Poll has duration of 1 week. At 0.00(GMT) the poll will be closed.
Hey.
After see the confusing topic about size of "Most compacted T-Flip flop" ,which make me decide to make the topic on "Rule of measuring the size of redstone contraption" become more clearer and being approved by redstoner.
I suggest one of these type :
1. Counting the floor as the redstone component.
Since the most of the redstone contraption (Torch, redstone line, lever) can't stand on air/non-opaque block, so the block is necessary and should be measured with the system itself.
2. Don't count the floor as the redstone component.
This type of measuring is for the MCedit's .schematic and who play a lot with it , since you can copy and place without the standing-block.
I prefer not to count the floor. As it can in many cases be assumed.
However occasionally the floor can be important. For example when circuits need to be stacked vertically. In that case some floor components must be half slabs so as not to pass a redstone signal though it. So it can depend on the situation.
On the other hand often you want to put a redstone contraption in a box or container, and I have actually maked use of the wall of the container as part of the circuit. For example, a lamp is typically part of the container. I have also used a corner block (in a non square container the circuit is being fitted into) to pass a redstone signal into and out of (turning a corner).
SO really any measurement is only a rough guide. I have managed to pack a larger circuit into an odd space that a smaller circuit just would not work in.
I would often not consider the size to be as important as how 'simple' or complex the circuit is.
I prefer not to count the floor. As it can in many cases be assumed.
However occasionally the floor can be important. For example when circuits need to be stacked vertically. In that case some floor components must be half slabs so as not to pass a redstone signal though it. So it can depend on the situation.
On the other hand often you want to put a redstone contraption in a box or container, and I have actually maked use of the wall of the container as part of the circuit. For example, a lamp is typically part of the container. I have also used a corner block (in a non square container the circuit is being fitted into) to pass a redstone signal into and out of (turning a corner).
SO really any measurement is only a rough guide. I have managed to pack a larger circuit into an odd space that a smaller circuit just would not work in.
I would often not consider the size to be as important as how 'simple' or complex the circuit is.
Is it become simpler to count the floor, from your circumstances?
Any block that is needed should be counted, floor included. Otherwise you can have two or three designs all claiming the same size when they clearly aren't, like has happened over and over on here.
The thing is though that MC Schematics don't need the floor, so anyone using MC Schematics as the form of download for their circuit may be one block shorter than if you made it by hand in-game.
Also, like AntOfThy said, it is mostly assumed you have a floor that you are attempting to build your circuit, and there is a pretty good chance that the floor would be there whether or not you build a redstone circuit on it (that requires the floor to put stuff on)
I think it is more subjective to what you are doing. If it is something that is supposed to stack, obviously the floor is important in figuring how much vertical space you need per circuit (in a situation where you are trying to, say, figure out how many you can fit in a ten-high opening) But if it is something that you can just cram into any old spot, I don't think the floor is very important since you are probably just going to carve out space for it anyway (hence the floor was already there, and therefore rather irrelevant)
One last thing: I think it is ridiculous to discuss about this so much. I have seen so much heat over someone calling their very compact (width and length wise) AND gate a one-high circuit because all of the redstone/torches etc. all stayed right along the ground. People come into these threads JUST to bash the fact someone said it was one-high when "It requires the ground to work!" I just sit looking at their comment and think "These people must be lawyers." Seriously who cares if it 'technically' isn't one high because you couldn't build it one-high if it was floating in the air, but really if you were building it in the air, why not use a vertical design or something in the first place?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
ragnarock200: awesome, are those things with the creeper faces pistons or furnaces
Snowey1994: There dispensers
I am not saying I like MC Schematics, I find them very annoying to use and much prefer just a bunch of good pictures, but I have seen so many people use MC Schematics to distribute circuits you can't just flat out kick them out and say they're wrong in how they use MCEdit to cut/paste their circuits, because it TECHNICALLY works in-game, and all you have to do is paste the circuit onto already existing ground to make it work just fine.
I don't understand why, if you realize that someone isn't counting the floor of their circuit when it is required to build the circuit [in mid-air] you can't just mentally add one block to the height, like seriously, you freaking ostracize people just because the height-count on their circuit is one less than what you would say, it is pathetic and sad in my opinion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
ragnarock200: awesome, are those things with the creeper faces pistons or furnaces
Snowey1994: There dispensers
That is a biased opinion, I could literally replicate that last paragraph you wrote, except the other way around
Except I am not biased, it would be great if everyone built their contraptions in mid-air so that you can see exactly how big it is going to be, but of course that doesn't happen. I am saying being hostile because someone doesn't follow your conventions is a horrible way to act towards other people.
EDIT: Forgot to put in, I realize that everything on this forum is obviously communicated in chat and usually the people typing aren't being hostile, but when reading everything through text if someone just repeatedly tells you that "You're wrong" even in the nicest of terms it comes across as hostile.
When you build something with redstone, the redstone itself has to sit on a block or else you can't place it.
This means that if someone builds a redstone circuit and they place a piece of restone on the ground, should that piece of ground be counted when you try to figure out the height of the circuit, or should you just count the actual redstone and blocks that are actually part of the circuit (having power sent through them, moved by pistons, etc)
The reason this matters is because if you should count the ground, you can't have a one-high circuit if it requires and redstone dust because that dust sits on top of a block, and if you count that block the dust sits on it makes the circuit two-high.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
ragnarock200: awesome, are those things with the creeper faces pistons or furnaces
Snowey1994: There dispensers
I would often not consider the size to be as important as how 'simple' or complex the circuit is.
Size is actually just as important, most people wanting to replicate circuits and creations don't do so in unlimited Flatland worlds, they are doing so in their houses and bases, so as such they don't have unlimited room to fit the circuits, so the more compact they are the more useful they are to the players who wish to replicate them,
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The problem with the truth, is that it never lies.
The on-the-ground notation (#2) is unable to distinguish between "flat" circuits (dust/repeaters/etc. on the ground) and truly using sticky pistons and blocks of redstone (yes, they're probably useless, but that's not the point). That alone for me is a reason to reject #2 -- it's less useful (which a notation system should be).
A few of us recently discussed this issue on the wiki and we settled on the convention of "shorter width" x "longer width" x "height", including floor/support/necessary blocks, excluding inputs/outputs (though we're still going through all the pages to make sure everything follows that convention).
How about the floor counts only if it is important?
Example: Build a t flip flop (standard sticky piston one) with no output. it requires a 4x3x1 space. Now if you want output it requires a 4x4x1 space. This is because you need a floor one below the sticky pistons in order to either support a torch (on the side) or a repeater.
Both points here are wrong.
The trivial one is that the 4x3x1 T flip flop based on the powered pistons really can fit into that space with an output and input. Side point: Inputs and Outputs are typically ignored anyhow.
The second point about importance is also wrong, or rather 'bad', because it implies double standards. i.e. that a design say of Grizdales above, can be considered 'the same', when they clearly are not.
...A few of us recently discussed this issue on the wiki and we settled on the convention of "shorter width" x "longer width" x "height"
Not sure I agree with this ordering. Minecraft's grid system works in x,y,z co-ords, but x and z are the horizontal ones, and y is the verticle height. Ergo. If we were following the strick convention of ordering, it should follow the minecraft grid.
In principle, the engineering/architecture line is always to include the height last, but there is no 'rule' that governs base/width, or width/base. Either are interchangable. Typically depending on viewpoint.
It get's futher complicated when one considered area, area is nearly always considered to be; lenght (L), times width (W). Where L > W. And rectangular volume is nearly always in geometry denoted; L x W x H.
All three of these arguments would counter that suggested proposal, with the exception of the engineering rule which doesn't specify an area convention. Basically, there isn't a convention, and so its a bit of a pointless endevour to try and force on it, because depending if you come from a computing/maths background, a civil engineering background, or only had basic primary school maths, then you are going to write the dimensions out differently. And also nobody is going to care if somebody else has defined a 'correct way' since their way will always be more intuitive to themselves.
What the Carpenter/Dressmaker/Practical Workman would say:
Measurements always should come from the outside of the thing you are going to cut, hence to allow for wastage during the cutting down. Applied to minecraft, this means that the floor gets included. Just like the 'walls would' if you had to stick a torch to them.
The on-the-ground notation (#2) is unable to distinguish between "flat" circuits (dust/repeaters/etc. on the ground) and truly using sticky pistons and blocks of redstone (yes, they're probably useless, but that's not the point). That alone for me is a reason to reject #2 -- it's less useful (which a notation system should be).
A few of us recently discussed this issue on the wiki and we settled on the convention of "shorter width" x "longer width" x "height", including floor/support/necessary blocks, excluding inputs/outputs (though we're still going through all the pages to make sure everything follows that convention).
Could you give me the link to see what the discussion is about ?
I would often not consider the size to be as important as how 'simple' or complex the circuit is.
Size is important, sir, as some people who what to use the "Hidden staircase" inside his house on SMP.
He what to know what the size the machine really be, so he can design how to hide the system.
Also this bring into another support for "don't count the floor as the circuit component",since these people always have the floor to their system to be supported on. So the floor that being included while the circuit-maker measure it is not really important.
If you want to have N such working contraptions of size M stacked on top of each other, each in-between floor required to make each contraption work will have to be counted as well. N contraptions on top of each other measures NxM.
Here's that "always" that makes me bash my head against an array of knives. You can't say always, because you can't possibly account for every possible scenario. What if the person is working ontop of a glowstone ceiling. Can't place redstone there.
The way I make the distinction is refer to the measurements with the floor included as the dimensions and the measurements without as the size or height. For example, I made a T flip-flop that is 4x3x2, but it fits in a one-deep hole. This is important, since I can use it in a one-block gap between the floors of a house without knocking a hole in the ceiling. So I could say it's 4x3x2 with a height of 1, whereas Magix's improvement on the design would be 3x3x2 with a height of 2.
There is already a standard and its been around for years: count all blocks needed to make the circuit function in a given 3 dimensional space. (This includes the "floor")
I would also argue size is one of the least important attributes. I personally place functionality, speed and performance all above size. In saying that, speed and performance are usually related to size.
There is already a standard and its been around for years...
Totally agree... and this discussion seems to be cyclic. Every now and then it returns from the grave. Some months ago a very similar poll was made, and "count the floor" did win. And every time the "more experienced" redstoners have to explain it to "newcomers" -- don't take me the wrong way. This is just generally speaking, but does not mean that the ones who voted otherwise are not as good, people just have different opinions and I respect that. It's just a tendency for people to, over the time, adhere to the opinion that counting the floor is necessary.
I consider "whatever the redstone dust lies on" to be part of your creation. You can't have your creation without that which has dust on it. This point is reinforced more than ever with Disco agreeing to this standard. This forum should conform to the standard of "dust on block = part of circuit".
Hey.
After see the confusing topic about size of "Most compacted T-Flip flop" ,which make me decide to make the topic on "Rule of measuring the size of redstone contraption" become more clearer and being approved by redstoner.
I suggest one of these type :
1. Counting the floor as the redstone component.
Since the most of the redstone contraption (Torch, redstone line, lever) can't stand on air/non-opaque block, so the block is necessary and should be measured with the system itself.
2. Don't count the floor as the redstone component.
This type of measuring is for the MCedit's .schematic and who play a lot with it , since you can copy and place without the standing-block.
However occasionally the floor can be important. For example when circuits need to be stacked vertically. In that case some floor components must be half slabs so as not to pass a redstone signal though it. So it can depend on the situation.
On the other hand often you want to put a redstone contraption in a box or container, and I have actually maked use of the wall of the container as part of the circuit. For example, a lamp is typically part of the container. I have also used a corner block (in a non square container the circuit is being fitted into) to pass a redstone signal into and out of (turning a corner).
SO really any measurement is only a rough guide. I have managed to pack a larger circuit into an odd space that a smaller circuit just would not work in.
I would often not consider the size to be as important as how 'simple' or complex the circuit is.
Is it become simpler to count the floor, from your circumstances?
The thing is though that MC Schematics don't need the floor, so anyone using MC Schematics as the form of download for their circuit may be one block shorter than if you made it by hand in-game.
Also, like AntOfThy said, it is mostly assumed you have a floor that you are attempting to build your circuit, and there is a pretty good chance that the floor would be there whether or not you build a redstone circuit on it (that requires the floor to put stuff on)
I think it is more subjective to what you are doing. If it is something that is supposed to stack, obviously the floor is important in figuring how much vertical space you need per circuit (in a situation where you are trying to, say, figure out how many you can fit in a ten-high opening) But if it is something that you can just cram into any old spot, I don't think the floor is very important since you are probably just going to carve out space for it anyway (hence the floor was already there, and therefore rather irrelevant)
One last thing: I think it is ridiculous to discuss about this so much. I have seen so much heat over someone calling their very compact (width and length wise) AND gate a one-high circuit because all of the redstone/torches etc. all stayed right along the ground. People come into these threads JUST to bash the fact someone said it was one-high when "It requires the ground to work!" I just sit looking at their comment and think "These people must be lawyers." Seriously who cares if it 'technically' isn't one high because you couldn't build it one-high if it was floating in the air, but really if you were building it in the air, why not use a vertical design or something in the first place?
Snowey1994: There dispensers
I don't understand why, if you realize that someone isn't counting the floor of their circuit when it is required to build the circuit [in mid-air] you can't just mentally add one block to the height, like seriously, you freaking ostracize people just because the height-count on their circuit is one less than what you would say, it is pathetic and sad in my opinion.
Snowey1994: There dispensers
Except I am not biased, it would be great if everyone built their contraptions in mid-air so that you can see exactly how big it is going to be, but of course that doesn't happen. I am saying being hostile because someone doesn't follow your conventions is a horrible way to act towards other people.
EDIT: Forgot to put in, I realize that everything on this forum is obviously communicated in chat and usually the people typing aren't being hostile, but when reading everything through text if someone just repeatedly tells you that "You're wrong" even in the nicest of terms it comes across as hostile.
Snowey1994: There dispensers
When you build something with redstone, the redstone itself has to sit on a block or else you can't place it.
This means that if someone builds a redstone circuit and they place a piece of restone on the ground, should that piece of ground be counted when you try to figure out the height of the circuit, or should you just count the actual redstone and blocks that are actually part of the circuit (having power sent through them, moved by pistons, etc)
The reason this matters is because if you should count the ground, you can't have a one-high circuit if it requires and redstone dust because that dust sits on top of a block, and if you count that block the dust sits on it makes the circuit two-high.
Snowey1994: There dispensers
Size is actually just as important, most people wanting to replicate circuits and creations don't do so in unlimited Flatland worlds, they are doing so in their houses and bases, so as such they don't have unlimited room to fit the circuits, so the more compact they are the more useful they are to the players who wish to replicate them,
The on-the-ground notation (#2) is unable to distinguish between "flat" circuits (dust/repeaters/etc. on the ground) and truly using sticky pistons and blocks of redstone (yes, they're probably useless, but that's not the point). That alone for me is a reason to reject #2 -- it's less useful (which a notation system should be).
A few of us recently discussed this issue on the wiki and we settled on the convention of "shorter width" x "longer width" x "height", including floor/support/necessary blocks, excluding inputs/outputs (though we're still going through all the pages to make sure everything follows that convention).
Both points here are wrong.
The trivial one is that the 4x3x1 T flip flop based on the powered pistons really can fit into that space with an output and input. Side point: Inputs and Outputs are typically ignored anyhow.
The second point about importance is also wrong, or rather 'bad', because it implies double standards. i.e. that a design say of Grizdales above, can be considered 'the same', when they clearly are not.
Not sure I agree with this ordering. Minecraft's grid system works in x,y,z co-ords, but x and z are the horizontal ones, and y is the verticle height. Ergo. If we were following the strick convention of ordering, it should follow the minecraft grid.
In principle, the engineering/architecture line is always to include the height last, but there is no 'rule' that governs base/width, or width/base. Either are interchangable. Typically depending on viewpoint.
It get's futher complicated when one considered area, area is nearly always considered to be; lenght (L), times width (W). Where L > W. And rectangular volume is nearly always in geometry denoted; L x W x H.
All three of these arguments would counter that suggested proposal, with the exception of the engineering rule which doesn't specify an area convention. Basically, there isn't a convention, and so its a bit of a pointless endevour to try and force on it, because depending if you come from a computing/maths background, a civil engineering background, or only had basic primary school maths, then you are going to write the dimensions out differently. And also nobody is going to care if somebody else has defined a 'correct way' since their way will always be more intuitive to themselves.
What the Carpenter/Dressmaker/Practical Workman would say:
Measurements always should come from the outside of the thing you are going to cut, hence to allow for wastage during the cutting down. Applied to minecraft, this means that the floor gets included. Just like the 'walls would' if you had to stick a torch to them.
Could you give me the link to see what the discussion is about ?
Size is important, sir, as some people who what to use the "Hidden staircase" inside his house on SMP.
He what to know what the size the machine really be, so he can design how to hide the system.
Also this bring into another support for "don't count the floor as the circuit component",since these people always have the floor to their system to be supported on. So the floor that being included while the circuit-maker measure it is not really important.
If you want to have N such working contraptions of size M stacked on top of each other, each in-between floor required to make each contraption work will have to be counted as well. N contraptions on top of each other measures NxM.
Same for walls.
So I am supposed to say 'likely'?
I would also argue size is one of the least important attributes. I personally place functionality, speed and performance all above size. In saying that, speed and performance are usually related to size.
http://www.ocddisco.com
Totally agree... and this discussion seems to be cyclic. Every now and then it returns from the grave. Some months ago a very similar poll was made, and "count the floor" did win. And every time the "more experienced" redstoners have to explain it to "newcomers" -- don't take me the wrong way. This is just generally speaking, but does not mean that the ones who voted otherwise are not as good, people just have different opinions and I respect that. It's just a tendency for people to, over the time, adhere to the opinion that counting the floor is necessary.