So we can have a regular curved piece of rail, why can't we have a curved power rail as well? This would help with builds that are on a 45 degree angle. There are a few ways to work around this and to force the cart down the 45, but they look ugly, are not clean or professional looking.
I think part of the problem is the logic that would be required if a player tried to 'Y' in 3 powered rails into a 'T' intersection. You can't use redstone on a powered rail to switch track like you can with the normal rail.
But all in all, it shouldn't be too dificult to resolve either, just make an arbitrary decision, such as:
Try to go straight if it is an option (rail block pairs N/S, then check for pairs E/W), If not, initiate curve if it is an option (2 non-linear adjacent rail blocks).
Of course, I'd put in the option for a full intersection if all 4 squares around were track pieces, but the above ruleset would suffice as any 'T' intersection would have a straight through connection on exactly one side.
Thanks for the advice, but that is not what I suggested. I can build 'T' intersections all day and four way intersections as well. I'm saying NO straight rails, No intersections. One rail line on a 45 degree angle... powered. Like I said before, it can be done and I use my method to force the 45. It doesn't look clean because there are two blocks on one side of the power rail with a lever switch on, then right back into regular rail all going on a 45 degree angle. My suggestion is for the power rail to be able to curve. I do not need suggestions on how to build rail systems. Just saying this for future posts or people reading this not to get the wrong idea.
Thanks for the advice, but that is not what I suggested. I can build 'T' intersections all day and four way intersections as well. I'm saying NO straight rails, No intersections. One rail line on a 45 degree angle... powered. Like I said before, it can be done and I use my method to force the 45. It doesn't look clean because there are two blocks on one side of the power rail with a lever switch on, then right back into regular rail all going on a 45 degree angle. My suggestion is for the power rail to be able to curve. I do not need suggestions on how to build rail systems. Just saying this for future posts or people reading this not to get the wrong idea.
I wasn't giving you advice on how to build a rail system, I was looking at your idea and analyzing the pros and cons to it, and what kind of programatic logic would have to be built into the powered rail itself (not the player) from a programming standpoint. I suppose I didn't make that clear enough... allow me to edit and insert a few words to my above post to make it more clear what I meant:
I think part of the problem is the programming logic that would be required if a player tried to 'Y' in 3 powered rails into a 'T' intersection. You Because the player can't use redstone on a powered rail in order to switch track like you can with the normal rail.
But all in all, it shouldn't be too dificult to resolve either from a programming standpoint, 4J Studios would just make need to code in an arbitrary decision algorithm, such as:
Try The powered rail first tries to go straight if it is an option (rail block pairs N/S, then check for pairs E/W), If not, the algorithm should attempt to initiate curve if it is an option (2 non-linear adjacent rail blocks).
Of course, if it were me, I'd put code/program in the option for a full intersection (for powered rails) if all 4 squares around were track pieces, but the above ruleset would suffice as any 'T' intersection would have a straight through connection on exactly one side.
I'm not exactly sure what the 45 incline/decline has to do with a curving rail though (powered or otherwise).... maybe you could explain a bit more what you mean or how these are related?
PSN:
Junokaii (although I'd recommend not adding me because I'm on literally like... once every month or two)
Member Details
I think I'd need a visualization to understand what you mean here...
Because I'm not trying to dismiss your suggestion but I don't see how this is really needed.
Unless it's one of those things where the rail turns to an immediate block going up. Then it yeah looks like it's just flat, then the next rail above with no connection. If that's what you mean, then yeah I agree. But overall.. It's not a huge deal to just Move it back a block so it can continue along that nice 45 angle
Incline/decline... up/down.... there is none. All along a flat surface. Rail track back and forth, constantly. So all the rail is curved except for the power rail.
After further testing, it's powered, it's clean, it's the only way... for now.
If you want me to show you what I mean... send me a message through Xbox Live along with a friend request. Otherwise, thanks for the reply's and input.
So we can have a regular curved piece of rail, why can't we have a curved power rail as well? This would help with builds that are on a 45 degree angle. There are a few ways to work around this and to force the cart down the 45, but they look ugly, are not clean or professional looking.
I like the idea. But in general (and real life), when a car or truck turns they go slower, so even with the power rail being curved, it wouldn't go as fast as the power rail being straight.
I like the idea. But in general (and real life), when a car or truck turns they go slower, so even with the power rail being curved, it wouldn't go as fast as the power rail being straight.
Personally, I wouldn't care if it added no speed bonus at all as long as it carried a redstone current through it to the next track.
PSN:
Junokaii (although I'd recommend not adding me because I'm on literally like... once every month or two)
Member Details
I can't really tell the difference there was a curved power rail. I'm willing to bet those corners that are power rail besides the curved part wouldn't make much of a speed difference if it was curved or not.
Thanks for the advice, but that is not what I suggested. I can build 'T' intersections all day and four way intersections as well. I'm saying NO straight rails, No intersections. One rail line on a 45 degree angle... powered. Like I said before, it can be done and I use my method to force the 45. It doesn't look clean because there are two blocks on one side of the power rail with a lever switch on, then right back into regular rail all going on a 45 degree angle. My suggestion is for the power rail to be able to curve. I do not need suggestions on how to build rail systems. Just saying this for future posts or people reading this not to get the wrong idea.
You usually don't have to place power rails very frequently on reasonably flat ground (I use 1 every 25 rails). So, I just use the regular rails and then one straight into and one straight out of a power rail and then back into the 45-degree pattern for another 23 blocks. If I'm building inclines for a rollercoaster, I just don't put these on a 45-degree angle. If the rail can be always on, just bury a redstone torch right under the block under it (i.e. you don't need the lever switch) and everything looks cleaner.
The reason there are only straight power rails does probably have to do with the directional "logic" of the signal having to go straight through the block (with the input on one side and the exit on the opposing side) rather than in and then out on perpendicular sides. I'm not a programmer, but I suspect they've tested it out and found that trying to get the signal to enter and then exit on perpendicular sides of the block results in numerous redstone logic errors that would make it just not worth the hassles it would create.
Ok... I might be confused by something... when I hear 45-degree, I'm thinking a change from flat to incline or decline.
Changing your facing from N/S to E/W or visa versa would be a 90-degree change. As far as I know, NONE of the rails go on the Horizontal Diagonals (NE, NW, SE, SW) which would be required for a true 45-degree 'corner'.
The logic for power distribution doesn't seem that hard to do from a programming sense to me. It should work fine if it draws power from all blocks around it and uses that power to weakly power the block it is in. Minecart track orientation wouldn't matter for power distribution purposes.
Ok... I might be confused by something... when I hear 45-degree, I'm thinking a change from flat to incline or decline.
Changing your facing from N/S to E/W or visa versa would be a 90-degree change. As far as I know, NONE of the rails go on the Horizontal Diagonals (NE, NW, SE, SW) which would be required for a true 45-degree 'corner'.
The logic for power distribution doesn't seem that hard to do from a programming sense to me. It should work fine if it draws power from all blocks around it and uses that power to weakly power the block it is in. Minecart track orientation wouldn't matter for power distribution purposes.
Still haven't found a clean look to a diagonal rail system with power rail Back and forth regular rail then an occasional powered rail with a full block behind it to keep the cart on the track and you traveling along the diagonal path smoothly. Can't come back on the same track. You must build another diagonal track system with the powered rail facing the other way to return to first location.
Ok... I might be confused by something... when I hear 45-degree, I'm thinking a change from flat to incline or decline.
Changing your facing from N/S to E/W or visa versa would be a 90-degree change. As far as I know, NONE of the rails go on the Horizontal Diagonals (NE, NW, SE, SW) which would be required for a true 45-degree 'corner'.
The logic for power distribution doesn't seem that hard to do from a programming sense to me. It should work fine if it draws power from all blocks around it and uses that power to weakly power the block it is in. Minecart track orientation wouldn't matter for power distribution purposes.
I think it would have to be made to work both on the flat and on an incline... so the "diagonal" change may just cover a flat 90-degree shift or might involve the same shift with a 1-block incline or decline at the same time. Rails currently handle an incline by slicing through an air block on the diagonal. I'm not sure how it could world when the rail also has to effectively move a block over at the same time since it would have to "enter" the next block int he center of the side face (which may or may not have an air block beside it). Hmmm, I'll have to ponder on it some more.
But all in all, it shouldn't be too dificult to resolve either, just make an arbitrary decision, such as:
Try to go straight if it is an option (rail block pairs N/S, then check for pairs E/W), If not, initiate curve if it is an option (2 non-linear adjacent rail blocks).
Of course, I'd put in the option for a full intersection if all 4 squares around were track pieces, but the above ruleset would suffice as any 'T' intersection would have a straight through connection on exactly one side.
I wasn't giving you advice on how to build a rail system, I was looking at your idea and analyzing the pros and cons to it, and what kind of programatic logic would have to be built into the powered rail itself (not the player) from a programming standpoint. I suppose I didn't make that clear enough... allow me to edit and insert a few words to my above post to make it more clear what I meant:
I'm not exactly sure what the 45 incline/decline has to do with a curving rail though (powered or otherwise).... maybe you could explain a bit more what you mean or how these are related?
Because I'm not trying to dismiss your suggestion but I don't see how this is really needed.
Unless it's one of those things where the rail turns to an immediate block going up. Then it yeah looks like it's just flat, then the next rail above with no connection. If that's what you mean, then yeah I agree. But overall.. It's not a huge deal to just Move it back a block so it can continue along that nice 45 angle
After further testing, it's powered, it's clean, it's the only way... for now.
If you want me to show you what I mean... send me a message through Xbox Live along with a friend request. Otherwise, thanks for the reply's and input.
I like the idea. But in general (and real life), when a car or truck turns they go slower, so even with the power rail being curved, it wouldn't go as fast as the power rail being straight.
^^^^ Click it! You know you want to...
Personally, I wouldn't care if it added no speed bonus at all as long as it carried a redstone current through it to the next track.
You usually don't have to place power rails very frequently on reasonably flat ground (I use 1 every 25 rails). So, I just use the regular rails and then one straight into and one straight out of a power rail and then back into the 45-degree pattern for another 23 blocks. If I'm building inclines for a rollercoaster, I just don't put these on a 45-degree angle. If the rail can be always on, just bury a redstone torch right under the block under it (i.e. you don't need the lever switch) and everything looks cleaner.
The reason there are only straight power rails does probably have to do with the directional "logic" of the signal having to go straight through the block (with the input on one side and the exit on the opposing side) rather than in and then out on perpendicular sides. I'm not a programmer, but I suspect they've tested it out and found that trying to get the signal to enter and then exit on perpendicular sides of the block results in numerous redstone logic errors that would make it just not worth the hassles it would create.
Changing your facing from N/S to E/W or visa versa would be a 90-degree change. As far as I know, NONE of the rails go on the Horizontal Diagonals (NE, NW, SE, SW) which would be required for a true 45-degree 'corner'.
The logic for power distribution doesn't seem that hard to do from a programming sense to me. It should work fine if it draws power from all blocks around it and uses that power to weakly power the block it is in. Minecart track orientation wouldn't matter for power distribution purposes.
What I thought too.
I think it would have to be made to work both on the flat and on an incline... so the "diagonal" change may just cover a flat 90-degree shift or might involve the same shift with a 1-block incline or decline at the same time. Rails currently handle an incline by slicing through an air block on the diagonal. I'm not sure how it could world when the rail also has to effectively move a block over at the same time since it would have to "enter" the next block int he center of the side face (which may or may not have an air block beside it). Hmmm, I'll have to ponder on it some more.