1. You don't think the fact a single water block creates a waterfall to be odd? You can still have waterfalls and such, they just have to be coming from a source of water. I think a cliff with a lake at top with a waterfall flowing to a lake below looks a lot better than random water spurting out the side of a cliff. The non-intuitive nature of springs is also one of the things Notch said was a bad thing about the current system.
2. Why? Is there something special about a full block that makes it magically better than a mostly full block so we need it to round? It is already going to operate at a fairly low resolution.
1. Not really. As long as it's hidden from view, I think that's the best way to do it. Have all the water originating from high ground on hills and mountains, and it's totally realistic. Not to mention that that means you have an infinite source of water, rather than risking the chance of destroying your lake and letting all the water flow out. ...Unless I'm misunderstanding something?
2. It'd help processing and would just make things simpler. Instead of having to calculate for all of the blocks around it, it can just say "ok, we don't need to do this, and just bump it back up to full (since that's basically what is going to be happening anyways.)
1. You don't think the fact a single water block creates a waterfall to be odd? You can still have waterfalls and such, they just have to be coming from a source of water. I think a cliff with a lake at top with a waterfall flowing to a lake below looks a lot better than random water spurting out the side of a cliff. The non-intuitive nature of springs is also one of the things Notch said was a bad thing about the current system.
2. Why? Is there something special about a full block that makes it magically better than a mostly full block so we need it to round? It is already going to operate at a fairly low resolution.
1. Not really. As long as it's hidden from view, I think that's the best way to do it. Have all the water originating from high ground on hills and mountains, and it's totally realistic. Not to mention that that means you have an infinite source of water, rather than risking the chance of destroying your lake and letting all the water flow out. ...Unless I'm misunderstanding something?
2. It'd help processing and would just make things simpler. Instead of having to calculate for all of the blocks around it, it can just say "ok, we don't need to do this, and just bump it back up to full (since that's basically what is going to be happening anyways.)
1. Nothing is completely hidden in minecraft, because you can uncover anything. I find the spring blocks to be one of the most disconcerting things. Besides, if we kept them in liquids would require 3 block types. Since we are on a strict block type budget, that is a drawback. If we want waterfalls coming out of cliffs, you need a pool of water inside the cliff. You can't accidentally drain the lake since digging a drain into the side causes a waterfall. You have to purposefully drain it with many bucket trips, or a pipe and pump system. Even if you do destroy it, the downstream pools won't just disappear. You just cut off the waterfall feeding it, allowing it to be drained, again with pipes or buckets.
2. Why is bumping it back to full any simplier than leaving it at 95%? If the water around it is at 95%, it gets dropped off the active water list and doesn't take any processing power.
What if you make it so the water that's put down with the buckets acts like this, but we still have the same system for pre-generated bodies of water. Then, when a single block fills up all the way with water, it is replaced with the spring block we know and somewhat like.
Wait wait wait, new idea: What if we replaced water with some bizzare liquid that doesn't really behave like water at all? That way we could make something intuitive without being constrained to physical laws?
Or wait, is that what we have already? I think the only problem with the water now is that we can't fill trenches. That's about it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You are totally thinking about this signature right now. Read a book.
Wait wait wait, new idea: What if we replaced water with some bizzare liquid that doesn't really behave like water at all? That way we could make something intuitive without being constrained to physical laws?
Or wait, is that what we have already? I think the only problem with the water now is that we can't fill trenches. That's about it.
We have a gel. It has numerous problems, it just happens to be better than the older waters.
Wait wait wait, new idea: What if we replaced water with some bizzare liquid that doesn't really behave like water at all? That way we could make something intuitive without being constrained to physical laws?
Or wait, is that what we have already? I think the only problem with the water now is that we can't fill trenches. That's about it.
Nope you can't make "pressurized" Aquaducts, they all have to be gravity based. And not all ancient Aquaducts were gravity based.
After re-looking at both ideas, I've noticed that neither would make flowing water particularly well. And, again, I think that's the biggest problem with the current system. Water flows awkwardly, is difficult to control, and the mechanics almost actively work against realistic aqueducts and rivers. A system like this would be all good, but it still wouldn't make flowing water better, which I think is the most important part of water, integral for adding rivers into future terrain generation, and future water-based mechanics.
Quote from Mystify »
2. Why is bumping it back to full any simplier than leaving it at 95%? If the water around it is at 95%, it gets dropped off the active water list and doesn't take any processing power.
I had thought that if one block was at 95% and everything around it was at 100, it would then average the water between those blocks, and so on, right? If you have a very large body of water like an ocean or even a lake, it shouldn't spend all that time doing calculations when you're basically going to end up at 100% anyways.
After re-looking at both ideas, I've noticed that neither would make flowing water particularly well. And, again, I think that's the biggest problem with the current system. Water flows awkwardly, is difficult to control, and the mechanics almost actively work against realistic aqueducts and rivers. A system like this would be all good, but it still wouldn't make flowing water better, which I think is the most important part of water, integral for adding rivers into future terrain generation, and future water-based mechanics.
How does my system not improve flowing water? The biggest problem with making river with the current water system is they don't respond well to level areas. With my method, a river would consists of stretches of flat water, with the occasional short flowing water connecting it to the drop. It can go over a waterfall and continue the river, empty into a lake, whatever. Allowing rivers and aqueducts was one thing I designed my system to do.
Quote from Blue_vision »
Quote from Mystify »
2. Why is bumping it back to full any simplier than leaving it at 95%? If the water around it is at 95%, it gets dropped off the active water list and doesn't take any processing power.
I had thought that if one block was at 95% and everything around it was at 100, it would then average the water between those blocks, and so on, right? If you have a very large body of water like an ocean or even a lake, it shouldn't spend all that time doing calculations when you're basically going to end up at 100% anyways.
The system does include auto-leveling mechanisms. I don't think I went into that in the OP, but I discussed it later in the forum. Your method doesn't work if everything is at 50% but one is at 45%, or any other situation.
Hm, that could actually work quite well. In that case, I'd like to see it replace the current system. As with all things, it might need work after that, but it sounds like a good system to base river generation on.
As for the second, there was no mention in the OP, but yes that would work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
2. It'd help processing and would just make things simpler. Instead of having to calculate for all of the blocks around it, it can just say "ok, we don't need to do this, and just bump it back up to full (since that's basically what is going to be happening anyways.)
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premium1. Nothing is completely hidden in minecraft, because you can uncover anything. I find the spring blocks to be one of the most disconcerting things. Besides, if we kept them in liquids would require 3 block types. Since we are on a strict block type budget, that is a drawback. If we want waterfalls coming out of cliffs, you need a pool of water inside the cliff. You can't accidentally drain the lake since digging a drain into the side causes a waterfall. You have to purposefully drain it with many bucket trips, or a pipe and pump system. Even if you do destroy it, the downstream pools won't just disappear. You just cut off the waterfall feeding it, allowing it to be drained, again with pipes or buckets.
2. Why is bumping it back to full any simplier than leaving it at 95%? If the water around it is at 95%, it gets dropped off the active water list and doesn't take any processing power.
What if you make it so the water that's put down with the buckets acts like this, but we still have the same system for pre-generated bodies of water. Then, when a single block fills up all the way with water, it is replaced with the spring block we know and somewhat like.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumOr wait, is that what we have already? I think the only problem with the water now is that we can't fill trenches. That's about it.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumWe have a gel. It has numerous problems, it just happens to be better than the older waters.
Nope you can't make "pressurized" Aquaducts, they all have to be gravity based. And not all ancient Aquaducts were gravity based.
I had thought that if one block was at 95% and everything around it was at 100, it would then average the water between those blocks, and so on, right? If you have a very large body of water like an ocean or even a lake, it shouldn't spend all that time doing calculations when you're basically going to end up at 100% anyways.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumHow does my system not improve flowing water? The biggest problem with making river with the current water system is they don't respond well to level areas. With my method, a river would consists of stretches of flat water, with the occasional short flowing water connecting it to the drop. It can go over a waterfall and continue the river, empty into a lake, whatever. Allowing rivers and aqueducts was one thing I designed my system to do.
The system does include auto-leveling mechanisms. I don't think I went into that in the OP, but I discussed it later in the forum. Your method doesn't work if everything is at 50% but one is at 45%, or any other situation.
As for the second, there was no mention in the OP, but yes that would work.