That's why you buy home owner's insurance! I'm sure Allstate or Progressive has a policy for wooden Minecraft homes within close proximity to lava lakes
Still, I don't think putting a lava incinerator or fire within 5 blocks of anything flammable is a good idea. Countless houses have been burned down because of this.
That's why you buy home owner's insurance! I'm sure Allstate or Progressive has a policy for wooden Minecraft homes within close proximity to lava lakes
That reminds me of what happened just recently, I made a bedroom to my house, now my house is made out of smoothstone primarily, but I decided to use Wood Planks for my bedroom to give it this warm feel. So I made a staircase, out of wood, made my bedroom, and while I was at it decided to replace my storage room floor with wood (And that room is connected to the staircase...
So I thought: "You know what would make this room even cooler! A Fireplace!"
So I covered a 2x4 (2 blocks in front, where fire is visible, 4 blocks on the sides) section of my room in my hard earned bricks (Clay hunting can be a *****), made the recommended fireplace shape, placed a piece of Netherrack, and lit her up! Oh and did I mention there was a SINGLE wood plank left up above the fireplace I missed!
Whole thing burns up... My bedroom is gone, hallway is smoldered and half of my storage room floor is gone, the good thing is... the fire broke into my aqarium once it got into the storage room! So it put the fire out before it got my whole storage room floor, and before it made its way to my farm. *phew*
All in all it took a small while to repair, I was not happy about it. But I am so glad chests are fireproof, or else I would have lost so many resources XP.
And yes. after I finished repairs I put a new, safe, fireplace in. Same basic design, just less wood planks to burn!
when ever i try to use my bed it says you can only sleep at night... even with its completely dark outside. and the whole purpose of skipping night is to avoid mobs spawning so whats the point if i cant go to bed until its half way through the night and mobs are everywhere
On the seed generator, type in 'worstseedever' and you'll spawn on sand that drops to reveal a zombie spawner right behind where you spawn and there is also iron next to the spawn. Its so awesome. ;D
The zombie spawn is around 0, 65, 10. That's funny.
For transporting a signal long distances, the old double NOT will be better, because you can extend the repeater out to the 15 block limit instead of limiting it to a diode.
For "complex" circuits, it will all for more compactness, compact delay lines, and isolated, non-inverted signals.
I'm not sure what you mean by "better" here. You can extend the repeater out 15 blocks as well, and since the repeater has a minimum delay of 1 tick, the same as an inverter, you're not adding any additional time delay into your signal either. If you're using double NOT repeaters, which induce a delay of 2, you're actually causing far less delay through using repeaters.
The only advantage you have in using the old double inverters is that it uses less resources (especially if you extend the signal along the inverted portions of the circuit when travelling long distances), and that you don't have to smelt stone for it.
Assuming you have sufficient resources to follow either system though (which I think most people do when they get to the point of building serious circuits), I fail to see how using relays will not result in a simpler circuit that you can build in less time. Almost all the circuits I've converted so far have been greatly simplified by the use of repeaters, and having a "flat" circuit makes the debugging process MUCH simpler as your line of site to various portions of the circuit aren't blocked by all the vertical blocks required with the old system.
I didn't read the last few pages, so I am not sure if anyone mentionned it or if it's just me, but...
Sometimes I hear the noise steve makes when he get hurts (I can assure you it doesn't come from my player) , it is really starting to creep me out... I guess maybe some mobs' sound got accidentally changed to the human one.
(especially if you extend the signal along the inverted portions of the circuit when travelling long distances)
That's what I'm talking about.
About being flat: Double NOTs are just as flat as diodes.
For complex circuits, it will allow for non-inverted isolated signals, and provide protection in some cases where signal crossover would have been an issue.
(especially if you extend the signal along the inverted portions of the circuit when travelling long distances)
That's what I'm talking about.
About being flat: Double NOTs are just as flat as diodes.
For complex circuits, it will allow for non-inverted isolated signals, and provide protection in some cases where signal crossover would have been an issue.
Ok, but how do the extended double inverters work better? Each NOT gate induces a 1 tick delay, the same as the new repeaters at minimum settings. Each allows you to run a redstone wire signal 15 blocks off of it. The big difference being that you no longer have to deal with portions of your signal being artificially inverted at various points in your circuit.
And for the flat part....huh? The traditional NOT gate requires you to enter your signal into a block placed vertically, then have a torch on the side of that block which is hooked up to your redstone wire output. I fail to see how this is "just as flat" as the new repeaters, which are like a quarter block from being flush to the ground, and which do not obstruct line of sight in any significant way.
The repeaters are more convenient for compact delays, but not for compact repeaters. This comes from the fact that redstone does NOT connect directly to the repeater, and you need a redstone line going straight into and out of it - which means if you have something like this inputting into the repeater:
[]
It WON'T work, since it will form a horizontal line which won't connect to the repeater above...
You need a restone wire to connect straight INTO the repeater, but not OUT.
Also, this funky little attribute of the repeater blocks, can get around some of the problems you're hinting at:
Just wondering, do slimes need darkness to spawn? I've been unsuccessful getting them to spawn in the light with a mod spawner block. And either way, does anyone know how much space they actually need?
That's funny, cause I have trouble getting the little bas***ds to not spawn. My mine is full of them from about level 20 down. I was unable to kill them for a long time, but they finally started dying to lava zzzzzz
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
2GB? Srs? That's crazy-go-nuts. A procedurally generated world of effectively infinite complexity should comfortably run in 64mb, goshdamnit.
well, i have found bug...
it a dynamic ligth(new grafic function)(sorry i have another language in minecraft)
bug with block ice(maybe with glass also)(i have standart texture pack)
last screen without this function for comparison
P.S. sorry my bad english
P.P.S greetings from Ukraine
Ok, but how do the extended double inverters work better? Each NOT gate induces a 1 tick delay, the same as the new repeaters at minimum settings. Each allows you to run a redstone wire signal 15 blocks off of it. The big difference being that you no longer have to deal with portions of your signal being artificially inverted at various points in your circuit.
And for the flat part....huh? The traditional NOT gate requires you to enter your signal into a block placed vertically, then have a torch on the side of that block which is hooked up to your redstone wire output. I fail to see how this is "just as flat" as the new repeaters, which are like a quarter block from being flush to the ground, and which do not obstruct line of sight in any significant way.
They're both 1 block tall. Unless you're standing at eye level to the wire, a block is not going to obstruct your vision that bad. At the same distance, you can't see a wire behind a block nor a diode. You will be able to see other diodes and other blocks behind diodes better than you could with a block in front of them, but it's hardly a nuisance.
The inverted signal on a double NOT can be extended to 15 blocks. The inverted portion of a diode is contained within the diode and cannot be extended. Each portion of the double NOT can be extended 15 blocks (17 including the block and the torch). A diode can only ever be extended 15 blocks (16 including the diode). Already, the double NOT can travel 18 blocks farther than a diode. To travel the same max distance a double NOT can, you would need 3 diodes.
So, double NOT gate uses 2 blocks and 2 torches.
3 diodes use 6 torches and 9 smooth stone and 3 redstone. Diodes use one more redstone in that distance, as well, for the wire, to travel the same distance.
So, for extended signal transmission, a double NOT gate is invariably better in terms of resources and delay.
well, i have found bug...
it a dynamic ligth(new grafic function)(sorry i have another language in minecraft)
bug with block ice(maybe with glass also)(i have standart texture pack)
last screen without this function for comparison
P.S. sorry my bad english
P.P.S greetings from Ukraine
Yeah, the smooth lighting glitches a bit when it comes to ice.
People are saying they like Betterlight better then Smooth Lighting, but fail to realize they are nearly exactly the same thing, as Smooth Lighting is a slightly tweaked, incorporated version of Betterlight : \
They're both 1 block tall. Unless you're standing at eye level to the wire, a block is not going to obstruct your vision that bad. At the same distance, you can't see a wire behind a block nor a diode. You will be able to see other diodes and other blocks behind diodes better than you could with a block in front of them, but it's hardly a nuisance.
Ok, this is just plain rediculous. If your circuit is flat to the ground, and you are standing on the ground (a reasonable assumption I think), large portions of a "flat" circuit are blocked from line of site by traditional inverters and repeaters. The quarter block repeaters simply do not do this to anywhere near the same extent. I can not explain this any more simply, and I really don't understand how you could fail to see this.
Quote from trunksbomb »
The inverted signal on a double NOT can be extended to 15 blocks. The inverted portion of a diode is contained within the diode and cannot be extended. Each portion of the double NOT can be extended 15 blocks (17 including the block and the torch). A diode can only ever be extended 15 blocks (16 including the diode). Already, the double NOT can travel 18 blocks farther than a diode. To travel the same max distance a double NOT can, you would need 3 diodes.
Why are you trying to extend the inverted portion? I thought this was about extending a signal. Who cares about the inverted portion contained within the repeater if you're extending a signal over distance? That was always just an artificial way of pushing the signal a bit further with less delay using the old system. Why are you suddenly introducing wanting access to the inverted portion of the signal into this discussion?
The inverters induce a 1 tick delay EACH into the signal. Repeaters induce the same 1 tick delay. In other words, 2 repeaters induce the same delay that the 2 NOT gates of an extended repeater do. This is the whole reason why suddenly even-numbered tick-delay clocks (like 4 and 6 clocks) are possible with the new repeaters. There was no way to repeat a signal in the past with less than a 2 tick delay.
I see your point about the torch extending the signal an additional *1* block over the inverter, although I'm going to run some tests to either prove or disprove this, but 18? No man, that's just silly, and I get the impression you're ignoring reason here in what's amounting to some kind of ego clash because you consider yourself a redstone "expert".
Quote from trunksbomb »
So, double NOT gate uses 2 blocks and 2 torches.
3 diodes use 6 torches and 9 smooth stone and 3 redstone. Diodes use one more redstone in that distance, as well, for the wire, to travel the same distance.
So, for extended signal transmission, a double NOT gate is invariably better in terms of resources and delay.
No, not for delay. 1 NOT gate induces the same delay as 1 new repeater, unless, again, we are talking about that 1 block descrepency due to the torch that I want to test one way or another. However, you seem to be claiming an over 100% boost in effeciency with NOT gates, as opposed to the 6.7% boost that the additional 1 block would give you, even if it does work that way.
As for the resources, again, I openly acknowledged in a previous post that the repeaters use more resources. However, my original point, which you partially contradicted at the beginning of this discussion, is that repeaters save space and time (as in construction time, not delay time...and my apologies if that wasn't clear...the delay is the same). If we're still debating that point, you're going off topic.
They're both 1 block tall. Unless you're standing at eye level to the wire, a block is not going to obstruct your vision that bad. At the same distance, you can't see a wire behind a block nor a diode. You will be able to see other diodes and other blocks behind diodes better than you could with a block in front of them, but it's hardly a nuisance.
Ok, this is just plain rediculous. If your circuit is flat to the ground, and you are standing on the ground (a reasonable assumption I think), large portions of a "flat" circuit are blocked from line of site by traditional inverters and repeaters. The quarter block repeaters simply do not do this to anywhere near the same extent. I can not explain this any more simply, and I really don't understand how you could fail to see this.
You're really serious about this issue. It's not that big of a nuisance, honestly, and "what you can see" has never been a consideration in circuits other than having circuits flat or spread out makes them easier to build. Cool.
Quote from trunksbomb »
The inverted signal on a double NOT can be extended to 15 blocks. The inverted portion of a diode is contained within the diode and cannot be extended. Each portion of the double NOT can be extended 15 blocks (17 including the block and the torch). A diode can only ever be extended 15 blocks (16 including the diode). Already, the double NOT can travel 18 blocks farther than a diode. To travel the same max distance a double NOT can, you would need 3 diodes.
Why are you trying to extend the inverted portion? I thought this was about extending a signal. Who cares about the inverted portion contained within the repeater if you're extending a signal over distance? That was always just an artificial way of pushing the signal a bit further with less delay using the old system. Why are you suddenly introducing wanting access to the inverted portion of the signal into this discussion?
The inverted portion is the key to this discussion, that's why. Since you can extend the inverted portion, the "repeater" part of the double NOT gate starts over 17 blocks farther down the line. You've essentially extended the 15 block redstone limit into a 27 block redstone limit, thanks fully to the inverted portion. This is the key to the conversation that you're missing out on.
The inverters induce a 1 tick delay EACH into the signal. Repeaters induce the same 1 tick delay. In other words, 2 repeaters induce the same delay that the 2 NOT gates of an extended repeater do. This is the whole reason why suddenly even-numbered tick-delay clocks (like 4 and 6 clocks) are possible with the new repeaters. There was no way to repeat a signal in the past with less than a 2 tick delay.
To travel the same distance as a double NOT, you have to have 3 diodes. 3 diodes = 3 ticks. Two NOTs = 2 ticks. Faster. For a double NOT to travel the same distance as two diodes, the delay is the same. If you're talking about short distances, within the 15 block limit, then yes, a diode is faster. But I'm talking about long distance transportation.
I see your point about the torch extending the signal an additional *1* block over the inverter, although I'm going to run some tests to either prove or disprove this, but 18? No man, that's just silly, and I get the impression you're ignoring reason here in what's amounting to some kind of ego clash because you consider yourself a redstone "expert".
No, I consider myself one who has tested this in game, and you can extend a double NOT gate much farther than a single diode. It's simple math, really. No egos involved.
Quote from trunksbomb »
So, double NOT gate uses 2 blocks and 2 torches.
3 diodes use 6 torches and 9 smooth stone and 3 redstone. Diodes use one more redstone in that distance, as well, for the wire, to travel the same distance.
So, for extended signal transmission, a double NOT gate is invariably better in terms of resources and delay.
As for the resources, again, I openly acknowledged in a previous post that the repeaters use more resources. However, my original point, which you partially contradicted at the beginning of this discussion, is that repeaters save space and time (as in construction time, not delay time...and my apologies if that wasn't clear...the delay is the same). If we're still debating that point, you're going off topic.
They save space, yes, but not time. I don't see how it saves any time in construction, seeing as you have to smelt smooth stone and craft the materials into a diode, whereas a double NOT gate requires no construction (aside from building the torches, but that is the same in both so is left out).
Here's some picture evidence:
That is 1 inverter, using 2 torches and 2 blocks, against 2 diodes, which is 4 torches, 2 redstone, and 6 smooth stone, traveling the same distance. For every segment from the start to near the end of a long delay line, double NOTs are better on resources and, in some cases, ticks. Only once you get down to the very last section of your extended transmission might a diode be better, such as when the last section is less than 15 blocks long.
Note: the double NOT line can be extended two more blocks, but I shortened it to match the diode line.
You're really serious about this issue. It's not that big of a nuisance, honestly, and "what you can see" has never been a consideration in circuits other than having circuits flat or spread out makes them easier to build. Cool.
Yup, I am. I wish I had thought to take before and after pictures of some of my circuits that I have converted to show what I mean here. It's really a night and day difference in terms of simplicity and visibility. Granted, I tend to build most of my circuits flat to the ground to keep things simple, instead of building vertically for the sake of them being compact, so this may be why it has made such a huge difference for me.
Quote from trunksbomb »
The inverted portion is the key to this discussion, that's why. Since you can extend the inverted portion, the "repeater" part of the double NOT gate starts over 17 blocks farther down the line. You've essentially extended the 15 block redstone limit into a 27 block redstone limit, thanks fully to the inverted portion. This is the key to the conversation that you're missing out on.
Ok, I think the central point that we are disagreeing on is that I have no problem using 2 new repeaters instead of 2 not gates, for the same delay, and the same transmission distance (minus the 1 block discrepency). This is what I'm talking about with the 6.7% boost in effeciency with NOT gates.
I just tested that part in-game, and yes, you do get the 1 block boost with the NOT gate due to the torch. However, I also just tested that you can extend the signal on the repeater by putting a regular block (say cobble) between the last square of redstone wire, and the input of the repeater, so that the signal travels the same distance as the NOT gate design. You can actually do this on the output as well, which would then be boosting the signal 1 block MORE than you would get with a NOT gate, throwing the 6.7% in favour of the repeater-based design.
This is based on the same repeater quirk that I linked to in another post, that allows the signal into or out of a repeater to travel straight through a block:
Now, what I need to test is whether these 1 block extensions induce an additional delay into the circuit or not. I haven't seen any mention on that point anywhere yet, and I think this point will probably be the deciding factor in which design is more effecient (again, without regard for resources used).
These extensions of course contradict my visibility point, but if we're really just transmitting over long distances (like in a bus or something), the circuit involved is so simpe that I really don't mind the visibility loss.
Quote from trunksbomb »
To travel the same distance as a double NOT, you have to have 3 diodes. 3 diodes = 3 ticks. Two NOTs = 2 ticks. Faster. For a double NOT to travel the same distance as two diodes, the delay is the same. If you're talking about short distances, within the 15 block limit, then yes, a diode is faster. But I'm talking about long distance transportation.
No, this is simply not true. Again, minus the one block discrepency issue, to travel the same distance, you need 2 repeaters/diodes or 2 NOT gates (and yes, I'm talking about the extended NOTS...I think we both agree that the old-design "compact" repeater is obviously less effecient than the new repeaters). Same thing in every way other than resources involved (and the possible 1 block discrepency). I'm really not sure where we are differing on this point. It's kinda got me scratching my head.
Quote from trunksbomb »
No, I consider myself one who has tested this in game, and you can extend a double NOT gate much farther than a single diode. It's simple math, really. No egos involved.
Fair enough. My apologies for taking the discussion in that direction out of frustration.
Quote from trunksbomb »
They save space, yes, but not time. I don't see how it saves any time in construction, seeing as you have to smelt smooth stone and craft the materials into a diode, whereas a double NOT gate requires no construction (aside from building the torches, but that is the same in both so is left out).
When I get into serious circuit construction, I normally have an inventory full of components to play with and whatever time I spent mining/smelting/whatever in the past is fairly insignificant compared to that I spend working on the circuit itself, and is usually just a regular part of my other ingame activities.
Yes, if you're worried about the time it takes to assemble components and mine the resources to begin with, I can see you considering the NOT gate solution to be more effecient in terms of overall time spent on a project. For me, with ample resources on hand, the new repeaters greatly simplify the process of circuit design, construction, and debugging within the game, and ultimately save me time.
Just wondering, do slimes need darkness to spawn? I've been unsuccessful getting them to spawn in the light with a mod spawner block. And either way, does anyone know how much space they actually need?
That's funny, cause I have trouble getting the little bas***ds to not spawn. My mine is full of them from about level 20 down. I was unable to kill them for a long time, but they finally started dying to lava zzzzzz
Ok, so they don't need darkness to spawn. Does anyone know how much space they need?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
SPAAAAAAAAAAAACE!
"Look at me still talking when there's science to do. When I look out there it makes me glad I'm not you."
No, this is simply not true. Again, minus the one block discrepency issue, to travel the same distance, you need 2 repeaters/diodes or 2 NOT gates (and yes, I'm talking about the extended NOTS...I think we both agree that the old-design "compact" repeater is obviously less effecient than the new repeaters). Same thing in every way other than resources involved (and the possible 1 block discrepency). I'm really not sure where we are differing on this point. It's kinda got me scratching my head.
This is our disagreement. If you were to use the classic "torch on block, redstone on block, torch on side of that block" repeater, then yes, it offers no advantage over a diode.
However, extending that "redstone on block" portion to the full 15 limit extends the repeater by that much as well, which is evidenced in my picture above:
We pretend that the leading wire has reached its full 15 block potential, and needs to be repeated. The top line uses NOT gates to repeat, the bottom line uses diodes.
The inverted portion that is extended 15 blocks is nonexistent in the diode, so the repeater already has a 15 block advantage. If you were to stop your transmission somewhere within the 15 blocks of the first diode, however, the diode is more effective in terms of delay. But on a longer transmission, such as this, you see that the signal needs another repeater to reach the destination on the right. For the NOT line, it's just another NOT gate, which returns the signal back to its original state. For the diode line, it requires another repeater, again where the inverted portion is nonexistent.
So over longer distances, double NOT gates are better in terms of resources used, and in some cases, tick delay.
Yeah, but the premiums are outrageous.
That reminds me of what happened just recently, I made a bedroom to my house, now my house is made out of smoothstone primarily, but I decided to use Wood Planks for my bedroom to give it this warm feel. So I made a staircase, out of wood, made my bedroom, and while I was at it decided to replace my storage room floor with wood (And that room is connected to the staircase...
So I thought: "You know what would make this room even cooler! A Fireplace!"
So I covered a 2x4 (2 blocks in front, where fire is visible, 4 blocks on the sides) section of my room in my hard earned bricks (Clay hunting can be a *****), made the recommended fireplace shape, placed a piece of Netherrack, and lit her up! Oh and did I mention there was a SINGLE wood plank left up above the fireplace I missed!
Whole thing burns up... My bedroom is gone, hallway is smoldered and half of my storage room floor is gone, the good thing is... the fire broke into my aqarium once it got into the storage room! So it put the fire out before it got my whole storage room floor, and before it made its way to my farm. *phew*
All in all it took a small while to repair, I was not happy about it. But I am so glad chests are fireproof, or else I would have lost so many resources XP.
And yes. after I finished repairs I put a new, safe, fireplace in. Same basic design, just less wood planks to burn!
Purple beds ftw.
You Have to click on the pillow block of the bed.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffThe zombie spawn is around 0, 65, 10. That's funny.
I'm not sure what you mean by "better" here. You can extend the repeater out 15 blocks as well, and since the repeater has a minimum delay of 1 tick, the same as an inverter, you're not adding any additional time delay into your signal either. If you're using double NOT repeaters, which induce a delay of 2, you're actually causing far less delay through using repeaters.
The only advantage you have in using the old double inverters is that it uses less resources (especially if you extend the signal along the inverted portions of the circuit when travelling long distances), and that you don't have to smelt stone for it.
Assuming you have sufficient resources to follow either system though (which I think most people do when they get to the point of building serious circuits), I fail to see how using relays will not result in a simpler circuit that you can build in less time. Almost all the circuits I've converted so far have been greatly simplified by the use of repeaters, and having a "flat" circuit makes the debugging process MUCH simpler as your line of site to various portions of the circuit aren't blocked by all the vertical blocks required with the old system.
Sometimes I hear the noise steve makes when he get hurts (I can assure you it doesn't come from my player) , it is really starting to creep me out... I guess maybe some mobs' sound got accidentally changed to the human one.
Is it just me?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffThat's what I'm talking about.
About being flat: Double NOTs are just as flat as diodes.
For complex circuits, it will allow for non-inverted isolated signals, and provide protection in some cases where signal crossover would have been an issue.
Ok, but how do the extended double inverters work better? Each NOT gate induces a 1 tick delay, the same as the new repeaters at minimum settings. Each allows you to run a redstone wire signal 15 blocks off of it. The big difference being that you no longer have to deal with portions of your signal being artificially inverted at various points in your circuit.
And for the flat part....huh? The traditional NOT gate requires you to enter your signal into a block placed vertically, then have a torch on the side of that block which is hooked up to your redstone wire output. I fail to see how this is "just as flat" as the new repeaters, which are like a quarter block from being flush to the ground, and which do not obstruct line of sight in any significant way.
You need a restone wire to connect straight INTO the repeater, but not OUT.
Also, this funky little attribute of the repeater blocks, can get around some of the problems you're hinting at:
http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/File:Repeater_block_chaining.png
That's funny, cause I have trouble getting the little bas***ds to not spawn. My mine is full of them from about level 20 down. I was unable to kill them for a long time, but they finally started dying to lava zzzzzz
*mutters*
it a dynamic ligth(new grafic function)(sorry i have another language in minecraft)
bug with block ice(maybe with glass also)(i have standart texture pack)
last screen without this function for comparison
P.S. sorry my bad english
P.P.S greetings from Ukraine
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffThey're both 1 block tall. Unless you're standing at eye level to the wire, a block is not going to obstruct your vision that bad. At the same distance, you can't see a wire behind a block nor a diode. You will be able to see other diodes and other blocks behind diodes better than you could with a block in front of them, but it's hardly a nuisance.
The inverted signal on a double NOT can be extended to 15 blocks. The inverted portion of a diode is contained within the diode and cannot be extended. Each portion of the double NOT can be extended 15 blocks (17 including the block and the torch). A diode can only ever be extended 15 blocks (16 including the diode). Already, the double NOT can travel 18 blocks farther than a diode. To travel the same max distance a double NOT can, you would need 3 diodes.
So, double NOT gate uses 2 blocks and 2 torches.
3 diodes use 6 torches and 9 smooth stone and 3 redstone. Diodes use one more redstone in that distance, as well, for the wire, to travel the same distance.
So, for extended signal transmission, a double NOT gate is invariably better in terms of resources and delay.
Yeah, the smooth lighting glitches a bit when it comes to ice.
People are saying they like Betterlight better then Smooth Lighting, but fail to realize they are nearly exactly the same thing, as Smooth Lighting is a slightly tweaked, incorporated version of Betterlight : \
Ok, this is just plain rediculous. If your circuit is flat to the ground, and you are standing on the ground (a reasonable assumption I think), large portions of a "flat" circuit are blocked from line of site by traditional inverters and repeaters. The quarter block repeaters simply do not do this to anywhere near the same extent. I can not explain this any more simply, and I really don't understand how you could fail to see this.
Why are you trying to extend the inverted portion? I thought this was about extending a signal. Who cares about the inverted portion contained within the repeater if you're extending a signal over distance? That was always just an artificial way of pushing the signal a bit further with less delay using the old system. Why are you suddenly introducing wanting access to the inverted portion of the signal into this discussion?
The inverters induce a 1 tick delay EACH into the signal. Repeaters induce the same 1 tick delay. In other words, 2 repeaters induce the same delay that the 2 NOT gates of an extended repeater do. This is the whole reason why suddenly even-numbered tick-delay clocks (like 4 and 6 clocks) are possible with the new repeaters. There was no way to repeat a signal in the past with less than a 2 tick delay.
I see your point about the torch extending the signal an additional *1* block over the inverter, although I'm going to run some tests to either prove or disprove this, but 18? No man, that's just silly, and I get the impression you're ignoring reason here in what's amounting to some kind of ego clash because you consider yourself a redstone "expert".
No, not for delay. 1 NOT gate induces the same delay as 1 new repeater, unless, again, we are talking about that 1 block descrepency due to the torch that I want to test one way or another. However, you seem to be claiming an over 100% boost in effeciency with NOT gates, as opposed to the 6.7% boost that the additional 1 block would give you, even if it does work that way.
As for the resources, again, I openly acknowledged in a previous post that the repeaters use more resources. However, my original point, which you partially contradicted at the beginning of this discussion, is that repeaters save space and time (as in construction time, not delay time...and my apologies if that wasn't clear...the delay is the same). If we're still debating that point, you're going off topic.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffYou're really serious about this issue. It's not that big of a nuisance, honestly, and "what you can see" has never been a consideration in circuits other than having circuits flat or spread out makes them easier to build. Cool.
The inverted portion is the key to this discussion, that's why. Since you can extend the inverted portion, the "repeater" part of the double NOT gate starts over 17 blocks farther down the line. You've essentially extended the 15 block redstone limit into a 27 block redstone limit, thanks fully to the inverted portion. This is the key to the conversation that you're missing out on.
To travel the same distance as a double NOT, you have to have 3 diodes. 3 diodes = 3 ticks. Two NOTs = 2 ticks. Faster. For a double NOT to travel the same distance as two diodes, the delay is the same. If you're talking about short distances, within the 15 block limit, then yes, a diode is faster. But I'm talking about long distance transportation.
No, I consider myself one who has tested this in game, and you can extend a double NOT gate much farther than a single diode. It's simple math, really. No egos involved.
They save space, yes, but not time. I don't see how it saves any time in construction, seeing as you have to smelt smooth stone and craft the materials into a diode, whereas a double NOT gate requires no construction (aside from building the torches, but that is the same in both so is left out).
Here's some picture evidence:
That is 1 inverter, using 2 torches and 2 blocks, against 2 diodes, which is 4 torches, 2 redstone, and 6 smooth stone, traveling the same distance. For every segment from the start to near the end of a long delay line, double NOTs are better on resources and, in some cases, ticks. Only once you get down to the very last section of your extended transmission might a diode be better, such as when the last section is less than 15 blocks long.
Note: the double NOT line can be extended two more blocks, but I shortened it to match the diode line.
Yup, I am. I wish I had thought to take before and after pictures of some of my circuits that I have converted to show what I mean here. It's really a night and day difference in terms of simplicity and visibility. Granted, I tend to build most of my circuits flat to the ground to keep things simple, instead of building vertically for the sake of them being compact, so this may be why it has made such a huge difference for me.
Ok, I think the central point that we are disagreeing on is that I have no problem using 2 new repeaters instead of 2 not gates, for the same delay, and the same transmission distance (minus the 1 block discrepency). This is what I'm talking about with the 6.7% boost in effeciency with NOT gates.
I just tested that part in-game, and yes, you do get the 1 block boost with the NOT gate due to the torch. However, I also just tested that you can extend the signal on the repeater by putting a regular block (say cobble) between the last square of redstone wire, and the input of the repeater, so that the signal travels the same distance as the NOT gate design. You can actually do this on the output as well, which would then be boosting the signal 1 block MORE than you would get with a NOT gate, throwing the 6.7% in favour of the repeater-based design.
This is based on the same repeater quirk that I linked to in another post, that allows the signal into or out of a repeater to travel straight through a block:
http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/File: ... aining.png
Now, what I need to test is whether these 1 block extensions induce an additional delay into the circuit or not. I haven't seen any mention on that point anywhere yet, and I think this point will probably be the deciding factor in which design is more effecient (again, without regard for resources used).
These extensions of course contradict my visibility point, but if we're really just transmitting over long distances (like in a bus or something), the circuit involved is so simpe that I really don't mind the visibility loss.
No, this is simply not true. Again, minus the one block discrepency issue, to travel the same distance, you need 2 repeaters/diodes or 2 NOT gates (and yes, I'm talking about the extended NOTS...I think we both agree that the old-design "compact" repeater is obviously less effecient than the new repeaters). Same thing in every way other than resources involved (and the possible 1 block discrepency). I'm really not sure where we are differing on this point. It's kinda got me scratching my head.
Fair enough. My apologies for taking the discussion in that direction out of frustration.
When I get into serious circuit construction, I normally have an inventory full of components to play with and whatever time I spent mining/smelting/whatever in the past is fairly insignificant compared to that I spend working on the circuit itself, and is usually just a regular part of my other ingame activities.
Yes, if you're worried about the time it takes to assemble components and mine the resources to begin with, I can see you considering the NOT gate solution to be more effecient in terms of overall time spent on a project. For me, with ample resources on hand, the new repeaters greatly simplify the process of circuit design, construction, and debugging within the game, and ultimately save me time.
Ok, so they don't need darkness to spawn. Does anyone know how much space they need?
"Look at me still talking when there's science to do. When I look out there it makes me glad I'm not you."
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffThis is our disagreement. If you were to use the classic "torch on block, redstone on block, torch on side of that block" repeater, then yes, it offers no advantage over a diode.
However, extending that "redstone on block" portion to the full 15 limit extends the repeater by that much as well, which is evidenced in my picture above:
We pretend that the leading wire has reached its full 15 block potential, and needs to be repeated. The top line uses NOT gates to repeat, the bottom line uses diodes.
The inverted portion that is extended 15 blocks is nonexistent in the diode, so the repeater already has a 15 block advantage. If you were to stop your transmission somewhere within the 15 blocks of the first diode, however, the diode is more effective in terms of delay. But on a longer transmission, such as this, you see that the signal needs another repeater to reach the destination on the right. For the NOT line, it's just another NOT gate, which returns the signal back to its original state. For the diode line, it requires another repeater, again where the inverted portion is nonexistent.
So over longer distances, double NOT gates are better in terms of resources used, and in some cases, tick delay.