So a few days ago there was a discussion about whether the ground should be counted in the height of circuitry. the discussion was beginning to become heated and needed to be stopped but i have gotten permission to reopen the discussion with the condition that if any flaming whatsoever is posted here the thread will be locked immediately... not only will this be watched closely by the mods but i will personally inform a moderator if i think the discussion is becoming heated...
i considered not posting this thread because i see the potential for it to become a flame war but as i foresee more threads being hijacked in the future for this same discussion i feel it is necessary.
please only post in this thread if you can keep your temper under control... if something posted here upsets you please don't escalate... please keep your arguments on topic... and please remember that "it is that way because it is that way" style arguments will not be accepted by the community.
now that that has been said... someone please start the ball rolling
Edit: this poll has been added at the request of several people
please keep in mind that the results of this poll are purely to satiate peoples curiosity... if we have any "look at the poll" style arguments i will remove the poll immediately... this thread was started as a place for strong, solid arguments... "because i said so, move on" is not a real argument and will not be accepted by the community.
I haven't really seen this around too much lately (must be hitting the wrong threads, heh ^.^') but my understanding has been that the ground beneath the lowest layer of actual redstone is not considered part of it as it doesn't affect the state of the redstone at any point. Akin to how a wafer isn't consider part of the circuit but still needed for the total circuit/chip I guess.
I haven't really seen this around too much lately (must be hitting the wrong threads, heh ^.^') but my understanding has been that the ground beneath the lowest layer of actual redstone is not considered part of it as it doesn't affect the state of the redstone at any point. Akin to how a wafer isn't consider part of the circuit but still needed for the total circuit/chip I guess.
that is my opinion as well but many people do disagree with that because the ground is required because if the circuit doesn't have the ground there the redstone cant be placed.
personally i feel that the ground being required should be a condition the same as stack-able and tile-able but my mind could be changed if a good solid argument is made to explain why that should be counted as part of the total size and not simply a condition
The size in general depends on how close you can stack another one next to / above / below it. This necessarily includes all the blocks redstone/repeaters are sitting on. This does not necessarily mean you can stack it sideways/up and have them function properly, that's about tileability, this is strictly size.
So something can be 2 wide but not 2 wide tileable, or 1 wide but not 1 wide tileable
indeed something could be 5 high but 4 high tileable, the distinction is important because if it were 4 high you could stack a max of 64 of them up but that 1 additional height makes that impossible.
Another way of looking at it is if you removed everything from the map including bedrock etc what is needed to build the circuit, this is the size.
More experienced people build things in the air so everything is visible and the size is unambiguous.
The size in general depends on how close you can stack another one next to / above / below it. This necessarily includes all the blocks redstone/repeaters are sitting on. This does not necessarily mean you can stack it sideways/up and have them function properly, that's about tileability, this is strictly size.
So something can be 2 wide but not 2 wide tileable, or 1 wide but not 1 wide tileable
indeed something could be 5 high but 4 high tileable, the distinction is important because if it were 4 high you could stack a max of 64 of them up but that 1 additional height makes that impossible.
Another way of looking at it is if you removed everything from the map including bedrock etc what is needed to build the circuit, this is the size.
More experienced people build things in the air so everything is visible and the size is unambiguous.
That's a valid approach to it. I'd honestly be willing to accept either approach as it makes no difference at the end of the day: if you are sufficiently skilled at redstone creation, you will know how to measure a circuit someone else makes to your own system and that's that. You're unlikely to find a definition of it that will satisfy/convince everyone on this site.
The size in general depends on how close you can stack another one next to / above / below it. This necessarily includes all the blocks redstone/repeaters are sitting on. This does not necessarily mean you can stack it sideways/up and have them function properly, that's about tileability, this is strictly size.
So something can be 2 wide but not 2 wide tileable, or 1 wide but not 1 wide tileable
indeed something could be 5 high but 4 high tileable, the distinction is important because if it were 4 high you could stack a max of 64 of them up but that 1 additional height makes that impossible.
Another way of looking at it is if you removed everything from the map including bedrock etc what is needed to build the circuit, this is the size.
More experienced people build things in the air so everything is visible and the size is unambiguous.
this argument is predicated on the assumption that you are building your circuit for demonstration purposes... for practical purposes you arent gonna build a circuit that you are gonna use free floating in the air.
my argument for not counting the ground is this
imagine you have a 1 high air space between two layers of solid blocks (im using dirt for this example)
you need to put a pulse shortener in this space. if you search for 2 high circuits (using the assumption that you count the ground) you could find both of these circuits
this one will fit
this one will not (keep in mind that this was just a simple design i threw together for demonstrative purposes)
why would those be considered the same height... and technically by the height standards that count the ground they are both 2 high stackable
For me, the size needs to count the blocks on which the redstone lays, because those blocks are necessary for the contraption to work. Any space the contraption needs to function adds up to it's cubic size, even the space needed for a piston to extend or for an entity to move (minecarts for example).
PS: add a poll to the thread to see if what most people think, something really simple with 2 options
North, now that you mentioned "demonstration" and "practical" purposes, I'm going to state an opinion I have formed over the discussion.
I think there are two types of redstoners: the begginers and the more experienced. The first type uses redstone for practical purposes, for example, building a simple door, or simply something that works. The second type uses redstone as a learning tool, as a way to entertain themselves; they have been tinkering with it for long enough and now don't build traps or cave entrances with pistons, they build actual systems and etc. This type of redstoner has more demonstration purposes, like showing others what their circuits can do. If you are experienced with redstone or use it a lot, you probably build in mid-air, because this makes circuits clearer to understand. And then comes the size. I was once a newb too, not that I am arrogant now and assume that I know everything, but I have learned indeed a lot. I already counted sizes that way, built 1x2 doors and ridiculous traps. But I have changed. Now I build circuits, not things that fit in one specific place. In order to show other people circuits you have made, it's more appropriate to count the block under, because they are probably going to use it in a different situation than you did.
This is the reason why I think there is so much friction between sides. For newbies, whether it's 2 high or not doesn't matter, as long as it fits. When you get more experienced, you take a more technical approach to it. I consider that counting the block under is an undeniable truth, but some people don't adhere to it easily. When I started with redstone, it was obivous to me too that if something fitted in a 1 high space, it was 1 high. Over the time, it came to me that the size of the actual circuit is 2 high, but the bottom layer doesn't interfere with the space you build sometimes.
Don't take this the wrong way: I'm not saying that if you don't count the block under you are bad with redstone or vice-versa. All I'm saying is that over the time while using redstone, one's opinion tends to change.
North, now that you mentioned "demonstration" and "practical" purposes, I'm going to state an opinion I have formed over the discussion.
I think there are two types of redstoners: the begginers and the more experienced. The first type uses redstone for practical purposes, for example, building a simple door, or simply something that works. The second type uses redstone as a learning tool, as a way to entertain themselves; they have been tinkering with it for long enough and now don't build traps or cave entrances with pistons, they build actual systems and etc. This type of redstoner has more demonstration purposes, like showing others what their circuits can do. If you are experienced with redstone or use it a lot, you probably build in mid-air, because this makes circuits clearer to understand. And then comes the size. I was once a newb too, not that I am arrogant now and assume that I know everything, but I have learned indeed a lot. I already counted sizes that way, built 1x2 doors and ridiculous traps. But I have changed. Now I build circuits, not things that fit in one specific place. In order to show other people circuits you have made, it's more appropriate to count the block under, because they are probably going to use it in a different situation than you did.
This is the reason why I think there is so much friction between sides. For newbies, whether it's 2 high or not doesn't matter, as long as it fits. When you get more experienced, you take a more technical approach to it. I consider that counting the block under is an undeniable truth, but some people don't adhere to it easily. When I started with redstone, it was obivous to me too that if something fitted in a 1 high space, it was 1 high. Over the time, it came to me that the size of the actual circuit is 2 high, but the bottom layer doesn't interfere with the space you build sometimes.
Don't take this the wrong way: I'm not saying that if you don't count the block under you are bad with redstone or vice-versa. All I'm saying is that over the time while using redstone, one's opinion tends to change.
i do agree with you that many experienced redstoners count the block beneath... as well as the fact that most newer redstoners dont count the "floor"
but in my opinion the more experienced redstoners who are designing things to help the less experienced redstoners they should count things the way that is going to make sense to the newbies.. the way that people who are going to need help with redstone tend to count should imho be the way that the people who wish to help them should count... it makes it easier for them to understand and those who are able to design these things for themselves probably counted without including the floor when they started... and since the size counting system is primarily to make it easier for the people who need others to design things for them i feel that the counting system should be geared toward what they will understand
Personally, I believe the ground should be counted. Anything BELOW any redstone. Including redstone torches.
So in the examples you gave above, one was 2 high including the ground. The other was 3 high, including the ground.
I feel this way, because most of the time, people want to conceal their redstone. So when I do my calculations, I usually take into account what would be needed to hide it. It can be discussed all we want, but there is really no "right" way to do it. Some people believe one way, others believe another. It's like the war between religion and atheism - neither side will accept being wrong, because there is no proof to prove either side is right.
I think that a circuit should be counted as though it was the only thing in existence. If only the circuit existed and nothing else could interfere, then what would be the size of the circuit. I find it rather strange to count a circuit with the assumption that parts of the circuit that aren't included in the counting are parts of the circuit that it can't exist without. I think it was you who mentioned that a circuit needs an extra block above by this logic because TNT can't go there, which is necessary for the circuit to function, but that is as much apart from the circuit as anything else, unlike the ground below. Try building a circuit and measuring it without any interferences, and you may find your answer.
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
4/2/2011
Posts:
1,248
Member Details
I personally believe that the size of a creation should be posted like this:
WxLxH
And that can be measured like so:
The WxLxH of a creation shall be the creation itself surrounded by a complete glass box. The blocks that the redstone is standing do count, since they're necessary for the circuit to work, therefore they can't be a part of the glass box. Then you just measure how big the box is and subtract all measures by one. For example, if you have a 4x5x7 glass box, your contraption will be 3x4x6.
The tileability isn't taken into account when measuring the absolute size of the contraption. A simple note like "it needs 1 block of space for it to be tileable" should do the trick, otherwise it'll get too confusing since sometimes you don't really need it to be stacked, making that a "disposable" space.
I think that a circuit should be counted as though it was the only thing in existence. If only the circuit existed and nothing else could interfere, then what would be the size of the circuit. I find it rather strange to count a circuit with the assumption that parts of the circuit that aren't included in the counting are parts of the circuit that it can't exist without. I think it was you who mentioned that a circuit needs an extra block above by this logic because TNT can't go there, which is necessary for the circuit to function, but that is as much apart from the circuit as anything else, unlike the ground below. Try building a circuit and measuring it without any interferences, and you may find your answer.
i did mention the tnt thing actually... this is actually a very reasonable argument... i do however feel if this is the case that there should be a condition applied to circuits like the second one that i posted earlier as it requires 2 blocks of airspace to build it rather that one
I personally believe that the size of a creation should be posted like this:
WxLxH
And that can be measured like so:
The WxLxH of a creation shall be the creation itself surrounded by a complete glass box. The blocks that the redstone is standing do count, since they're necessary for the circuit to work, therefore they can't be a part of the glass box. Then you just measure how big the box is and subtract all measures by one. For example, if you have a 4x5x7 glass box, your contraption will be 3x4x6.
The tileability isn't taken into account when measuring the absolute size of the contraption. A simple note like "it needs 1 block of space for it to be tileable" should do the trick, otherwise it'll get too confusing since sometimes you don't really need it to be stacked, making that a "disposable" space.
i have seen this argument before and the thing that i always got hung up on was the thought that "who decided it was glass? why not tnt or cobblestone?"
i did mention the tnt thing actually... this is actually a very reasonable argument... i do however feel if this is the case that there should be a condition applied to circuits like the second one that i posted earlier as it requires 2 blocks of airspace to build it rather that one
i have seen this argument before and the thing that i always got hung up on was the thought that "who decided it was glass? why not tnt or cobblestone?"
Because tnt will explode, and cobblestone's ugly.
Should've been sandstone.
But still, that tnt argument interests me. I guess I do agree with you on that, it should be a condition, similar to it's tileability.
Whether it's tileable or not matters to the redstone circuit. On the other hand, putting TNT around your redstone creations is purely stupid, unless the mechanism uses the TNT. What I mean is that not putting TNT is common sense, whereas tileability is a condition.
-snip-
Don't take this the wrong way: I'm not saying that if you don't count the block under you are bad with redstone or vice-versa. All I'm saying is that over the time while using redstone, one's opinion tends to change.
I agree with this, however, it happened to me in reverse. I began counting circuit size using the necessary blocks to sustain the contraption, in this case, the ground too. But then as I outgrew what I could dream up, I went online and found diagrams like this:
which doesn't display the floor, or include that as the wiki (where that was pulled from) counts that as a one tall circuit.
However, after reading the arguments here, I think I'm more leaning toward a standard of including the ground due to magical floating dust not working (except maybe with MCEdit...)
Whether it's tileable or not matters to the redstone circuit. On the other hand, putting TNT around your redstone creations is purely stupid, unless the mechanism uses the TNT. What I mean is that not putting TNT is common sense, whereas tileability is a condition.
by that argument putting your circuit on solid blocks is common sense... trying to build a circuit on air is... to use your terminoligy "purely stupid"
It's not purely stupid if you have demonstration purposes, making the way back to my other post.
And you said this was not gonna be a flame war. I said that the TNT thing was stupid, then you sarcastically said "use your terminology". Let's not take this path please.
It's not purely stupid if you have demonstration purposes, making the way back to my other post.
And you said this was not gonna be a flame war. I said that the TNT thing was stupid, then you sarcastically said "use your terminology". Let's not take this path please.
my apologies i guess that did come off harsher than i intended but i wasnt using that sarcastically.. i only said i was using your terminology to state that me saying that assuming that redstone doesnt need to be on a solid block is stupid and it was an attempt to clarify that i wasnt saying that you were stupid... only that the notion that the assumption that redstone doesnt need the block beneath it was.. all i meant by it was that just as we all know its not a good idea to surround our redstone contraptions with tnt; we all know that redstone does not float freely in the air... this is why i feel that the ground should be assumed... it is going to be there since you know that it is required.
if there was a way to differentiate between the heights of the examples i posted above i would have no problem counting the "ground" but as it stands i feel that counting this way raises as many problems as it solves
you say it is used for demonstration purposes but that is only if it is being built in the air... you can demonstrate building it on the ground as well... which is how the people you need to demonstrate it to are going to build it
The one on the left shows the inputs and outputs better. It also shows ALL the blocks used by the circuit, instead of leaving some out.
Another method (that gives identical results to the "glass box" method, but may be easier:
The smallest size bounding box that can be used in mcEdit to create a WORKING copy of the circuit anywhere in the world.
If you're trying to copy/paste things and haven't copied the lowest layer you'll find broken/floating redstone anywhere the ground is uneven.
It's easier to include your lowest layer, it makes things clearer for others trying to replicate your design, and most (if not all) of the "advanced) redstoners include it.
So a few days ago there was a discussion about whether the ground should be counted in the height of circuitry. the discussion was beginning to become heated and needed to be stopped but i have gotten permission to reopen the discussion with the condition that if any flaming whatsoever is posted here the thread will be locked immediately... not only will this be watched closely by the mods but i will personally inform a moderator if i think the discussion is becoming heated...
i considered not posting this thread because i see the potential for it to become a flame war but as i foresee more threads being hijacked in the future for this same discussion i feel it is necessary.
please only post in this thread if you can keep your temper under control... if something posted here upsets you please don't escalate... please keep your arguments on topic... and please remember that "it is that way because it is that way" style arguments will not be accepted by the community.
now that that has been said... someone please start the ball rolling
Edit: this poll has been added at the request of several people
please keep in mind that the results of this poll are purely to satiate peoples curiosity... if we have any "look at the poll" style arguments i will remove the poll immediately... this thread was started as a place for strong, solid arguments... "because i said so, move on" is not a real argument and will not be accepted by the community.
that is my opinion as well but many people do disagree with that because the ground is required because if the circuit doesn't have the ground there the redstone cant be placed.
personally i feel that the ground being required should be a condition the same as stack-able and tile-able but my mind could be changed if a good solid argument is made to explain why that should be counted as part of the total size and not simply a condition
So something can be 2 wide but not 2 wide tileable, or 1 wide but not 1 wide tileable
indeed something could be 5 high but 4 high tileable, the distinction is important because if it were 4 high you could stack a max of 64 of them up but that 1 additional height makes that impossible.
Another way of looking at it is if you removed everything from the map including bedrock etc what is needed to build the circuit, this is the size.
More experienced people build things in the air so everything is visible and the size is unambiguous.
That's a valid approach to it. I'd honestly be willing to accept either approach as it makes no difference at the end of the day: if you are sufficiently skilled at redstone creation, you will know how to measure a circuit someone else makes to your own system and that's that. You're unlikely to find a definition of it that will satisfy/convince everyone on this site.
this argument is predicated on the assumption that you are building your circuit for demonstration purposes... for practical purposes you arent gonna build a circuit that you are gonna use free floating in the air.
my argument for not counting the ground is this
imagine you have a 1 high air space between two layers of solid blocks (im using dirt for this example)
you need to put a pulse shortener in this space. if you search for 2 high circuits (using the assumption that you count the ground) you could find both of these circuits
this one will fit
this one will not (keep in mind that this was just a simple design i threw together for demonstrative purposes)
why would those be considered the same height... and technically by the height standards that count the ground they are both 2 high stackable
PS: add a poll to the thread to see if what most people think, something really simple with 2 options
I think there are two types of redstoners: the begginers and the more experienced. The first type uses redstone for practical purposes, for example, building a simple door, or simply something that works. The second type uses redstone as a learning tool, as a way to entertain themselves; they have been tinkering with it for long enough and now don't build traps or cave entrances with pistons, they build actual systems and etc. This type of redstoner has more demonstration purposes, like showing others what their circuits can do. If you are experienced with redstone or use it a lot, you probably build in mid-air, because this makes circuits clearer to understand. And then comes the size. I was once a newb too, not that I am arrogant now and assume that I know everything, but I have learned indeed a lot. I already counted sizes that way, built 1x2 doors and ridiculous traps. But I have changed. Now I build circuits, not things that fit in one specific place. In order to show other people circuits you have made, it's more appropriate to count the block under, because they are probably going to use it in a different situation than you did.
This is the reason why I think there is so much friction between sides. For newbies, whether it's 2 high or not doesn't matter, as long as it fits. When you get more experienced, you take a more technical approach to it. I consider that counting the block under is an undeniable truth, but some people don't adhere to it easily. When I started with redstone, it was obivous to me too that if something fitted in a 1 high space, it was 1 high. Over the time, it came to me that the size of the actual circuit is 2 high, but the bottom layer doesn't interfere with the space you build sometimes.
Don't take this the wrong way: I'm not saying that if you don't count the block under you are bad with redstone or vice-versa. All I'm saying is that over the time while using redstone, one's opinion tends to change.
i do agree with you that many experienced redstoners count the block beneath... as well as the fact that most newer redstoners dont count the "floor"
but in my opinion the more experienced redstoners who are designing things to help the less experienced redstoners they should count things the way that is going to make sense to the newbies.. the way that people who are going to need help with redstone tend to count should imho be the way that the people who wish to help them should count... it makes it easier for them to understand and those who are able to design these things for themselves probably counted without including the floor when they started... and since the size counting system is primarily to make it easier for the people who need others to design things for them i feel that the counting system should be geared toward what they will understand
So in the examples you gave above, one was 2 high including the ground. The other was 3 high, including the ground.
I feel this way, because most of the time, people want to conceal their redstone. So when I do my calculations, I usually take into account what would be needed to hide it. It can be discussed all we want, but there is really no "right" way to do it. Some people believe one way, others believe another. It's like the war between religion and atheism - neither side will accept being wrong, because there is no proof to prove either side is right.
WxLxH
And that can be measured like so:
The WxLxH of a creation shall be the creation itself surrounded by a complete glass box. The blocks that the redstone is standing do count, since they're necessary for the circuit to work, therefore they can't be a part of the glass box. Then you just measure how big the box is and subtract all measures by one. For example, if you have a 4x5x7 glass box, your contraption will be 3x4x6.
The tileability isn't taken into account when measuring the absolute size of the contraption. A simple note like "it needs 1 block of space for it to be tileable" should do the trick, otherwise it'll get too confusing since sometimes you don't really need it to be stacked, making that a "disposable" space.
Playing MInecraft since February 22, 2011
i did mention the tnt thing actually... this is actually a very reasonable argument... i do however feel if this is the case that there should be a condition applied to circuits like the second one that i posted earlier as it requires 2 blocks of airspace to build it rather that one i have seen this argument before and the thing that i always got hung up on was the thought that "who decided it was glass? why not tnt or cobblestone?"
Because tnt will explode, and cobblestone's ugly.
Should've been sandstone.
But still, that tnt argument interests me. I guess I do agree with you on that, it should be a condition, similar to it's tileability.
I agree with this, however, it happened to me in reverse. I began counting circuit size using the necessary blocks to sustain the contraption, in this case, the ground too. But then as I outgrew what I could dream up, I went online and found diagrams like this:
which doesn't display the floor, or include that as the wiki (where that was pulled from) counts that as a one tall circuit.
However, after reading the arguments here, I think I'm more leaning toward a standard of including the ground due to magical floating dust not working (except maybe with MCEdit...)
And you said this was not gonna be a flame war. I said that the TNT thing was stupid, then you sarcastically said "use your terminology". Let's not take this path please.
my apologies i guess that did come off harsher than i intended but i wasnt using that sarcastically.. i only said i was using your terminology to state that me saying that assuming that redstone doesnt need to be on a solid block is stupid and it was an attempt to clarify that i wasnt saying that you were stupid... only that the notion that the assumption that redstone doesnt need the block beneath it was.. all i meant by it was that just as we all know its not a good idea to surround our redstone contraptions with tnt; we all know that redstone does not float freely in the air... this is why i feel that the ground should be assumed... it is going to be there since you know that it is required.
if there was a way to differentiate between the heights of the examples i posted above i would have no problem counting the "ground" but as it stands i feel that counting this way raises as many problems as it solves
you say it is used for demonstration purposes but that is only if it is being built in the air... you can demonstrate building it on the ground as well... which is how the people you need to demonstrate it to are going to build it
The one on the left shows the inputs and outputs better. It also shows ALL the blocks used by the circuit, instead of leaving some out.
Another method (that gives identical results to the "glass box" method, but may be easier:
The smallest size bounding box that can be used in mcEdit to create a WORKING copy of the circuit anywhere in the world.
If you're trying to copy/paste things and haven't copied the lowest layer you'll find broken/floating redstone anywhere the ground is uneven.
It's easier to include your lowest layer, it makes things clearer for others trying to replicate your design, and most (if not all) of the "advanced) redstoners include it.