the D-categories are having no children, so why should they take up room if you have no specific ideas?
Due to the recent and dramatic change in redstone mechanics I can only predict that it will happen again and would store the first 100 parent classes of the previous Minecraft version to the 100-199 area. And then see what would be flagged as broke and adjust accordingly. At least that was an idea. Catagories with no children are left up to the imagination of anyone who wants to make a guess at them. Again, I am only one person, and only one brain with a couple cogs loose, I cannot think up of everything possible, only attempt to prepare for it. Also it can expand by doing: "255.0.1.4" which would be the same as "0.1" but with an expanded node to the "4" for a unique function and creation. The 255 part expands the node tree. It can even be done again such as "255.255.0.1.4.6". It's almost infinitely expandable, provided a clear broad spectrum of populated titles to do so. Also it would just be stated as IRPE 0.1.4 and an API would note that it's an expanded 32-bit tree version.
This list is not meant to be complete, nor to be adopted directly. I hope there can be many more entries, this is only meant to showing which kinds of components is going into the different categories. A dot can represents multiple entries. (* may change), means that there could be more entries with different *.
List
Boolean functions/combinational devices
The fundamental 2-bit boolean relationships
Multi-input versions of those possible of that
2-wide tileable versions (may contain different slices)
MUX and DEMUX
Multi-function logic gates
Combinational locks
Basic sequential logic
RS-NOR (different version, like Basil-flop, etc.)
T-, and D-flip-flops
Sequential locks
Timing components
Monostable circuits
Inversion clocks, torches (speed may change)
Pulse clocks, repeaters (speed may change)
Long time clocks (different versions, like dispenser-clocks, web, etc.)
Pulse length detectors
Arithmetic components
Half-adder
Full-adder
Tileable ripple-carry adder (size and bits may change)
Carry-look-ahead adder
Tileable Instant-carry adder (size and bits may change)
All above as subtracters
All above as combined adders/subtracters
Recursively multipliers (bit size may change)
Wallace tree multipliers (bit size may change)
Linear multipliers (bit size may change)
Two's complement inverters (different version, like absolute value)
Division circuits
Compare modules (<,>,=)
Random Number Generator, RNG
Registers
D-flip register (width may change)
T-flip register (width may change)
Shift register (PISO,SIPO,PIPO, and mixes)
Bi-directional shift registers
Feedback shift registers
Counters (synchronized or not)
2D version of above
Computer components (many variables, like bus width, functions, size, etc.)
ALU
RAM
ROM
PC
Event sensitive components
Block Update Detector, BUD (T or normal)
Particle Emission Detector, PED
Proximity detectors
Light sensitive units (mechanisms may change)
After a little personal startup, I hope you will be able to look positive at this, and think about my arguments. This kinds of project should belong to the community, and you cannot expect it to be perfect after almost none revision.
I still always find it good to see people doing something for other, by their free will. Thumps are still up for that.
You have shifted my perspective a lot, and I'm going to have to sleep on some of this. Though it still comes down to just how big the possibilities are in a small space and also taken from real life. But yes, I agree with much of what you said and revisions will be coming like a hail storm SOONTM.
I don't really get that extension part, why would that be good? Maybe it is because I don't think the standard should contain of other codes that the category and the entry.
Extensions dive into the broad-shot classification. So if 0.0 is the raw component of logic and rules... 0.0.1 would be another set of rules more explicitly defined. Or something like 17.2.1 would be the extension of the original 17.2.0 to designate a design or method of the specified function. The common: "Yo dawg I heard you like functions, so we put a function within a function so you can program with a function that does its own functions."
I would also like to specify that I think there should be a difference between the database and the standard. The standard should work without the database, and the database should be based on the standard. So in the standard itself, there should also be entries for tileable versions, due to the code limit I thought of in the last paragraph.
The standard should already work without the database. Though the standard is just a formatted entry explaining what a creation does and how it is similar to other creations of the same function. A door with a button is the same function as a door with a lever, classified as the same function, but two distinct methods that open the door, thereby two different design entries upon the same class code.
If I am to comment on the database, then you don't need to compress anything into codes, but you could make the software capable of sorting after different values, such as size on the different axises, tileability or delay. But someone have to do it, and as you said, you are only one man.
The problem is the software may be able to sort out what was used, but not the function, similar to music... Computers can tell what notes were used to a point, but it's still just noise. It may not know if it can be tileable unless specified, it may know what the delay might be, but without an assisted (circuit simulator inheritance :tongue.gif:) it will not know jack.
If you might be so bold to create a blinded perl/php circuit parser, simulator, and predictor you might as well have created a Mathimatica (Wolfram-Alpha) version of a real-time logic interpreter.
I don't know how to incorporate bug-use or delay into this, but maybe that should be present in the database only.
I have I slightly idea of that you haven't had that much experience with redstone since you joined October 13, and since incorporated the JK-Flip-Flop (which noone use), but only just one full adder. I would gladly help making this standard more fitting for what really happens around us with redstone.
I do my best, though I'm a redstone puzzle builder, not a CPU builder. I have information theory (compression/encryption/entropy) embedded in my mind and that carries through into redstone. I see everything as a problem (functional one, not a bad one) and one that needs to be solved or simulated, and then exploited (in a good way.) Although this is not on the scale of Regular Hexahedron, dude, or any other who-who of redstoners, but on a basic playable sense. /gloat-response-flattery
Although no one may use a JK latch or flop, they still exist in logic; sequential and conditional logic. And when playing with sequential logic, it can be used for cascading and random (simulated) generation. Hook up a few JK's with unique primed-length ticks, it will start to look a little random the more prime JK's you add. (At least from my understanding of JK-flop = tick-tock-flip-flop, and JK-latch = bloop-bloop-flip) Hook up Wolfram Rule 30 and let it run for a few days, no one could tell it was from a sequential rule-set.
If a logic can be simulated in redstone, it will be included in the database and thereby have a standard formatted explanation and possible example.
I just wanted to say that I completely support this project, and though I don't think I'm learned enough to help populate the fields. I really look forward to being able to use it in the future?
What would you say is the state of completion of this project? 25%? More? Less? Do you have a projected completion date?
I just wanted to say that I completely support this project, and though I don't think I'm learned enough to help populate the fields. I really look forward to being able to use it in the future?
What would you say is the state of completion of this project? 25%? More? Less? Do you have a projected completion date?
Projected complete date is when it's finished. I think I put more hours into this project than college study and classes combined. :tongue.gif:
Compiling raw population data here for now. Yay putting my old day job to good use in a very sloppy quick way. Feel free to comment (this is my own Beta version layout, not Grygz's.) Hopefully you all might see what I'm aiming for.
It isn't really my creation. It was popularized by Hans Lemurson who originally purposed this sort of design, except that is was horizontal and much simpler. Basically, the outputs turn on from bottom to top and turn off from top to bottom. It is useful for circuits involving pistons where you need them to turn on in one order and then off in the opposite. Not really my creation. I am thinking that there might be other sorts of devices which cause special pattern sequences, so you should just group them together to a single address.
Well look at it this way: It works by moving a signal up a chain of inputs (fairly standard). However, to accomplish the reversibility, it also loops backwards while bleeding the circuit at every step.
So here is the simplest unit:
It is just a chain of loop each dependent on the previous until the last is dependent on the input itself. It could be extended to any length, potentially. There are no flip flops, no adding, and no shifting. It's just a special set of oriented delays.
So maybe just call these things "Delay-Based Sequencers". I can see a few practical things falling under that category, such as multi-piston extender circuits.
Yay for that schematic working nicely in 1.0. It is a latch due to no "active" flipping involve (because it only has one source of input). Also, confirmed it counts ticks of time which I have been looking everywhere for. :biggrin.gif:
So 27 good enough? 28 removed, unless someone is up to the task of creating and finding a function of 2-input sequential latch because I think it might have an always-on state problem.
EDIT:
Here's your posted schematic it stacked and all component repeaters to 1 tick only, also with a clock as input:
I agree with you meta, there are a lot of applications for this. :biggrin.gif:
He isn't trying to standardize circuits. Rather, he is trying to provide a standardized way of classifying circuits to avoid confusion and help keep things concise, as well as make sure every has the same understanding of what a certain device is.
If everything was on pure standard basis there would be no wiggle room to hook up other creations, unlike in the real world because everything is small. The pin-out for a VGA or HDMI is the same in every device, yet, some of the chips that handle them may be a little different since some being from different manufacturers. Best to standardize the pins and function, not the chip that controls it.
Stay in school kids, don't multitask while in class and then forget to read it after.
BRB while I fix that, and thank you for pointing that out.
Also I didn't break it by starting at 1, some use 0-index, some use 1-index in programming, it doesn't matter as long as you state which one you used.
There is a 7-segement display place holder and it's translating components combining a display code with a translator code means it's a display of whatever system.
I'll port some information from it's original thread for better understanding as well. But please, do read for better clarification or spot more corrections needed.
Anyway, time to fix!
waiting on stable recommended bukkit + worldedit release :tongue.gif:
Edit: also not touching anything until redstone changes are, for sure, will not be patched back to 1.8 mechanics
(quick reply to a misunderstanding)
I was referring to myself for the "stay in school" comment.
Most of my type-ups are done in-between college classes rather quickly and sometimes after a lecture I do not re-read them for corrections, rather add to them. So forgive me if the post seemed arrogant as much of it is quickly typed up and "submit" before class starts on a "oh crap, hurry up type, then go." :smile.gif:
(also now reading your post in its entirety, just wanted to get the misunderstanding out of the way)
EDIT: Also the "back in the cave" comment was directed at my room-mate's post.
This thread represents population of codes to link to the database. I know there are some disconnects between threads and no database up and ready to start throwing stuff in. Remember, I am only one person, who is in college, and approaching finals, after that, all fury will be set loose on this.
You can write it like IRPE-xxx.yyy, or rather just "IRPE xxx.yyy" I see no problem in that and already expect people would. I doubt anyone would write out the full short-hand anyway. And as far as doing it with the bigger number format, that's more or less for organizational reasons (I like me some numbers, I'm sure others do as well.)
1) Yes.
2) Somewhat of a goal, though those that do not use google or read redstone guides will always post something.
3) Definitely Yes.
4) One function, many, many, many different designs. So yes.
1) "No limit" is such a naughty word in mathematics, in a per perspective sense, yes, there are almost no limit to designs per function. In a technical sense, there is a chunk load & active limit also the height limit (which all can be changed, though many are set to default) thereby limiting the size of creations and thereby limiting what can be created. But yes, I completely agree with you, these standards should be meant for the simple creations. I have no plans for standardizing each massive full-working computer or redstone game map, that was kinda thrown out when I typed up the OP. Do to this I am even hesitant whether to even populate the 50-99 region. Thanks to your feedback I probably will not unless someone states otherwise it should be in there.
2) Yup.
3) Pardon my redstone illiteracy as I have never built an adder in redstone. I look at redstone logic creations from a broad viewpoint having been using hard logic in my professional (programming) and hobby (robotics in the past) life. A function is a function, there is only one RS/SR NOR function in logic, though you can build one in several different ways, the same with adders and other circuits. But yes I agree, no basic examples provided in either how it works or what it would look like in redstone would be a pitfall.
4) I agree as stated in #1.
Agree with much of what is stated. Tileable circuit designs have been addressed with adding a "t{v,h}" tag to the complexity of volume. Although some creations cannot be tiled, it's important to note that some can and should be stated so. If it needs to be clearer to the reader then it should be stated in the title itself.
Due to the recent and dramatic change in redstone mechanics I can only predict that it will happen again and would store the first 100 parent classes of the previous Minecraft version to the 100-199 area. And then see what would be flagged as broke and adjust accordingly. At least that was an idea. Catagories with no children are left up to the imagination of anyone who wants to make a guess at them. Again, I am only one person, and only one brain with a couple cogs loose, I cannot think up of everything possible, only attempt to prepare for it. Also it can expand by doing: "255.0.1.4" which would be the same as "0.1" but with an expanded node to the "4" for a unique function and creation. The 255 part expands the node tree. It can even be done again such as "255.255.0.1.4.6". It's almost infinitely expandable, provided a clear broad spectrum of populated titles to do so. Also it would just be stated as IRPE 0.1.4 and an API would note that it's an expanded 32-bit tree version.
You have shifted my perspective a lot, and I'm going to have to sleep on some of this. Though it still comes down to just how big the possibilities are in a small space and also taken from real life. But yes, I agree with much of what you said and revisions will be coming like a hail storm SOONTM.
You'll know when I'm a ****, it is not pretty and normally ends in me constructively trolling... a lot. :smile.gif:
Extensions dive into the broad-shot classification. So if 0.0 is the raw component of logic and rules... 0.0.1 would be another set of rules more explicitly defined. Or something like 17.2.1 would be the extension of the original 17.2.0 to designate a design or method of the specified function. The common: "Yo dawg I heard you like functions, so we put a function within a function so you can program with a function that does its own functions."
The standard should already work without the database. Though the standard is just a formatted entry explaining what a creation does and how it is similar to other creations of the same function. A door with a button is the same function as a door with a lever, classified as the same function, but two distinct methods that open the door, thereby two different design entries upon the same class code.
The problem is the software may be able to sort out what was used, but not the function, similar to music... Computers can tell what notes were used to a point, but it's still just noise. It may not know if it can be tileable unless specified, it may know what the delay might be, but without an assisted (circuit simulator inheritance :tongue.gif:) it will not know jack.
If you might be so bold to create a blinded perl/php circuit parser, simulator, and predictor you might as well have created a Mathimatica (Wolfram-Alpha) version of a real-time logic interpreter.
I do my best, though I'm a redstone puzzle builder, not a CPU builder. I have information theory (compression/encryption/entropy) embedded in my mind and that carries through into redstone. I see everything as a problem (functional one, not a bad one) and one that needs to be solved or simulated, and then exploited (in a good way.) Although this is not on the scale of Regular Hexahedron, dude, or any other who-who of redstoners, but on a basic playable sense. /gloat-response-flattery
Although no one may use a JK latch or flop, they still exist in logic; sequential and conditional logic. And when playing with sequential logic, it can be used for cascading and random (simulated) generation. Hook up a few JK's with unique primed-length ticks, it will start to look a little random the more prime JK's you add. (At least from my understanding of JK-flop = tick-tock-flip-flop, and JK-latch = bloop-bloop-flip) Hook up Wolfram Rule 30 and let it run for a few days, no one could tell it was from a sequential rule-set.
If a logic can be simulated in redstone, it will be included in the database and thereby have a standard formatted explanation and possible example.
What would you say is the state of completion of this project? 25%? More? Less? Do you have a projected completion date?
Projected complete date is when it's finished. I think I put more hours into this project than college study and classes combined. :tongue.gif:
Compiling raw population data here for now. Yay putting my old day job to good use in a very sloppy quick way. Feel free to comment (this is my own Beta version layout, not Grygz's.) Hopefully you all might see what I'm aiming for.