Sorry to break it up for you guys... Minecraft IS possible to be played on X360, but you won't be able to be as agile and mobile as you are when playing on a PC.
And it tends to lag a bit... Obvious reasons.
Pics or it didn't happen. Xbox 360's processor and firmware are based on .NET framework, while Minecraft is in JAVA, an OpenGL language. Long and short, it actually can't play Minecraft.
Even if it could, the Xbox 360 only has 512 MB of memory. When I run Minecraft on short-render, it uses up 480,000 kB (480MB), to say nothing of Normal and Far render distances. That leaves a mere 32MB for System Processes. So, the game would have to be even further streamlined, and unload more map at a time than most of us are used to. Maybe, even more than having render distance set to Tiny, depending on how much memory System takes up in the 360.
And the PS3's stats are identical to the 360's, save that it has 50MHz more GPU power.
i appreciate the idea, but it would ruin the awesome simplicity that is minecraft
And Boss Mobs are simple? The game isn't simplicity, the game is creativity. It achieves creativity through relative simplicity; that is, it imposes minimal rules upon the player, allowing them to craft to their hearts' content, what they have mined.
Present a new risk for boats? I love it! Maybe, only let lakes freeze (determine lake by amount of water and amount of land surrounding water, yes?) and only let icebergs float in oceans. Of course, for optimum enjoyment, increase the size of biomes radically. I've walked from one side of a snow biome to the other in 2 minutes, before. It's no fun. (I like the way the snowy biomes look, what can I say?)
In any case, Kinect is a hardware input device. You can't compare it to a piece of software, because they're entirely different things. That's like saying "Someone plugged their PC mouse into a Mac running Linux." They used a piece of hardware that inputs data, with a computer using modified software to communicate properly. Porting Minecraft to consoles is more like playing Halo Reach on a Mac. The Xbox 360 and Mac are entirely different machines, and running the piece of software isn't actually possible, without severe overhaul, and even then, Halo is owned by a company with no interest in business relations on the Mac platform.
But, in all seriousness, the PS3 could theoretically support it, loading the custom linux-based firmware, but then, it's not a true PS3 anymore, and it still lacks the necessary RAM to play. This generation of consoles focused solely on processors and graphics cards, and have NO RAM. That's why you're constantly in a loading screen.
I dunno, if you're typing this on a PC, play it on a PC. (Or a Mac or a Linux or whatever- They're all Personal Computers)
See, I'm kinda with you. I would rather have some mined resource to use for flight, than a mob-based resource. I'll be honest, I hack all my TNT in, because fighting creepers (among other mobs) is a pain. I spend all my time on peaceful. (Air mobs may change that decision, if I get airships)
Still, I like the added option of using a float lizard's gas bladder. Maybe, it could have greater lift than a gas bag, or maybe it'll be more resilient. I don't like removing options, but I like stipulating them. So, maybe, there could be five types of lift:
Hot Air: uses a heat device and a canvas bag- easy to make, little lift
Gas Bag: uses a lighter-than air gas, mined from the earth, and a large canvas bag- harder to make, more lift
Gas Bladder: The float bladder of a Float Lizard (or similar)
Large Gas Bladder: The float bladder of a Skywhale
Floatstone: magical stone, made of [magic stone] and [redstone?]- very hard to make, lots of lift, hard to damage
I guess, it's also possible to implement lift fans, but I didn't want to contemplate how they'd have to work in the game's engine.
As far as the super-entities or whatever are concerned, I think it's a bad idea. (With the same logic as previous statements.) It's the equivalent of having a building super-entity: Instead of actually having to build a shelter you just place one! At this point, what are you really building, if anything?
Of course, people will point out that you really can't build a working boat. So this is where I think we can make a REAL improvement: Maybe turn a bit towards GM ideology and add some sort of glue or something. And make certian types of blocks that are "freefloating", and able to move around. So maybe we could actually put together our own boat piece by piece?
Just sayin.
Quite the contrary. The entity system he wishes to implement would mean you don't actually place a boat, you have to build one. You gather blocks, then use some as-yet undefined system to place them in whatever shape you want, within a set of rules of reason, then the game will compile the blocks into a single, large entity to be processed, essentially, like a large boat, with its own, unique boundaries and physics. (Game-rendered speed, maneuverability, etcetera) This improves gameplay by adding a feature (I would imagine the original boat wouldn't be removed) that players can either take part in, for their own reward for playing for time and collecting resources, or choose not to, because they don't like the idea.
If adding a gameplay feature comes without subtracting any other, and you don't like the new one, there is no need to complain about it, because you simply don't need to participate in it. If you don't want scuba, don't take scuba. But, if it's possible, and I want it, and many others do, why should your disdain prevent us from our fun? Instead, our fun should be granted, and you should make the decision to use other fun parts of the game engine (such as diving with no scuba) that aren't affected. If I sound like a hypocrite, I don't mean to. I'm only saying adding things lets you choose what you use.
All I gleaned is a bunch of confusion about entities, and a guy who wants rope. (Bondage, anyone?)
To clarify, the system would use entities, made of several physical blocks, as described by RP post there, and the thing about "Block-Grid Entities". This allows the player to be only bound by his creativity and a few laws of physics. It adds vulnerability to points on the structure, without destroying the entire structure.
Rope would be nice, but we need to see the physics implemented first.
As has been stated, above, the problem is, Minecraft was written in the JAVA language. This isn't even an optimal solution on PC, except that it grants cross-platform compatibility. Mac, PC, and Linux can run Java, therefore Minecraft.
Xbox, PS3, DSi, whatever, cannot run JAVA, or do so to a limited extent. This is an issue of software, more than hardware. They're all programmed to run not-JAVA. It's a language barrier.
I can go to Burundi, and while I can be fed and supplied oxygen (as resources to a program), I can't communicate with the people, and I'm uselessly taking up perfectly good Burundian space (haaard driiiiive), when I could be productive in America, England, and Canada, because they all natively speak the same language as me.
As a side note, I really don't like JAVA. While it's theoretically faster, because of JVM optimization, than contemporary languages, every time I run a JAVA program, it runs slower than the same program in a different language, and consumes more system memory.
OK now I understand what you meant. That makes sense.
on topic: For engines, I feel that each individual engine should produce a certain amount of thrust, and should consume a certain amount of fuel per second running, not per block traveled. This causes the weight of the ship to affect acceleration, as well as the shape because of air friction. Also, since engines would be producing a certain amount of thrust based on where they are, you would have to make your ships thrust symmetrical on both sides or else it would turn on its own.
I specifically address why that is the optimal solution in my tl;dr post. Check it, I even have some maths. That said, I didn't have a yaw modifier. Good idea.
As for the test object, it would be harder to implement the physics of a single-object entity to a block entity, than to make up and test physics on and for the latter. There're collision model issues to be taken into account, as well as damage ratios, and mass, and other such maths.
See, that was an idea I'd been tossing around, but that would be more a craftable object, like a boat, than a block entity. And that's the system most of us are shooting for. While its' sound, it's just not the solution I'd like to see.
Hydrogen had always been an idea for gasbag constructions. This gives more lift than hot air balloons, at cost of rarer resources, and the risk of exploding, if it's set on fire.
That said, I think some sort of new block, made of the magic stones, Obsidian, and Redstone, could be used for levitation. At the very least, it would give some use to Obsidian and add some cool use for Redstone.
Godoftheflicker, don't act so offended. People post on ideas that interest them, personally. Most of us are interested in the SSP applications, more than SMP, so that's all we note our opinions on. Your ideas are all about player mentality, and while valid, don't apply to how airships would work and be implemented.
Back to Hydrogen, I don't think a neutral buoyancy system, relying on placing thrusters facing up and down is a good idea, in coding. While it's not especially difficult, it does change up the physics model, and requires more code than making the player have to assume how the system works, further immersing them, in my opinion.
I haven't thought about sail ships, and in the end, that depends on a wind system I don't care to contemplate being implemented.
sails could just act as a low powered engine. if they are "on" (i.e sails deployed) they will just move the vehicle in whichever direction it is facing.
This means you could create vehicles that require little to no power to operate, but would move very slowly.
0
Pics or it didn't happen. Xbox 360's processor and firmware are based on .NET framework, while Minecraft is in JAVA, an OpenGL language. Long and short, it actually can't play Minecraft.
Even if it could, the Xbox 360 only has 512 MB of memory. When I run Minecraft on short-render, it uses up 480,000 kB (480MB), to say nothing of Normal and Far render distances. That leaves a mere 32MB for System Processes. So, the game would have to be even further streamlined, and unload more map at a time than most of us are used to. Maybe, even more than having render distance set to Tiny, depending on how much memory System takes up in the 360.
And the PS3's stats are identical to the 360's, save that it has 50MHz more GPU power.
0
And Boss Mobs are simple? The game isn't simplicity, the game is creativity. It achieves creativity through relative simplicity; that is, it imposes minimal rules upon the player, allowing them to craft to their hearts' content, what they have mined.
Thus, Minecraft.
0
0
0
0
This
But, in all seriousness, the PS3 could theoretically support it, loading the custom linux-based firmware, but then, it's not a true PS3 anymore, and it still lacks the necessary RAM to play. This generation of consoles focused solely on processors and graphics cards, and have NO RAM. That's why you're constantly in a loading screen.
I dunno, if you're typing this on a PC, play it on a PC. (Or a Mac or a Linux or whatever- They're all Personal Computers)
0
Still, I like the added option of using a float lizard's gas bladder. Maybe, it could have greater lift than a gas bag, or maybe it'll be more resilient. I don't like removing options, but I like stipulating them. So, maybe, there could be five types of lift:
Hot Air: uses a heat device and a canvas bag- easy to make, little lift
Gas Bag: uses a lighter-than air gas, mined from the earth, and a large canvas bag- harder to make, more lift
Gas Bladder: The float bladder of a Float Lizard (or similar)
Large Gas Bladder: The float bladder of a Skywhale
Floatstone: magical stone, made of [magic stone] and [redstone?]- very hard to make, lots of lift, hard to damage
I guess, it's also possible to implement lift fans, but I didn't want to contemplate how they'd have to work in the game's engine.
0
Quite the contrary. The entity system he wishes to implement would mean you don't actually place a boat, you have to build one. You gather blocks, then use some as-yet undefined system to place them in whatever shape you want, within a set of rules of reason, then the game will compile the blocks into a single, large entity to be processed, essentially, like a large boat, with its own, unique boundaries and physics. (Game-rendered speed, maneuverability, etcetera) This improves gameplay by adding a feature (I would imagine the original boat wouldn't be removed) that players can either take part in, for their own reward for playing for time and collecting resources, or choose not to, because they don't like the idea.
If adding a gameplay feature comes without subtracting any other, and you don't like the new one, there is no need to complain about it, because you simply don't need to participate in it. If you don't want scuba, don't take scuba. But, if it's possible, and I want it, and many others do, why should your disdain prevent us from our fun? Instead, our fun should be granted, and you should make the decision to use other fun parts of the game engine (such as diving with no scuba) that aren't affected. If I sound like a hypocrite, I don't mean to. I'm only saying adding things lets you choose what you use.
0
To clarify, the system would use entities, made of several physical blocks, as described by RP post there, and the thing about "Block-Grid Entities". This allows the player to be only bound by his creativity and a few laws of physics. It adds vulnerability to points on the structure, without destroying the entire structure.
Rope would be nice, but we need to see the physics implemented first.
0
Xbox, PS3, DSi, whatever, cannot run JAVA, or do so to a limited extent. This is an issue of software, more than hardware. They're all programmed to run not-JAVA. It's a language barrier.
I can go to Burundi, and while I can be fed and supplied oxygen (as resources to a program), I can't communicate with the people, and I'm uselessly taking up perfectly good Burundian space (haaard driiiiive), when I could be productive in America, England, and Canada, because they all natively speak the same language as me.
As a side note, I really don't like JAVA. While it's theoretically faster, because of JVM optimization, than contemporary languages, every time I run a JAVA program, it runs slower than the same program in a different language, and consumes more system memory.
0
I specifically address why that is the optimal solution in my tl;dr post. Check it, I even have some maths. That said, I didn't have a yaw modifier. Good idea.
As for the test object, it would be harder to implement the physics of a single-object entity to a block entity, than to make up and test physics on and for the latter. There're collision model issues to be taken into account, as well as damage ratios, and mass, and other such maths.
0
0
0
That said, I think some sort of new block, made of the magic stones, Obsidian, and Redstone, could be used for levitation. At the very least, it would give some use to Obsidian and add some cool use for Redstone.
Godoftheflicker, don't act so offended. People post on ideas that interest them, personally. Most of us are interested in the SSP applications, more than SMP, so that's all we note our opinions on. Your ideas are all about player mentality, and while valid, don't apply to how airships would work and be implemented.
Back to Hydrogen, I don't think a neutral buoyancy system, relying on placing thrusters facing up and down is a good idea, in coding. While it's not especially difficult, it does change up the physics model, and requires more code than making the player have to assume how the system works, further immersing them, in my opinion.
0
You make a very good point.