As much as I'd love this, no. Please search: there are many, many reasons why sponges don't do it anymore, least of all that water no longer works as it used to, and that in Survival it would be horrendously cheap.
It should be, but underwater because that is there natural location. I really don't see what's so hard about deleting a 5x5x5 cube of water. Notch said the new water system prevented sponges from working, but from a code standpoint... I don't see the complexity.
It should be, but underwater because that is there natural location. I really don't see what's so hard about deleting a 5x5x5 cube of water. Notch said the new water system prevented sponges from working, but from a code standpoint... I don't see the complexity.
It's a number of factors, but my guess is the tradeoff you'd get from the filling code: constantly having to check for a sponge in a 5x5x5 radius of a water block spreading would kill performance quick.
It should be, but underwater because that is there natural location. I really don't see what's so hard about deleting a 5x5x5 cube of water. Notch said the new water system prevented sponges from working, but from a code standpoint... I don't see the complexity.
It's a number of factors, but my guess is the tradeoff you'd get from the filling code: constantly having to check for a sponge in a 5x5x5 radius of a water block spreading would kill performance quick.
Wouldn't the computer need to check once, and then save a variable saying that it checked, so it would only need to look for one variable?
It should be, but underwater because that is there natural location. I really don't see what's so hard about deleting a 5x5x5 cube of water. Notch said the new water system prevented sponges from working, but from a code standpoint... I don't see the complexity.
It's a number of factors, but my guess is the tradeoff you'd get from the filling code: constantly having to check for a sponge in a 5x5x5 radius of a water block spreading would kill performance quick.
Wouldn't the computer need to check once, and then save a variable saying that it checked, so it would only need to look for one variable?
N-n-n-nope! Unfortunately, the way Minecraft handles fluids is in such a manner that they update in a fairly slow manner-- block b' block b' block, and in this case the only way for it to really a) know if it's near a sponge is to check on each update [circumvented slightly by the old redstone water diversion trick] and :cool.gif: to be a huge exception case and not work just for sponges-- a situation undesirable from a consistency standpoint!
It's a number of factors, but my guess is the tradeoff you'd get from the filling code: constantly having to check for a sponge in a 5x5x5 radius of a water block spreading would kill performance quick.
Wouldn't the computer need to check once, and then save a variable saying that it checked, so it would only need to look for one variable?
N-n-n-nope! Unfortunately, the way Minecraft handles fluids is in such a manner that they update in a fairly slow manner-- block b' block b' block, and in this case the only way for it to really a) know if it's near a sponge is to check on each update [circumvented slightly by the old redstone water diversion trick] and :cool.gif: to be a huge exception case and not work just for sponges-- a situation undesirable from a consistency standpoint!
:sad.gif: