New Plot o' logic layout feedbackerino

[Nuuppanaani]

The new POL is not yet set up but it will be in a day or two. However, we're unaware on the layout we're going for.

I propose this:

4 different sections

• Stuff with pistons
  
• Pistonless horizontal
  
• Pistonless diagonal
  
• Pistonless vertical
  

Then those are divided into smaller sub-categories, like different gates, adders, memory etc.

Nick proposed we should do the same, but with 2 sections:

• Piston stuff
  
• Pistonless stuff
  

We want your opinions on this so we don't have to arm wrestle / duel in quake etc.

What layout?
What sections?
Section for hex logic?
Wut? Wut? Wut?

[LordDecapo]

FIGHT TO THE DEATH TO DECIDE!
ready....
set....
GO!

[Apuly]

However, we're unaware on the layout we're going for.

Grammer. doo u skeek iit?

[slugdude]

Section for minecart logic and another section for water item logic and another section for zombie logic.

Jk, but if we have a section for everything we'd need POL to be the size of about 100 plots. I think Nick's is better since yours seems to put extra space to pistonless logic, which will make piston fanatics (like crazy) annoyed.

[Nuuppanaani]

Section for minecart logic and another section for water item logic and another section for zombie logic.

Jk, but if we have a section for everything we'd need POL to be the size of about 100 plots. I think Nick's is better since yours seems to put extra space to pistonless logic, which will make piston fanatics (like crazy) annoyed.

Pistonless logic is much more developed, and the designs take more space.

Pistonless logic is more popular too.

[LordDecapo]

However, we're unaware on the layout we're going for.

Grammer. doo u skeek iit?

Pauly, do u grammar? No sure what English ur speaking, but for me that quote is all good. Proper use of a comma And proper use of a conjunction.

Section for minecart logic and another section for water item logic and another section for zombie logic.

Jk, but if we have a section for everything we'd need POL to be the size of about 100 plots. I think Nick's is better since yours seems to put extra space to pistonless logic, which will make piston fanatics (like crazy) annoyed.

Pistonless logic is much more developed, and the designs take more space.

Pistonless logic is more popular too.

2nd this.
piston based stuff is smaller and not as developed, so it doesn't need as much room
 That being said I think you could just make a pistonless section and just give it double the room for ppl to place, then subsections for Diag/vert/horiz

[Nuuppanaani]

What about 1 quarter piston stuff, 1 quarter hex stuff & 1 half pistonless?

[Crazyninja2000]

we should only do redstone based logic, for this is a redstone server. it should be just like the old POL on ORE, grouping everything to AND gates, NOT gates, adders, ect, and not group things into piston and pistonless. even though i like pistons, i dont think we should put in piston only logic.

[Burgled]

Hope this is a bad joke. Things should be grouped by function only not what they happen to be made of. I don't care if some people on the server have a hard on for pistonless stuff. It takes two seconds of looking at something with your eyes to see if there's pistons, why should circuits with pistons be segregated into a corner? Ridiculous.

[Nickster258]

Hope this is a bad joke. Things should be grouped by function only not what they happen to be made of. I don't care if some people on the server have a hard on for pistonless stuff. It takes two seconds of looking at something with your eyes to see if there's pistons, why should circuits with pistons be segregated into a corner? Ridiculous.

^

[Nuuppanaani]

This splits a lot of opinions. Guess I'll have to edit in a poll with the options and see what people find the most convenient. If you have more ideas please post them now.

And of course stuff would still be divided into gates, adders etc. under the main groups.

[GISED_Link]

The new POL is not yet set up but it will be in a day or two. However, we're unaware on the layout we're going for.

I propose this:

4 different sections

• Stuff with pistons
  
• Pistonless horizontal
  
• Pistonless diagonal
  
• Pistonless vertical
  

Then those are divided into smaller sub-categories, like different gates, adders, memory etc.

Nick proposed we should do the same, but with 2 sections:

• Piston stuff
  
• Pistonless stuff
  

~ more ~

I think you are making it wrong. You are dividing the plot according to the Physical technology. And as it was said before, there is more than 2 physical technologies (Hex for example (!) ). See there for more details : http://forum.openredstone.org/showthread.php?tid=6056

According to my post about wiki organization (see http://forum.openredstone.org/showthread.php?tid=6078&pid=37342#pid37342), I think we should divide the four plots by categories. I mean one plot for the components (even there are a lot of kind, they are small, so..), two for the devices, and I let the fourth for other things (water logic, piston only and some other "exotic" things ?)

I think we can seperate the diffrent physical technlogies into the plot by letting a bit of space between the components/devices.

So, my idea is : 

1. Components (with all the using/useful physical technologies)
   
2. Devices 1
   
3. Devices 2
   
4. Exotic diveces (all the un-using/ unuseful physical technogies) (because it's alway fun ^^)
   

So, what do you think about that ?

[PablitaDons]

~stuff~

I think you are making it wrong. You are dividing the plot according to the Physical technology. And as it was said before, there is more than 2 physical technologies (Hex for example (!) ). See there for more details : http://forum.openredstone.org/showthread.php?tid=6056

According to my post about wiki organization (see http://forum.openredstone.org/showthread.php?tid=6078&pid=37342#pid37342), I think we should divide the four plots by categories. I mean one plot for the components (even there are a lot of kind, they are small, so..), two for the devices, and I let the fourth for other things (water logic, piston only and some other "exotic" things ?)

I think we can seperate the diffrent physical technlogies into the plot by letting a bit of space between the components/devices.

So, my idea is : 

1. Components (with all the using/useful physical technologies)
   
2. Devices 1
   
3. Devices 2
   
4. Exotic diveces (all the un-using/ unuseful physical technolies) (because it's alway fun ^^)
   

So, what do you think about that ?

gr8 b8 m8 r8 8/8

[Nuuppanaani]

The new POL is not yet set up but it will be in a day or two. However, we're unaware on the layout we're going for.

I propose this:

4 different sections

• Stuff with pistons
  
• Pistonless horizontal
  
• Pistonless diagonal
  
• Pistonless vertical
  

Then those are divided into smaller sub-categories, like different gates, adders, memory etc.

Nick proposed we should do the same, but with 2 sections:

• Piston stuff
  
• Pistonless stuff
  

~ more ~

I think you are making it wrong. You are dividing the plot according to the Physical technology. And as it was said before, there is more than 2 physical technologies (Hex for example (!) ). See there for more details : http://forum.openredstone.org/showthread.php?tid=6056

According to my post about wiki organization (see http://forum.openredstone.org/showthread.php?tid=6078&pid=37342#pid37342), I think we should divide the four plots by categories. I mean one plot for the components (even there are a lot of kind, they are small, so..), two for the devices, and I let the fourth for other things (water logic, piston only and some other "exotic" things ?)

I think we can seperate the diffrent physical technlogies into the plot by letting a bit of space between the components/devices.

So, my idea is : 

1. Components (with all the using/useful physical technologies)
   
2. Devices 1
   
3. Devices 2
   
4. Exotic diveces (all the un-using/ unuseful physical technogies) (because it's alway fun ^^)
   

So, what do you think about that ?

Can I have examples of what exactly is a component and what is a device?

[Legofreak]

I wouldn't mind a hex section...

that's the only place where I would put stuff... lol

[LordDecapo]

we can do this, but i say change 1 thing. split every category into 3 different border colors (so like the lines in ground that border the device). and border Horiz. Vert. and Diag. in those 3 different colors.

[Crazyninja2000]

we should not group things of what they are made of or what their architecture is but what there function is. i think we should have a gates section, an adder section, a memory section, and a miscellaneous section.

the gates section would have sub sections like OR, NOR, AND, NAND, XOR, XNOR, and NOT.

the adders section would have sub sections like RCA, ICA, CLA, CLE, and what ever other types of adders people have made.

the memory section would have sub sections like flip flops and latches.

the miscellaneous would have any sub sections that dont fit into any category(like program counters and clocks).

we should leave extra room for sections in case if there is a new sub section.

[Nickster258]

Maybe we can setup a warp system of sorts? /waro pol_alu_nickster258_pistonless ? Add tags for specific things. Doesn't even need to be a warp system. It can be a basic block / bright block that denotes "piston" vs "pistonless". As crazy said, I too do not like the "segregation" of one type of part to the other.

[LordDecapo]

Do you still have that bot running nick? If so, can we give it a @POL command? Then it will PM you a list of categories and you can the do something like @Hex, then @Adders and the final one will list all devises and give you a "warp key" to go to that device...

Hell tell me where the config file is and I can program that.

[Crazyninja2000]

why do you need to warp to something when you can just fly around checking them out. i would not like to do ./warp pol_ICA_ALU_<name> each time to check out all of the ICA ALUs. the warp is only good when you know the specific component you want.

[Nickster258]

The idea I had was basically 'tagging' devices. Be it through the bot or warps, I don't like the segregation of components into different construction types. Being able to go through PoL and find all the XOR gates shouldn't be hard. Any easy demotion of piston vs pistonless should suffice.

[PablitaDons]

we should absolutely never make the warp system so that you can find specific things. I would rather make the warp system so you can warp to specific categories, for example: /warp POL_<section>_<subsection>_<subsubsection>
but also make it so that it doesn't always have to include all 3 sections in the warp, but also make warps where you simply get to the main sections with /warp POL_<section>

I wouldn't mind taking a few mintues to create some, but it must be settled first and names should be set as well.

[GISED_Link]

The idea I had was basically 'tagging' devices. Be it through the bot or warps, I don't like the segregation of components into different construction types. Being able to go through PoL and find all the XOR gates shouldn't be hard. Any easy demotion of piston vs pistonless should suffice.

I can understand why you seperate the pison logic with the pistonless one. But I think that the lambda user will not care about if a circuit is with piston or not. The lambda user will maybe search the best design for its project, independent of the physical technology. If he has to go each time on 2 diffrent plots to search the best component... It's boring.

I think we can start at the first plot, place all the logic component (begining wit the logic gates), then the latches, then the adders, etc etc etc like the first PoL. I have listed all the known diveces, so it will be easy to divide the plots. And if it miss a kind of devices, we only have to //move all the device and create a space.

By flying above all the devices, it will be easy to find the target categories. So for the warp, I think we don't need it. But describe correctly the divice with signs is really important. 

[Crazyninja2000]

we should absolutely never make the warp system so that you can find specific things. I would rather make the warp system so you can warp to specific categories, for example: /warp POL_<section>_<subsection>_<subsubsection>
but also make it so that it doesn't always have to include all 3 sections in the warp, but also make warps where you simply get to the main sections with /warp POL_<section>

I wouldn't mind taking a few mintues to create some, but it must be settled first and names should be set as well.

this is a great idea to set up the warps. i would like to browse the different components and not have to know the specific component to get to it. 

[Tommyand]

I must agree with the other people in here that think that this shouldn't be segregated into broad physical categories. If needed, we can have it be a subsubsubsection (or something like that.) But that might be going too far anywats, don't you think?