+- Forums - Open Redstone Engineers (https://forum.openredstone.org)
+-- Forum: ORE General (https://forum.openredstone.org/forum-39.html)
+--- Forum: Build Discussion (https://forum.openredstone.org/forum-50.html)
+--- Thread: New Plot o' logic layout feedbackerino (/thread-6174.html)
RE: New Plot o' logic layout feedbackerino - Nickster258 - 04-17-2015
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.
RE: New Plot o' logic layout feedbackerino - PablitaDons - 04-17-2015
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.
RE: New Plot o' logic layout feedbackerino - GISED_Link - 04-17-2015
(04-17-2015, 12:26 PM)Nickster258 Wrote: 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.
RE: New Plot o' logic layout feedbackerino - Crazyninja2000 - 04-18-2015
(04-17-2015, 01:37 PM)PablitaDons Wrote: 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.
RE: New Plot o' logic layout feedbackerino - Tommyand - 04-18-2015
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?