When you're managing your inventory, and have two of the same type of tools (ones with duration specifically), trying to switch those tools will end in failure. This becomes an issue when you're low on the durability of one tool, and want to switch in a tool with full durability. What you have to do instead is place the partially destroyed tool in an empty spot, and place the full tool in the inventory slot instead. It isn't a major issue, but it doesn't seem polished, and it is a little bit of a hassle when you've got a filled inventory.
If you use a similar tool, and try to place that tool on top of another tool, it should switch the tool in your hand for the one in the inventory.
I've noticed this a few times with a full inventory. It doesn't seem to be much a of a real problem though. I assume the thought process behind their reasoning was that you would want the most durable tools in your bar if you switched.
I've noticed this a few times with a full inventory. It doesn't seem to be much a of a real problem though. I assume the thought process behind their reasoning was that you would want the most durable tools in your bar if you switched.
I think it's more based on how item uses are calculated on a tool. If you dropped a stack of 64 cobblestone, it would drop the full thing. But, say, if you could only pick up 25, then it'd leave the rest of the cobblestone on the ground, where it would, it is my understanding, go off and become baby creepers.
But if you dropped 160 uses of an iron pickaxe, and you had a pickaxe that could hold another 170 uses, then your inventory would say, "HEY. No premarital hanky-panky." It would be hard-coded to not allow you to do this (unless you were an enterprising young miner, and decided to put the things both into your workbench. But that is neither here, nor there). My GUESS is that the same hard code simply doesn't allow the interaction to happen. It would be better if there was a special piece of code that simply switched the item in your hand with the one that the item was being clicked at, after the impossibility to integrate was established.
If you're having problems with exchanging tools with a full inventory, put the low durability tool in the crafting grid, and put the high durability tool, in the slot you want it in, then put the low durability tool in the empty slot. :biggrin.gif:
If you're having problems with exchanging tools with a full inventory, put the low durability tool in the crafting grid, and put the high durability tool, in the slot you want it in, then put the low durability tool in the empty slot. :biggrin.gif:
But I agree, it is annoying.
It just seems... unpolished? Such a minor nuisance that I originally put it in the "small suggestions" post, but it seems to already have become better read here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Manly Cupquake
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you use a similar tool, and try to place that tool on top of another tool, it should switch the tool in your hand for the one in the inventory.
Manly Cupquake
I think it's more based on how item uses are calculated on a tool. If you dropped a stack of 64 cobblestone, it would drop the full thing. But, say, if you could only pick up 25, then it'd leave the rest of the cobblestone on the ground, where it would, it is my understanding, go off and become baby creepers.
But if you dropped 160 uses of an iron pickaxe, and you had a pickaxe that could hold another 170 uses, then your inventory would say, "HEY. No premarital hanky-panky." It would be hard-coded to not allow you to do this (unless you were an enterprising young miner, and decided to put the things both into your workbench. But that is neither here, nor there). My GUESS is that the same hard code simply doesn't allow the interaction to happen. It would be better if there was a special piece of code that simply switched the item in your hand with the one that the item was being clicked at, after the impossibility to integrate was established.
Manly Cupquake
But I agree, it is annoying.
It just seems... unpolished? Such a minor nuisance that I originally put it in the "small suggestions" post, but it seems to already have become better read here.
Manly Cupquake