Minecraft Forums

Its very annoying how you need this:
(chests are logs, glass is air)

Why cant you at least make the chests separate? like this:
(| is chest separation. No air)
|

So the large chests aren't HUGE chests, but 2 large chests side by side? im sure people would agree that THIS would be better instead of needing to put something in-between the chests like

I support this, but it would be a pain in the rear to program...

They can't be placed like that because the coding for them forces chests to join to other chest blocks regardless of adjacent blocks and direction.

Mods which add single-block-only chests don't have this problem, and as such they can be placed next to each other.

It's not a necessary addition but it would be helpful in some situations, so I'll support it as long there's no definite reason for it being impossible.

Double chest look better with a block in between them than they would right next to each other, in my opinion.

I like this idea. And to those who would not like the way it looks, just don't put then next to each other then!!!!

A valid idea, which I support.

Quote from BenOngAlive

Now that we're all so used to having large chests separate from one another, I don't think we all like the idea of being able to place large chests adjacent to each other.

Besides, it would take forever to code the chests such that large chests don't connect to one another. If the community is used to not having adjacent chests, I see no need for this change.

Are you the community? I don't think so. I would love to see this change.

As for a pain in the rear, I don't see this as a problem that much in my eyes. Just only connect chests if they are not a double chest yet and that's it.

Quote from nearbeer

Just only connect chests if they are not a double chest yet and that's it.

That seems like a pretty good workaround. But what if you had 2 chests a block apart like so:


And then tried to place a chest in the middle? They would probably just have the middle chest always connect to the chest on the left, or some rule like that.

Anyways, full support. This could really compact large storage systems.

Quote from Benjamin5349

That seems like a pretty good workaround. But what if you had 2 chests a block apart like so:


And then tried to place a chest in the middle? They would probably just have the middle chest always connect to the chest on the left, or some rule like that.

Anyways, full support. This could really compact large storage systems.

I think that a default to left would be a good solution.

Quote from nearbeer

I think that a default to left would be a good solution.

Or whatever chest you click on

Quote from andreja6

Or whatever chest you click on

Seems unnecessary. If you want it done right don't try and bug the system.

I don't understand.
It's altogether possible to create two long chests side by side without the middle two joining together. Your image (emoticons) suggest this is what you're talking about.
However, what I'm assuming you're talking about, is that you want to be able to place separate, single chests side by side?
Why? Just why? It doesn't save space, it's not more organized, and it doesn't save more space, and for the first time, that was actually put twice on accident, but I'll go with it:
In fact, if you make your room 3-4 blocks tall, you can construct your chest room like so:


Which allows for the same storage space you're thinking single chests will bring you, while still leaving room for signs to be placed directing you to the chest you want, or torches/redstone lamps to provide pleasant lighting, or in the case of lamps, both.

What is so wrong about chests joining side by side? I still don't understand this, if there are perfectly fine (and in some cases, more aesthetically pleasing) methods of creating storage rooms?
Want even more efficiency? Try storage carts. A while back I half-finished a system that would relay specific carts at the push of a button (although the idea itself was pretty much copied from the Batcave world and remade to suit my own tastes).

There are easy and complicated ways to store things in an organized fashion. Utilize all the tools at your advantage, don't assume that because you can't place chests side by side that you're immediately forced to construct some gigantically long room to dump all your cobble, all it requires you to do is build your ceiling a single block higher. Frankly that kind of height looks better anyway, so I don't see any problem.

Long overdue edit: Oh, I see what you're talking about now. Yes, it would probably be useful to allow two large chests to be placed next to each other. I apologize, I wasn't able to test anything on my laptop.

Quote from nearbeer

I think that a default to left would be a good solution.

Quote from andreja6

Or whatever chest you click on

Quote from nearbeer

Seems unnecessary. If you want it done right don't try and bug the system.

Not to mention right-clicking a chest opens it.

Quote from TwistedNerve

Not to mention right-clicking a chest opens it.

not anymore if you shift-right click
how about they don't join unless you shift-right click on the first chest and shift-right clicking on a double chest it just places it i found it kind of weird that just placing a chest adjacent to another joined them when you did nothing to the first chest

I like this idea. They could work around deciding which side a chest is next to by putting a 1 in the bit for that side.

Quote from TwistedNerve

Not to mention right-clicking a chest opens it.

That wasn't what I was talking about.

Quote from BC_Programming

The problem with this is that those "two chests side by side" are indistinguishable from a double chest with a single chest on each side.

What do you mean by indistinguishable?

Quote from BenOngAlive

Now that we're all so used to having large chests separate from one another, I don't think we all like the idea of being able to place large chests adjacent to each other.

Besides, it would take forever to code the chests such that large chests don't connect to one another. If the community is used to not having adjacent chests, I see no need for this change.

sorry to say that but it is quite simple in terms of code (chests have 3x9, double chests have 6x9, each chest have its slots separated by either arrays or something else that count the position of the items inside, making it pretty easy to break, even in real time, a chest in two without much problem so, the same goes for that, as they would just have to add a new id to the chest, where a double chest that already have an id wouldnt connect to other chests (what could cause the bug of several lone chests side by side or double chests that change its pairs from time to time) so if you do that:

you set it as a chest id 0001 chunk 0000000001 position1 xxx zzz yyy position2 xxx zzz yyy(for that chunk)
then if you do that:
it would create chest id 0002 chunk 0000000001 position1 xxx zzz yyy position2 xxx zzz yyy(for that chunk) and keep the previous chest as id 0001 chunk 0000000001 position1 xxx zzz yyy position2 xxx zzz yyy(for that chunk)

then if you place another chest by the side of the single chest, it would create another double chest, but keep the single chest id for that, just add another position (and sure, slots for the items).

working as