This would open up a TON of room for creativity if you could place a fully sized block on top of a half block. It'd be pretty basic, but it's one of those mechanical additions that would help make the game that much more smooth.
It's a simple suggestion. If someone could make a mockup of what it'd look like, that'd be helpful.
This would require changing the basics of what a block IS. Not a simple suggestion.
And Mojang has said that if they wanted to make that level of detail possible, they would have made the blocks smaller. So I don't think this is going to happen.
Not really- it would be immensely simple, actually. Just place the block boundries half a block lower than where it would usually be. This already happens with top slabs- that's why it lags for a split second before adjusting to the correct position.
The shape would also be the exact same as a block with a half slab on top of it. It's just the reverse.
You mean have a block sit right on a right-side-up slab instead of hover a half-block over it? No support. It would require so much extra coding work...
You mean have a block sit right on a right-side-up slab instead of hover a half-block over it? No support. It would require so much extra coding work...
Hardly. They do stuff like this all the time. Corner stairs, top slabs, etc. It's a small thing, but it would help diversify the game a little bit. It could also allow for things such as dirt/grass half slabs as once planned, so you can still have tall grass growing on it and whatnot.
Not really- it would be immensely simple, actually. Just place the block boundries half a block lower than where it would usually be. This already happens with top slabs- that's why it lags for a split second before adjusting to the correct position.
The shape would also be the exact same as a block with a half slab on top of it. It's just the reverse.
It's actually not like that at all. How slabs work is it has the same placement collision box (a voxel) as any other block (16x16x16 pixels). However, it's model is 16x16x8 in pixels, and it's entity collision box is the same. That's why if you place a water block on top of a slab, there is a gap of air in the water. The game still treats it like a full block as far as placement. The lag you see is the game rendering the default block ID (for example, a Stone Slab is 44x0) and then the game positioning it properly by adjusting the metadata bit 0x8. On a faster computer you don't see that little lag at all.
So no, it actually is completely different from how you think it works. It would be possible, but it would indeed require changing how the game handles blocks.
Want some advice on how to thrive in the Suggestions section? Check this handy list of guidelines and tips for posting your ideas and responding to the ideas of others!
I agree it would be nice, along with being able to place different types of slab on top of each other, but each double slab has a unique block ID, so even THAT would be some serious coding.
It's actually not like that at all. How slabs work is it has the same placement collision box (a voxel) as any other block (16x16x16 pixels). However, it's model is 16x16x8 in pixels, and it's entity collision box is the same. That's why if you place a water block on top of a slab, there is a gap of air in the water. The game still treats it like a full block as far as placement. The lag you see is the game rendering the default block ID (for example, a Stone Slab is 44x0) and then the game positioning it properly by adjusting the metadata bit 0x8. On a faster computer you don't see that little lag at all.
Oh wow, that's strange. Other blocks with metadata don't have that little lag bit.
As for entity collision box, though, it's not like this affects anything other than placement. Players and etc can still walk on it as though it has a different bounding box.
If they need to re-code some stuff, so be it- it'd be a nice addition.
I agree it would be nice, along with being able to place different types of slab on top of each other, but each double slab has a unique block ID, so even THAT would be some serious coding.
Double slabs probably wouldn't even be needed if you could properly combine them.
Oh wow, that's strange. Other blocks with metadata don't have that little lag bit.
As for entity collision box, though, it's not like this affects anything other than placement. Players and etc can still walk on it as though it has a different bounding box.
Entity collision is the one that determines mining how players walk on it. You're thinking of it's Voxel collision, which is the place in the 3d grid where it is placed.
I do agree that it would be kind of cool, but I really don't find it a necessary change to make. It would really only change aesthetics of the game. After all, a full block placed on a bottom slab would be the exact same thing as a bottom slab placed on a block, it just has some minor texture limitations.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want some advice on how to thrive in the Suggestions section? Check this handy list of guidelines and tips for posting your ideas and responding to the ideas of others!
Entity collision is the one that determines mining how players walk on it. You're thinking of it's Voxel collision, which is the place in the 3d grid where it is placed.
Yeah, I'm saying that the "voxel collision" is only used for placement and not much else- the looks, entity collision, and etc don't use this. Surely, there can be a nice little workaround to combine the two.
I do agree that it would be kind of cool, but I really don't find it a necessary change to make. It would really only change aesthetics of the game. After all, a full block placed on a bottom slab would be the exact same thing as a bottom slab placed on a block, it just has some minor texture limitations.
I actually had thought about it because I was thinking of placing dirt/grass slabs into the world for more proper hills in the terrain- but tall grass would either hover above the slabs or not be placed on it at all, and I realized it's always been rather silly to have slabs still behave in the same manner they have since before alpha.
And let's face it, aesthetics matter to Minecraft's userbase- top slabs, corner stairs, etc were all made with this in mind.
Again, it wouldn't. It'd be the same thing as the current "top slab" coding- shift its coordinates after placement to match what it should be.
Hardly. They do stuff like this all the time. Corner stairs, top slabs, etc. It's a small thing, but it would help diversify the game a little bit. It could also allow for things such as dirt/grass half slabs as once planned, so you can still have tall grass growing on it and whatnot.
Corner stairs and top slabs are still within the normal block boundaries, you're talking about turning every block into half slabs then binding them together by default, that is redoing the entire block mechanism of the entire game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my Lets Play! It would be much appreciated! :3
you're talking about turning every block into half slabs then binding them together by default, that is redoing the entire block mechanism of the entire game.
And? At some point, they have to redo virtually every system in place anyway. Why not make sure slabs can function more appropriately? I imagine if they can fix this, it would lead to other "block-in-block" scenarios, so we could have proper water flowing through doorways and what have you.
Corner stairs and top slabs are still within the normal block boundaries, you're talking about turning every block into half slabs then binding them together by default, that is redoing the entire block mechanism of the entire game.
And how does this affect you? As far as I can tell this would only annoy modders who actually deal with the code for minecraft(which isn't a big suprise, as mojang changes a lot of the code or cleans it up with each patch).
This would be pretty simple to implement from a coding perspective and could easily be done with either some form of "stacking" logic changing the positioning of the block OR properly coding all slabs and other things similar to slabs as a type of half-block with the same length and witdth of a normal boxes collision box, but half of its height.
it would a: break the fysics of minecraft (due to halfslabs actually being a full block)
b: would require the entire block grid to be overhauled so every block is actually a half slab
c: would require block combinations of every block with every slab, which will possibly even go over the current 4096 possible blocks
I don't know much about Block IDs or anything, but why are there only a certain number available? And can this number not be adjusted to be larger in the future?
Also, back on topic, this is something ALOT of people have thought of that they want in the game. It's something that would be a simple change gameplay wise, but a good one to help allow more customizing with blocks.
Sadly, similar to many of these suggestions threads, these great ideas that appear simple apparently are over complicated to code, according to others. It sucks badly, so many good ideas that people automatically trash because they'd be 'too hard to code'. :/
i have no idea why it is limited. see update 12a07, there it says about the update in block ids.
but i believe it has something to do with the map format. for anvil (the map-format, not the block) changed the id limit (i do not think it is java-based)
Odd... Even with that limitation, take a gander at things like the FTB modpack. Look how many blocks they were able to stuff into there, including all those microblocks...
So you're asking for tons of new IDs? Oh, and did I remind you that it would need to introduce slabs of every full block in the game? That would be even more IDs
Considering all the block additions and microblocks in FTB that they were able to stuff, I'm not so sure if your argument with IDs is really something to be concerned over...
So you're asking for tons of new IDs? Oh, and did I remind you that it would need to introduce slabs of every full block in the game? That would be even more IDs
Actually, no. You'd only need to make a ton of new ID's if you did it the manual (and frankly dumb) way.
Either they reformat the current block placement system to allow for multiple blocks to occupy a 1x1 space (sorely needed for things like water flowing through doors and etc), or they do it the hack-ish way and make a 1.5x sized block with a dynamic appearance based on what blocks are a part of it.
The latter would require various other tweaks to make it work nicely (specifically, multiple positional damage boundries and entity collision thing), but again- isn't impossible.
We're talking about a fairly open source program, here. Things are only impossible if you close yourself off to ideas.
b: would require the entire block grid to be overhauled so every block is actually a half slab
I wouldn't say they'd have to do it that way- a better way would be to allow multiple block types to occupy a single spot. So on the technical side of things, a 1.5x block is taking up 2 blocks- and placing further blocks on top of that 1.5x block causes it to take up 3 blocks, and so on. Again, it would also open the door to... well, open doors letting fluids through. And grate blocks which let liquid travel through but not entities (dropped items, players, etc).
I don't know much about Block IDs or anything, but why are there only a certain number available? And can this number not be adjusted to be larger in the future?
Something to do with data management. It USED to be 256... actually, I thought it still was 256, and items were hogging up the better part of the limit, but I guess they finally split them up.
Also, back on topic, this is something ALOT of people have thought of that they want in the game. It's something that would be a simple change gameplay wise, but a good one to help allow more customizing with blocks.
Sadly, similar to many of these suggestions threads, these great ideas that appear simple apparently are over complicated to code, according to others. It sucks badly, so many good ideas that people automatically trash because they'd be 'too hard to code'. :/
I just don't get why people are so unwilling to accept ideas that might take some actual effort to code. Advancing the game's technical parts does nothing but HELP the game.
You'd need to make every block two half slabs to allow this kind of change, effectively doubling the block count (in the world - eats performance) compared to the current system unless its completely rewritten.
unlikely.
See above. This isn't the best way to do it at all.
The way blocks are identified makes this impossible.
Then maybe that's where the problem lies? Eventually they're going to want to fix this sort of thing to allow water to travel through certain blocks.
I'm pretty sure if they added functionality to allow for multiple bounding boxes and material types within a single block space, this could easily be implemented.
Odd... Even with that limitation, take a gander at things like the FTB modpack. Look how many blocks they were able to stuff into there, including all those microblocks...
Considering all the block additions and microblocks in FTB that they were able to stuff, I'm not so sure if your argument with IDs is really something to be concerned over...
FTB uses minecraft forge, which is glitchier, but reworks the block IDs to allow mods be more compatible and add loads of items. Also I think the microblocks use damage values.
It's a simple suggestion. If someone could make a mockup of what it'd look like, that'd be helpful.
And Mojang has said that if they wanted to make that level of detail possible, they would have made the blocks smaller. So I don't think this is going to happen.
How to not die in a cave
The shape would also be the exact same as a block with a half slab on top of it. It's just the reverse.
Again, it wouldn't. It'd be the same thing as the current "top slab" coding- shift its coordinates after placement to match what it should be.
Hardly. They do stuff like this all the time. Corner stairs, top slabs, etc. It's a small thing, but it would help diversify the game a little bit. It could also allow for things such as dirt/grass half slabs as once planned, so you can still have tall grass growing on it and whatnot.
It's actually not like that at all. How slabs work is it has the same placement collision box (a voxel) as any other block (16x16x16 pixels). However, it's model is 16x16x8 in pixels, and it's entity collision box is the same. That's why if you place a water block on top of a slab, there is a gap of air in the water. The game still treats it like a full block as far as placement. The lag you see is the game rendering the default block ID (for example, a Stone Slab is 44x0) and then the game positioning it properly by adjusting the metadata bit 0x8. On a faster computer you don't see that little lag at all.
So no, it actually is completely different from how you think it works. It would be possible, but it would indeed require changing how the game handles blocks.
Sources:
http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/Data_values#Slabs_and_Double_Slabs
http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/Slab#Behavior
Want some advice on how to thrive in the Suggestions section? Check this handy list of guidelines and tips for posting your ideas and responding to the ideas of others!
http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-discussion/suggestions/2775557-guidelines-for-the-suggestions-forum
EDIT: Ninja'd. Maybe add my link to your sources, though, as Dinner-proof.
Click to support!
Oh wow, that's strange. Other blocks with metadata don't have that little lag bit.
As for entity collision box, though, it's not like this affects anything other than placement. Players and etc can still walk on it as though it has a different bounding box.
If they need to re-code some stuff, so be it- it'd be a nice addition.
Double slabs probably wouldn't even be needed if you could properly combine them.
Entity collision is the one that determines mining how players walk on it. You're thinking of it's Voxel collision, which is the place in the 3d grid where it is placed.
I do agree that it would be kind of cool, but I really don't find it a necessary change to make. It would really only change aesthetics of the game. After all, a full block placed on a bottom slab would be the exact same thing as a bottom slab placed on a block, it just has some minor texture limitations.
Want some advice on how to thrive in the Suggestions section? Check this handy list of guidelines and tips for posting your ideas and responding to the ideas of others!
http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-discussion/suggestions/2775557-guidelines-for-the-suggestions-forum
Yeah, I'm saying that the "voxel collision" is only used for placement and not much else- the looks, entity collision, and etc don't use this. Surely, there can be a nice little workaround to combine the two.
I actually had thought about it because I was thinking of placing dirt/grass slabs into the world for more proper hills in the terrain- but tall grass would either hover above the slabs or not be placed on it at all, and I realized it's always been rather silly to have slabs still behave in the same manner they have since before alpha.
And let's face it, aesthetics matter to Minecraft's userbase- top slabs, corner stairs, etc were all made with this in mind.
Corner stairs and top slabs are still within the normal block boundaries, you're talking about turning every block into half slabs then binding them together by default, that is redoing the entire block mechanism of the entire game.
And? At some point, they have to redo virtually every system in place anyway. Why not make sure slabs can function more appropriately? I imagine if they can fix this, it would lead to other "block-in-block" scenarios, so we could have proper water flowing through doorways and what have you.
Technical fixes like these are never a bad thing.
And how does this affect you? As far as I can tell this would only annoy modders who actually deal with the code for minecraft(which isn't a big suprise, as mojang changes a lot of the code or cleans it up with each patch).
This would be pretty simple to implement from a coding perspective and could easily be done with either some form of "stacking" logic changing the positioning of the block OR properly coding all slabs and other things similar to slabs as a type of half-block with the same length and witdth of a normal boxes collision box, but half of its height.
Also, back on topic, this is something ALOT of people have thought of that they want in the game. It's something that would be a simple change gameplay wise, but a good one to help allow more customizing with blocks.
Sadly, similar to many of these suggestions threads, these great ideas that appear simple apparently are over complicated to code, according to others. It sucks badly, so many good ideas that people automatically trash because they'd be 'too hard to code'. :/
Considering all the block additions and microblocks in FTB that they were able to stuff, I'm not so sure if your argument with IDs is really something to be concerned over...
Actually, no. You'd only need to make a ton of new ID's if you did it the manual (and frankly dumb) way.
Either they reformat the current block placement system to allow for multiple blocks to occupy a 1x1 space (sorely needed for things like water flowing through doors and etc), or they do it the hack-ish way and make a 1.5x sized block with a dynamic appearance based on what blocks are a part of it.
The latter would require various other tweaks to make it work nicely (specifically, multiple positional damage boundries and entity collision thing), but again- isn't impossible.
We're talking about a fairly open source program, here. Things are only impossible if you close yourself off to ideas.
Unless it's implemented properly, so it... y'know, WOULDN'T break the "fysics".
I wouldn't say they'd have to do it that way- a better way would be to allow multiple block types to occupy a single spot. So on the technical side of things, a 1.5x block is taking up 2 blocks- and placing further blocks on top of that 1.5x block causes it to take up 3 blocks, and so on. Again, it would also open the door to... well, open doors letting fluids through. And grate blocks which let liquid travel through but not entities (dropped items, players, etc).
It's hack-ish, but doable.
Again, no thanks. That's the dumb, manual way to do things.
Something to do with data management. It USED to be 256... actually, I thought it still was 256, and items were hogging up the better part of the limit, but I guess they finally split them up.
I just don't get why people are so unwilling to accept ideas that might take some actual effort to code. Advancing the game's technical parts does nothing but HELP the game.
See above. This isn't the best way to do it at all.
Then maybe that's where the problem lies? Eventually they're going to want to fix this sort of thing to allow water to travel through certain blocks.
I'm pretty sure if they added functionality to allow for multiple bounding boxes and material types within a single block space, this could easily be implemented.
FTB uses minecraft forge, which is glitchier, but reworks the block IDs to allow mods be more compatible and add loads of items. Also I think the microblocks use damage values.
I don't think you saw my most, so I'll re-quote it. Here's what Dinnerbone said when I, erm, "reported" the upper slabs placing "wrong" when /given.