I voted that I'd support this with some minor changes, with only one reason as to not completely supporting it: I think the way brake/boost and stop track pieces would act on corners needs to be defined. Best choice IMHO is to have them incapable of making corners. So long as it is undefined, there is an issue here, with redstone power normally toggling the turn direction of a track. Doing that and toggling a booster/brake would be inconvenient. I would also like to know what exactly powering each piece with redstone does. I assume it flops the direction it stops/boosts, but not sure.
That said, I support the cart detection blocks the most! Love that you could put them below, beside, or even directly above where a cart might be and still have them work. Of course you wouldn't want to use the latter with a player-occupied cart =P.
But wait. If the cart shouldn't be occupied by anything... Could use... Detect mobs... Until dead.... Muahahaha.
Aside from corners, I can see how everything could work with this system. Thanks for your hard work!
Edit: Your GetSatisfaction posts have a LOT of differences with this topic, most of which I don't approve of as much. I'd love to star these exact ideas on GS, but I won't be starring the topics you've linked to. Just lettin' ya know =P.
I voted that I'd support this with some minor changes, with only one reason as to not completely supporting it: I think the way brake/boost and stop track pieces would act on corners needs to be defined. Best choice IMHO is to have them incapable of making corners. So long as it is undefined, there is an issue here, with redstone power normally toggling the turn direction of a track. Doing that and toggling a booster/brake would be inconvenient. I would also like to know what exactly powering each piece with redstone does. I assume it flops the direction it stops/boosts, but not sure.
That said, I support the cart detection blocks the most! Love that you could put them below, beside, or even directly above where a cart might be and still have them work. Of course you wouldn't want to use the latter with a player-occupied cart =P.
But wait. If the cart shouldn't be occupied by anything... Could use... Detect mobs... Until dead.... Muahahaha.
Aside from corners, I can see how everything could work with this system. Thanks for your hard work!
Edit: Your GetSatisfaction posts have a LOT of differences with this topic, most of which I don't approve of as much. I'd love to star these exact ideas on GS, but I won't be starring the topics you've linked to. Just lettin' ya know =P.
Corner Pieces
Thanks for the feedback, I'm glad you like the proposal! I agree that the corner rules should be defined and I like your suggestion of "special pieces cannot turn into a corner piece". It's simple and effective. I'll add it in the next proposal update with credit.
Powered Track
Second, powering a special track piece simply activates it. Without power, they would act as normal inert pieces of track. This help the pieces integrate better with the binary redstone system and keeps operation simple and intuitive for users to understand. I'll clarify this in the update as well.
Detection Blocks
I'm glad you like the detection block ideas. There's still some limitations though so I'm going to do a final design/brainstorming session this week with Chalk to see if we can't squeeze any last drops of efficiency/flexibilty/better-ness out of the current proposed game mechanics but I'm glad you like them as-is. I also love your detect + mob trap idea since I hadn't thought of detectors used in that way. I can forsee some drawbacks with dropped items getting in the way, but I'm sure there's workarounds. Nonetheless, it's a great example of how the proposed detectors are designed to detect without needing to slow or stop a cart. As a result, quick on-the-fly rerouting of carts is possible!
GetSatisfaction topic Coming Soon!
I'm planning on posting the entire proposal as a separate topic on GetSatisfaction by the end of next weekend. This should should fix all the inconsistencies since I'll also be going back and editing old GetSatisfaction posts. In preparation for that, I'm working on another rewrite of the whole proposal to clarify a lot of the rules and really tighten it all up.
Proposal Rebrand (name + cosmetic)
In addition to that, I'm also going to be rebranding the Minecarts Mk. II proposal to hopefully make it more exciting to potential supporters. I'm planning on changing the name to "MineCarts 2.0" which I think makes the proposal sound more like "this idea is an improvement" rather than "dated war equipment". I've already begun creating snazzier banners (one of which can be viewed here!) in an effort to polish up the look. The new name and banner design isn't final until I release the updated proposal so I wouldn't mind hearing what everyone's thoughts are about it.
Also, shout out @ Chalk: It's good to see you on the forums dude!
instead of keyboard controling powered minecarts, it could be something like:
for: = lever and = minecart
where the lever is facing is the power direction
For the most part, I LOVE this idea. It removes the need for engine cars, gives you a non-glitch method of real cart travel, and is indeed simple and would be super-easy to implement.
The only thing I'd suggest is to forgo having the boosters be directional. Just having a booster will make you speed up when you pass it. As for slowing down, I think that spacing your boosters properly will make slows unnescessary. Also, no need for stopper blocks. Put a chunk of stone at the end of your track and have it simply stop (Read: not bounce backwards) if it runs into a block. As for the cart detectors, solid gold. You could do some fun things with thems.
How about instead of making the booster/brake one way you make it so that it would switch directions? And how about introducing a minecart that has a switch and powers the track its on. If you attached it to the cart you're riding in you could easily switch tracks and turn cart sections on and off
Another long post as I try and answer or address all of your questions, comments and criticism. Thanks for all the feedback!
Quote from gabandre »
instead of keyboard controling powered minecarts, it could be something like:
for: = lever and = minecart
where the lever is facing is the power direction
Would this lever be activated while you're riding in the cart or before you enter? Also,which mouse or keyboard button would you press to switch it? Remember, there are already certain buttons used to interact with a cart (left click to break it, right click to enter/exit) and new functions can't interfere with this.
Quote from jehkoba »
For the most part, I LOVE this idea. It removes the need for engine cars, gives you a non-glitch method of real cart travel, and is indeed simple and would be super-easy to implement.
The only thing I'd suggest is to forgo having the boosters be directional. Just having a booster will make you speed up when you pass it. As for slowing down, I think that spacing your boosters properly will make slows unnescessary.
Thanks for the support! I have in fact already took the "directional boosters" that you describe into consideration as that was how the original booster idea operated. The problem with that method though is handling situations where carts were either "dropped" or are placed directly onto a booster pad (with no forward/backward speed). You can't expect a cart to always be moving when it crosses a booster and the latest method handles that situation in a very clear and predictable manner. You can consider the brake ability as simply added bonus functionality that adds more options for track control.
Quote from jehkoba »
Also, no need for stopper blocks. Put a chunk of stone at the end of your track and have it simply stop (Read: not bounce backwards) if it runs into a block.
Stopper blocks are still definitely necessary. There are a lot of situations where a dead-end track would not be acceptable and where players might prefer a cart to stop, then continue forward along the same piece of track. A block is a great beginner method for stopping carts but leaves something to be desired with us more advanced users. (See existing automated stations for numerous examples.)
Quote from jehkoba »
As for the cart detectors, solid gold. You could do some fun things with them.
Lol, I initially thought this comment was a suggestion to switch detectors for gold blocks and had written a paragraph explaining how it was a bad idea. I'm glad I reread your comment. Thanks again for your support!
Quote from CraeSC111 »
How about instead of making the booster/brake one way you make it so that it would switch directions?
I considered this function but discarded it when I realized two things:
a) a single directional booster can still preform all the functions a dual directional booster can.
:cool.gif: adding switching ability would require an additional redstone input, hugely complicating the proposed game mechanics for very little gain.
Quote from CraeSC111 »
And how about introducing a minecart that has a switch and powers the track its on. If you attached it to the cart you're riding in you could easily switch tracks and turn cart sections on and off
It would certainly "switch tracks and turn cart sections on and off" but not necessarily in the way you want it to. An operator would have to memorize every junction in a cart system and have the reflexes to put the switch in the right position at the right time to ensure their cart goes where they want it to go. It's much easier to simply get in and enjoy the ride after setting the switches before entering the cart (possibly remotely using redstone) than it is frantically turning an on-board switch on and off at key junctions. Some might find your suggestion fun initially, but I suspect many would tire of it quickly.
A little refinement to that on/off cart. Make it so that pressing space while in your cart train will toggle the switch. Since space has no use in the current cart system. And it would be helpful if you forgot to toggle a switch at the beginning or forgot which switch did what.
A little refinement to that on/off cart. Make it so that pressing space while in your cart train will toggle the switch. Since space has no use in the current cart system. And it would be helpful if you forgot to toggle a switch at the beginning or forgot which switch did what.
I don't think you understand the flaw to this yet. A switch that is "ON" always overrules a switch that is "OFF". Imagine this situation:
[*:3e0f4deo] You're riding along in your "on/off cart" when you suddenly approach a "T" shaped intersection that goes left and right.
[*:3e0f4deo] There is a switch at this intersection which can toggle the direction the track points. When the switch is "ON" the track points LEFT. When the switch is "OFF" the track points RIGHT. Right now the switch is ON and the track points LEFT.
[*:3e0f4deo] You want to turn RIGHT but the track switch is currently "ON" and the track is pointing LEFT.
[*:3e0f4deo] You try turning your "on/off cart" switch OFF, but the track-side switch overrules it because it's still ON and continues feeding power to the junction.
[*:3e0f4deo] The junction remains pointing LEFT and your cart turns towards the wrong direction. Game over.
Also, I agree that powered carts should have a forward/reverse switch, but I don't think any cart should be able to change junction switches independently from inside the cart. It messes with the core mine cart game mechanics too much.
I can't see the reason for making two-side full stop... I would just do this if I'd like a full stop:
[top - down view] = rail = Full stop rail = rail with detector block under it/next to it
it would stop carts going from right, but would let pass carts going from left...
BTW, I would like, if the cart stop would let cart pass if another cart would hit the stopped one - cart stop could just work as a station - would stop the cart for a while, but then another cart would hit it and you, sitting in a cart would get to a booster whitch would send you to another station on the other "end" of the map
Do you mean "stop carts going from right to left" and "let carts pass going from left to right"?
In either case, my double sided design is supposed to allow a player to decide whether he wants a cart to stop before or after passing the full-stop block. It's a matter of increasing player options and making the block more flexible when creating their mine cart system/station/etc. Also, the proposed full-stop can already do exactly what you show in your little diagram. It requires activation by redstone in order to operate and thus, can be turned off to allow carts to pass. By your example, if the detector was linked to the full-stop, the full stop I've proposed would also only stop carts coming from the right and heading towards the left.
This idea is so awesome I had to join the forum to participate.
My suggestion is to simplify the breaking track. Rather than having it be a flat common track have the recipe include a 1/2 block stepping stone . The slight elevation would allow for a rolling start like parking the cart on a hill. It would also set the breaks apart aesthetically from normal tracks.
I would also like a clarification on the detection blocks. Rather than having an non/occupied values, could you have it so that one under the track would see the cart and one placed 3m over the track detect passengers? My reasoning is that the cart occupies the 1m above the track floor and a passenger occupies 2m. This way only one block needs to be coded to recognize the 6 adjacent spaces to fill the your needs.
This idea is so awesome I had to join the forum to participate.
My suggestion is to simplify the breaking track. Rather than having it be a flat common track have the recipe include a 1/2 block stepping stone . The slight elevation would allow for a rolling start like parking the cart on a hill. It would also set the breaks apart aesthetically from normal tracks.
I don't think I understand. Can you make a diagram or sketch to show what it would look like in-game?
Quote from Tsaot »
I would also like a clarification on the detection blocks. Rather than having an non/occupied values, could you have it so that one under the track would see the cart and one placed 3m over the track detect passengers? My reasoning is that the cart occupies the 1m above the track floor and a passenger occupies 2m. This way only one block needs to be coded to recognize the 6 adjacent spaces to fill the your needs.
It's a reasonable suggestion to further reduce the number of blocks needed, however I have several reasons why I would chose not to incorporate such a feature.
[*:299py0bg] There are a lot of people who want the option of being able to hide the workings of their cart system below the tracks and floor of their systems for aesthetic reasons. The current proposal has already received criticism for requiring blocks to be placed beside the track to double detect on the same track piece, I'd rather not further alienate that group of players by requiring them to place blocks above track.
[*:299py0bg] Functionally speaking, allowing detector blocks to be placed, independently of function, beside, under, or above a track adds a much greater level of flexibility than your suggestion. As the designer of the mechanics, I cannot account for all the possible situations players might want to put the block in. I can only try to design it as to be as versatile as possible in an attempt to meet those needs.
[*:299py0bg] There is already existing code that the two proposed blocks could be based on (the pressure plates). An object which combines both would require a lot more additional coding from scratch and would probably result in more bugs. This would make the object more difficult to implement in-game from the developers side of things and as such, make the proposal less likely to happen.
... I don't have your artistic abilities so maybe a little bit of explaining will do. Right now tracks will only build a ramp on a full block / \. What I am suggesting is a shorter half block ramp / \ which when turned on will cause your cart to stop on top of that block. When the block is switched off the cart falls, like a motocross drop gate, in a predetermined direction with enough force to travel 3-5m on level ground, presumably on to a booster or down a greater slope.
... I don't have your artistic abilities so maybe a little bit of explaining will do. Right now tracks will only build a ramp on a full block / \. What I am suggesting is a shorter half block ramp / \ which when turned on will cause your cart to stop on top of that block. When the block is switched off the cart falls, like a motocross drop gate, in a predetermined direction with enough force to travel 3-5m on level ground, presumably on to a booster or down a greater slope.
Ah thanks, your explanation helped. I agree that your solution would help differentiate full-stop tracks from other tracks since a special track piece should be easily identified. However, it should also match the overall look and style of it's fellow pieces. I think a half step might make it stand out a little too much. That aside, your solution is actually more complicated than you suggest and offers nothing that the currently proposed system can't do. Here's a couple reasons why:
[alphalist=a][*:vy2yunu3] A half step would require two blocks of air above the braking track and both adjacent tracks. This reduces the flexibility of placement.
[*:vy2yunu3] Carts would be precariously perched on your "drop gate" and as a result, would be much more susceptible to being knocked off by a careless user. (Less reliable)
[*:vy2yunu3] The currently proposed full-stop and booster can already do that in much less space (two blocks instead of three plus booster).[/alphalist]
Again, I agree that the visual appearance of the pieces could use improvement for better clarity however I think your mechanics do not improve on the currently proposed ones. If anyone has any suggestions, art, etc that they'd like to propose as a fix for the object appearances, I'm down for anything.
I have a way to show directions of booster tracks and full-stop tracks:
make the full-stop have 2 lights, 1 green and one red. when the red light is on, it will stop a cart on the track right next to the red light (and not on the green light's side).
when the green light is on, it doesn't stop any carts. (just like any green/red light system on real railroads)
For booster tracks, make them have 3 red lights that light up in sequence in the direction of the boost, each lighting up 1/2 a second after the last one did.
Like this: (coal is unlit, mushroom is lit)
Guess which way the booster is going.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I once saw a chicken push a creeper off of a cliff. I never looked at chickens the same way ever again. That is of course until I needed feathers.
Ah thanks, your explanation helped. I agree that your solution would help differentiate full-stop tracks from other tracks since a special track piece should be easily identified. However, it should also match the overall look and style of it's fellow pieces. I think a half step might make it stand out a little too much. That aside, your solution is actually more complicated than you suggest and offers nothing that the currently proposed system can't do. Here's a couple reasons why:
A half step would require two blocks of air above the braking track and both adjacent tracks. This reduces the flexibility of placement.
Most cart shafts have to be 3m high in order to prevent taking damage when dismounting the cart. With a 1/2 block you would still be able to dismount from the stopping block without taking damage.
Carts would be precariously perched on your "drop gate" and as a result, would be much more susceptible to being knocked off by a careless user. (Less reliable)
That is not my intent. When the breaks are active it is at full stop, therefor securely stationary like any other block. It would not be mobile until the the power is off.
The currently proposed full-stop and booster can already do that in much less space (two blocks instead of three plus booster).
My intent is for all of the "mechanics" to be contained in 1 block with a visual effect on the adjacent blocks. Your system requires interaction between multiple blocks which I feel is outside the nature of the game.
If I were to draw this it would be a a 3 position teeter-totter. The first being a loading ramp, second the break on flat, third the down unloading ramp. I know I have seen this mechanism in toys, unfortunately I can't name it specifically enough to find a picture. The block suggestion is to keep the graphics simple and inline with current game nature.
@zophah: I was already considering animated solutions. You've just convinced me to make the next batch of track piece images into animated gifs. :smile.gif:
@TheMammoth: Thank you!
Quote from Tsaot »
Quote from Ehnonimus »
Carts would be precariously perched on your "drop gate" and as a result, would be much more susceptible to being knocked off by a careless user. (Less reliable)
That is not my intent. When the breaks are active it is at full stop, therefor securely stationary like any other block. It would not be mobile until the the power is off.
Ah, that's a great idea! I'm going to add that to the game mechanics of the full stop. I'll include credit to you in the "Thanks" area.
Quote from Tsaot »
Your system requires interaction between multiple blocks which I feel is outside the nature of the game.
I'm sorry, but I think that statement is very misguided. Among dozens of other examples, you'll have to explain the wood and stone pressure plate systems we use currently use in stations and the multiple blocks used in redstone circuits. In fact, the whole minecart system is based on multiple blocks interacting.
Redstone was a significant influence when designing the mechanics. With redstone, each torch and redstone wire provides a single function. When combined in various ways, they can perform much more complicated operations. The same goes for the currently proposed full-stop, booster, and detectors. Each provides a single, simple function, but when combined, can provide a wide range of complicated operations.
Quote from Tsaot »
My intent is for all of the "mechanics" to be contained in 1 block with a visual effect on the adjacent blocks.
I understand that you want to contain all the mechanics in 1 block, and reducing the number of blocks introduced is one of the key intents of this proposal. However there is a limit to how much can be removed before suffering a loss in performance.
Consider the current pressure plate whic acts as both a "full-stop" and a "cart detector". Despite this multi-functionality, it still performs both operations poorly. Passing carts will always be stopped even if the user just wants cart detection, and stopping requires derailing of the cart which complicates a number of other interactions. The proposal separates these two operations into two separate new objects, the new "Full-Stop Track Piece" and the "Cart Detector Block". Both pieces have been designed to optimally perform their singular purpose which results in better performance of the cart system in general.
Now, in your suggestion, you would recombine a "booster" feature with a "full-stop" feature. I believe this combination would dilute the usefulness of either feature, reducing the flexibility, the effectiveness, and the variety of possible ways the part could be applied. Players may not always want the booster effect combined with the full-stop, or want the asthetic look a "hump-stop" in their stations.
Your system requires interaction between multiple blocks which I feel is outside the nature of the game.
I'm sorry, but I think that statement is very misguided. Among dozens of other examples, you'll have to explain the wood and stone pressure plate systems we use currently use in stations and the multiple blocks used in redstone circuits. In fact, the whole minecart system is based on multiple blocks interacting.
I was referring to one of your early posts in which the break track stopped the cart before or after the break depending on the direction it was traveling. In that system the break block is responsible for 3m of track.
Redstone was a significant influence when designing the mechanics. With redstone, each torch and redstone wire provides a single function. When combined in various ways, they can perform much more complicated operations. The same goes for the currently proposed full-stop, booster, and detectors. Each provides a single, simple function, but when combined, can provide a wide range of complicated operations.
See above. Exactly what I meant.
Quote from Tsaot »
My intent is for all of the "mechanics" to be contained in 1 block with a visual effect on the adjacent blocks.
I understand that you want to contain all the mechanics in 1 block, and reducing the number of blocks introduced is one of the key intents of this proposal. However there is a limit to how much can be removed before suffering a loss in performance.
The mechanics of stopping only, again referring to the 3 blocks needed for the original proposal.
Consider the current pressure plate whic acts as both a "full-stop" and a "cart detector". Despite this multi-functionality, it still performs both operations poorly. Passing carts will always be stopped even if the user just wants cart detection, and stopping requires derailing of the cart which complicates a number of other interactions. The proposal separates these two operations into two separate new objects, the new "Full-Stop Track Piece" and the "Cart Detector Block". Both pieces have been designed to optimally perform their singular purpose which results in better performance of the cart system in general.
Now, in your suggestion, you would recombine a "booster" feature with a "full-stop" feature. I believe this combination would dilute the usefulness of either feature, reducing the flexibility, the effectiveness, and the variety of possible ways the part could be applied. Players may not always want the booster effect combined with the full-stop, or want the asthetic look a "hump-stop" in their stations.
No, not a booster. Just a kick out of the gate with no more force than if you were to push the cart. This would allow the cart to "fall" toward a booster without having to stand there. I think this could be accomplished by having the inertia value of the cart remain positive while the cart is in the break. This is another problem I saw with the original. You would be able to stop the cart but the only way to get it going from a stop would be to run another cart in to it. If you were to place a booster adjacent to the 3m break you could end up with a conflict that would cause it to become unreliable. I am not much of an artist so I wont pretend to offer any kind of a solution to the aesthetics, though I think it can be done.
@Tsaot: I'm gonna get back to you on that. I had planned on completing an updated draft of the proposal this weekend but Real Life interfered and I was unable to meet my goal. I'll answer your post when I clarify the description of the full-stop mechanics since I think, based on your responses, the current description isn't communicating it's function as intended. I hope you don't mind the delay. I really appreciate your suggestions and commentary on the topic.
To fill the wait, and since no one commented when I posted the first link, I'd like to repost a banner I've been working on as part of the planned "rebranding" of the proposal.
It's supposed to be a little more exciting than the current banners, promote a (future) GetSatifaction topic (to be created once we finish nailing down the proposed mechanics), and also get rid of any references to "proposed object looks" since those are subject to change. Please let me know what you think of the rebrand idea and the banner design! Praise is nice and keeps me motivated, but constructive criticism is much more useful. Both at once is even better. ;-)
[EDIT/UPDATE: After reviewing the current proposed game mechanics for the full-stop I confirmed that there's some fundamental flaws in the mechanics. Thanks for bringing this to my attention Tsaot! Chalk confirmed that he also found some faults so we held another brainstorming/design session today and came up with another possible solution. We believe it's our simplest and most elegant solution so far. I'll post details of these new proposed mechanics once I clean up the description so you guys can critique the hell out of it and find all the flaws. Don't worry, I won't add the new mechanics to the main proposal until I'm confident that it's a definite improvement
over the old ones.]
That said, I support the cart detection blocks the most! Love that you could put them below, beside, or even directly above where a cart might be and still have them work. Of course you wouldn't want to use the latter with a player-occupied cart =P.
But wait. If the cart shouldn't be occupied by anything... Could use... Detect mobs... Until dead.... Muahahaha.
Aside from corners, I can see how everything could work with this system. Thanks for your hard work!
Edit: Your GetSatisfaction posts have a LOT of differences with this topic, most of which I don't approve of as much. I'd love to star these exact ideas on GS, but I won't be starring the topics you've linked to. Just lettin' ya know =P.
Corner Pieces
Thanks for the feedback, I'm glad you like the proposal! I agree that the corner rules should be defined and I like your suggestion of "special pieces cannot turn into a corner piece". It's simple and effective. I'll add it in the next proposal update with credit.
Powered Track
Second, powering a special track piece simply activates it. Without power, they would act as normal inert pieces of track. This help the pieces integrate better with the binary redstone system and keeps operation simple and intuitive for users to understand. I'll clarify this in the update as well.
Detection Blocks
I'm glad you like the detection block ideas. There's still some limitations though so I'm going to do a final design/brainstorming session this week with Chalk to see if we can't squeeze any last drops of efficiency/flexibilty/better-ness out of the current proposed game mechanics but I'm glad you like them as-is. I also love your detect + mob trap idea since I hadn't thought of detectors used in that way. I can forsee some drawbacks with dropped items getting in the way, but I'm sure there's workarounds. Nonetheless, it's a great example of how the proposed detectors are designed to detect without needing to slow or stop a cart. As a result, quick on-the-fly rerouting of carts is possible!
GetSatisfaction topic Coming Soon!
I'm planning on posting the entire proposal as a separate topic on GetSatisfaction by the end of next weekend. This should should fix all the inconsistencies since I'll also be going back and editing old GetSatisfaction posts. In preparation for that, I'm working on another rewrite of the whole proposal to clarify a lot of the rules and really tighten it all up.
Proposal Rebrand (name + cosmetic)
In addition to that, I'm also going to be rebranding the Minecarts Mk. II proposal to hopefully make it more exciting to potential supporters. I'm planning on changing the name to "MineCarts 2.0" which I think makes the proposal sound more like "this idea is an improvement" rather than "dated war equipment". I've already begun creating snazzier banners (one of which can be viewed here!) in an effort to polish up the look. The new name and banner design isn't final until I release the updated proposal so I wouldn't mind hearing what everyone's thoughts are about it.
Also, shout out @ Chalk: It's good to see you on the forums dude!
for:
where the lever is facing is the power direction
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThe only thing I'd suggest is to forgo having the boosters be directional. Just having a booster will make you speed up when you pass it. As for slowing down, I think that spacing your boosters properly will make slows unnescessary. Also, no need for stopper blocks. Put a chunk of stone at the end of your track and have it simply stop (Read: not bounce backwards) if it runs into a block. As for the cart detectors, solid gold. You could do some fun things with thems.
Would this lever be activated while you're riding in the cart or before you enter? Also,which mouse or keyboard button would you press to switch it? Remember, there are already certain buttons used to interact with a cart (left click to break it, right click to enter/exit) and new functions can't interfere with this.
Thanks for the support! I have in fact already took the "directional boosters" that you describe into consideration as that was how the original booster idea operated. The problem with that method though is handling situations where carts were either "dropped" or are placed directly onto a booster pad (with no forward/backward speed). You can't expect a cart to always be moving when it crosses a booster and the latest method handles that situation in a very clear and predictable manner. You can consider the brake ability as simply added bonus functionality that adds more options for track control.
Stopper blocks are still definitely necessary. There are a lot of situations where a dead-end track would not be acceptable and where players might prefer a cart to stop, then continue forward along the same piece of track. A block is a great beginner method for stopping carts but leaves something to be desired with us more advanced users. (See existing automated stations for numerous examples.)
Lol, I initially thought this comment was a suggestion to switch detectors for gold blocks and had written a paragraph explaining how it was a bad idea. I'm glad I reread your comment. Thanks again for your support!
I considered this function but discarded it when I realized two things:
a) a single directional booster can still preform all the functions a dual directional booster can.
:cool.gif: adding switching ability would require an additional redstone input, hugely complicating the proposed game mechanics for very little gain.
It would certainly "switch tracks and turn cart sections on and off" but not necessarily in the way you want it to. An operator would have to memorize every junction in a cart system and have the reflexes to put the switch in the right position at the right time to ensure their cart goes where they want it to go. It's much easier to simply get in and enjoy the ride after setting the switches before entering the cart (possibly remotely using redstone) than it is frantically turning an on-board switch on and off at key junctions. Some might find your suggestion fun initially, but I suspect many would tire of it quickly.
I don't think you understand the flaw to this yet. A switch that is "ON" always overrules a switch that is "OFF". Imagine this situation:
[*:3e0f4deo] You're riding along in your "on/off cart" when you suddenly approach a "T" shaped intersection that goes left and right.
[*:3e0f4deo] There is a switch at this intersection which can toggle the direction the track points. When the switch is "ON" the track points LEFT. When the switch is "OFF" the track points RIGHT. Right now the switch is ON and the track points LEFT.
[*:3e0f4deo] You want to turn RIGHT but the track switch is currently "ON" and the track is pointing LEFT.
[*:3e0f4deo] You try turning your "on/off cart" switch OFF, but the track-side switch overrules it because it's still ON and continues feeding power to the junction.
[*:3e0f4deo] The junction remains pointing LEFT and your cart turns towards the wrong direction. Game over.
Also, I agree that powered carts should have a forward/reverse switch, but I don't think any cart should be able to change junction switches independently from inside the cart. It messes with the core mine cart game mechanics too much.
Do you mean "stop carts going from right to left" and "let carts pass going from left to right"?
In either case, my double sided design is supposed to allow a player to decide whether he wants a cart to stop before or after passing the full-stop block. It's a matter of increasing player options and making the block more flexible when creating their mine cart system/station/etc. Also, the proposed full-stop can already do exactly what you show in your little diagram. It requires activation by redstone in order to operate and thus, can be turned off to allow carts to pass. By your example, if the detector was linked to the full-stop, the full stop I've proposed would also only stop carts coming from the right and heading towards the left.
My suggestion is to simplify the breaking track. Rather than having it be a flat common track have the recipe include a 1/2 block stepping stone
I would also like a clarification on the detection blocks. Rather than having an non/occupied values, could you have it so that one under the track would see the cart and one placed 3m over the track detect passengers? My reasoning is that the cart occupies the 1m above the track floor and a passenger occupies 2m. This way only one block needs to be coded to recognize the 6 adjacent spaces to fill the your needs.
I don't think I understand. Can you make a diagram or sketch to show what it would look like in-game?
It's a reasonable suggestion to further reduce the number of blocks needed, however I have several reasons why I would chose not to incorporate such a feature.
[*:299py0bg] There are a lot of people who want the option of being able to hide the workings of their cart system below the tracks and floor of their systems for aesthetic reasons. The current proposal has already received criticism for requiring blocks to be placed beside the track to double detect on the same track piece, I'd rather not further alienate that group of players by requiring them to place blocks above track.
[*:299py0bg] Functionally speaking, allowing detector blocks to be placed, independently of function, beside, under, or above a track adds a much greater level of flexibility than your suggestion. As the designer of the mechanics, I cannot account for all the possible situations players might want to put the block in. I can only try to design it as to be as versatile as possible in an attempt to meet those needs.
[*:299py0bg] There is already existing code that the two proposed blocks could be based on (the pressure plates). An object which combines both would require a lot more additional coding from scratch and would probably result in more bugs. This would make the object more difficult to implement in-game from the developers side of things and as such, make the proposal less likely to happen.
Ah thanks, your explanation helped. I agree that your solution would help differentiate full-stop tracks from other tracks since a special track piece should be easily identified. However, it should also match the overall look and style of it's fellow pieces. I think a half step might make it stand out a little too much. That aside, your solution is actually more complicated than you suggest and offers nothing that the currently proposed system can't do. Here's a couple reasons why:
[alphalist=a][*:vy2yunu3] A half step would require two blocks of air above the braking track and both adjacent tracks. This reduces the flexibility of placement.
[*:vy2yunu3] Carts would be precariously perched on your "drop gate" and as a result, would be much more susceptible to being knocked off by a careless user. (Less reliable)
[*:vy2yunu3] The currently proposed full-stop and booster can already do that in much less space (two blocks instead of three plus booster).[/alphalist]
Again, I agree that the visual appearance of the pieces could use improvement for better clarity however I think your mechanics do not improve on the currently proposed ones. If anyone has any suggestions, art, etc that they'd like to propose as a fix for the object appearances, I'm down for anything.
make the full-stop have 2 lights, 1 green and one red. when the red light is on, it will stop a cart on the track right next to the red light (and not on the green light's side).
when the green light is on, it doesn't stop any carts. (just like any green/red light system on real railroads)
For booster tracks, make them have 3 red lights that light up in sequence in the direction of the boost, each lighting up 1/2 a second after the last one did.
Like this: (coal is unlit, mushroom is lit)
Guess which way the booster is going.
Most cart shafts have to be 3m high in order to prevent taking damage when dismounting the cart. With a 1/2 block you would still be able to dismount from the stopping block without taking damage.
That is not my intent. When the breaks are active it is at full stop, therefor securely stationary like any other block. It would not be mobile until the the power is off.
My intent is for all of the "mechanics" to be contained in 1 block with a visual effect on the adjacent blocks. Your system requires interaction between multiple blocks which I feel is outside the nature of the game.
If I were to draw this it would be a a 3 position teeter-totter. The first being a loading ramp, second the break on flat, third the down unloading ramp. I know I have seen this mechanism in toys, unfortunately I can't name it specifically enough to find a picture. The block suggestion is to keep the graphics simple and inline with current game nature.
@TheMammoth: Thank you!
Ah, that's a great idea! I'm going to add that to the game mechanics of the full stop. I'll include credit to you in the "Thanks" area.
I'm sorry, but I think that statement is very misguided. Among dozens of other examples, you'll have to explain the wood and stone pressure plate systems we use currently use in stations and the multiple blocks used in redstone circuits. In fact, the whole minecart system is based on multiple blocks interacting.
Redstone was a significant influence when designing the mechanics. With redstone, each torch and redstone wire provides a single function. When combined in various ways, they can perform much more complicated operations. The same goes for the currently proposed full-stop, booster, and detectors. Each provides a single, simple function, but when combined, can provide a wide range of complicated operations.
I understand that you want to contain all the mechanics in 1 block, and reducing the number of blocks introduced is one of the key intents of this proposal. However there is a limit to how much can be removed before suffering a loss in performance.
Consider the current pressure plate whic acts as both a "full-stop" and a "cart detector". Despite this multi-functionality, it still performs both operations poorly. Passing carts will always be stopped even if the user just wants cart detection, and stopping requires derailing of the cart which complicates a number of other interactions. The proposal separates these two operations into two separate new objects, the new "Full-Stop Track Piece" and the "Cart Detector Block". Both pieces have been designed to optimally perform their singular purpose which results in better performance of the cart system in general.
Now, in your suggestion, you would recombine a "booster" feature with a "full-stop" feature. I believe this combination would dilute the usefulness of either feature, reducing the flexibility, the effectiveness, and the variety of possible ways the part could be applied. Players may not always want the booster effect combined with the full-stop, or want the asthetic look a "hump-stop" in their stations.
I was referring to one of your early posts in which the break track stopped the cart before or after the break depending on the direction it was traveling. In that system the break block is responsible for 3m of track.
See above. Exactly what I meant.
The mechanics of stopping only, again referring to the 3 blocks needed for the original proposal.
No, not a booster. Just a kick out of the gate with no more force than if you were to push the cart. This would allow the cart to "fall" toward a booster without having to stand there. I think this could be accomplished by having the inertia value of the cart remain positive while the cart is in the break. This is another problem I saw with the original. You would be able to stop the cart but the only way to get it going from a stop would be to run another cart in to it. If you were to place a booster adjacent to the 3m break you could end up with a conflict that would cause it to become unreliable. I am not much of an artist so I wont pretend to offer any kind of a solution to the aesthetics, though I think it can be done.
To fill the wait, and since no one commented when I posted the first link, I'd like to repost a banner I've been working on as part of the planned "rebranding" of the proposal.
It's supposed to be a little more exciting than the current banners, promote a (future) GetSatifaction topic (to be created once we finish nailing down the proposed mechanics), and also get rid of any references to "proposed object looks" since those are subject to change. Please let me know what you think of the rebrand idea and the banner design! Praise is nice and keeps me motivated, but constructive criticism is much more useful. Both at once is even better. ;-)
[EDIT/UPDATE: After reviewing the current proposed game mechanics for the full-stop I confirmed that there's some fundamental flaws in the mechanics. Thanks for bringing this to my attention Tsaot! Chalk confirmed that he also found some faults so we held another brainstorming/design session today and came up with another possible solution. We believe it's our simplest and most elegant solution so far. I'll post details of these new proposed mechanics once I clean up the description so you guys can critique the hell out of it and find all the flaws. Don't worry, I won't add the new mechanics to the main proposal until I'm confident that it's a definite improvement
over the old ones.]