[1.6.x/1.5.x] Redstone In Motion (Redpower Frames) 2.3.0.0 (October 8)

[jakj]

We have made some cool builds using RiM so we'll probably upload a video where we show them. I'll post it here whenever it's finished )

But I really wish the moveable arm feature to be implemented.

I'll make it so you can control which side(s) of an engine/motor are able to move carriages, allowing you to attach multiple frames to one and have it still work, but I won't be implementing where you can have multiple carriages trigger each other in sequence or all at once. (Basically, though, what you posted in your video will be possible at some point.)

[MehdiSaffar]

Cool. Though the second feature would be greatly appreciated. But nevertheless if you don't feel like implementing it (which is totally fine since it's your mod and I respect your opinion) I think I have an idea of workaround with Carriage controllers

[Jyzarc]

I do like MehdiSaffar's Ideas, that could make awesome builds even cooler

[Viktor_Berg]

I'll make it so you can control which side(s) of an engine/motor are able to move carriages, allowing you to attach multiple frames to one and have it still work, but I won't be implementing where you can have multiple carriages trigger each other in sequence or all at once. (Basically, though, what you posted in your video will be possible at some point.)

I hate harping on about the same thing, but what is it exactly that makes it impossible to have a sequence of carriage motors? Wouldn't it be possible to treat the motor as a simple carriage block (thus connecting any two carriages of the same type) AS LONG AS it doesn't receive any redstone signal? I am not demanding, just asking about why it's not possible.

We don't even need to have this feature for every kind of carriage. Frame carriages are pretty much the only type of carriage where this kind of carriage motor behavior is viable.

[jakj]

I hate harping on about the same thing, but what is it exactly that makes it impossible to have a sequence of carriage motors? Wouldn't it be possible to treat the motor as a simple carriage block (thus connecting any two carriages of the same type) AS LONG AS it doesn't receive any redstone signal? I am not demanding, just asking about why it's not possible.

We don't even need to have this feature for every kind of carriage. Frame carriages are pretty much the only type of carriage where this kind of carriage motor behavior is viable.

Because it isn't intuitive. Putting such a functionality in would immediately generate the desire for three different behaviours: 1) Extra drives act as whatever carriage blocks they happen to be connected to; 2) Extra drives act as specific types of carriage blocks configurable by the user; 3) Extra drives act as they do now. People would also want a way to configure that on a per-drive basis, increasing complexity significantly. Also, the default would have to be for the current behaviour, because as I say it's not intuitive, and there is *no* visual or logical indication of any kind by default that this could possibly be the case.

That rectractable arm can easily be implemented by adding a couple frames to connect the second arm to the first, and all that has to be done is to close some of the sides of the second arm so that the second arm can move freely, but the first arm moving will also move the second arm. There's no reason to open a giant can of worms to solve a few simple engineering problems.

[Viktor_Berg]

Oh, I get it, that would work. Mounting a carriage engine or motor on the first and the second arms would make it possible to move either both arms, or only the second arm. Yeah, that is a possible idea, I didn't realize that an open carriage can drag a closed carriage along with it. That solves everything.

In that case, the only real thing to be solved would be an ability to disable certain sides of the engines/motors, so that they can touch several carriages at the same time without locking up.

[jakj]

Oh, I get it, that would work. Mounting a carriage engine or motor on the first and the second arms would make it possible to move either both arms, or only the second arm. Yeah, that is a possible idea, I didn't realize that an open carriage can drag a closed carriage along with it. That solves everything.

The behaviour of a carriage based on which sides of it are closed depends on the order in which the carriage blocks are processed, which (very roughly) is in a radiating-outward-from-the-original-carriage-block pattern. When you have something as simple as a crane arm, you can 100% guarantee the order of traversal of the blocks along the arm.

So, if the algorithm begins with a carriage block with an open side touching a carriage block with a closed side, it will pick it up without issue, but if it begins with a carriage block with a closed side touching a carriage block with an open side, it will not pick it up. That's why the first arm would carry the second arm but the second arm would not carry the first.

In that case, the only real thing to be solved would be an ability to disable certain sides of the engines/motors, so that they can touch several carriages at the same time without locking up.

This will be implemented.

[MehdiSaffar]

For the simulation flag, true is simulate (don't actually move anything) and false is don't simulate (actually move the carriage).

Simulation ? What do you actually simulate ?

[jakj]

Simulation ? What do you actually simulate ?

It simulates the motion: It does everything as it would if you were trying to move the carriage, except it doesn't actually move it. It tells you what will happen if you do actually try to move it.

[MehdiSaffar]

What kind of information does it return ?

[jakj]

What kind of information does it return ?

The same information returned by trying to move it. The functions are identical except simulate means don't actually carry out the motion. Stop trying to overthink it.

[MehdiSaffar]

I'm not over-thinking it ! I don't understand it ^^

So basically it tells you whether something is blocking it's way or not ? no more ?

[jakj]

I'm not over-thinking it ! I don't understand it ^^

So basically it tells you whether something is blocking it's way or not ? no more ?

Alright, let me try very small words.

The Carriage Controller is designed to move a carriage. If you tell it to move a carriage, either it will be able to move it or it won't be able to move it, so it will either move it or tell you why it can't. If you simulate, it is the same thing. You tell it to move a carriage, either it will be able to move it or it won't be able to move it, so WITHOUT ACTUALLY MOVING IT it will either tell you it can move it or tell you why it can't.

Trust me: You are overthinking this by a fucking mile.

[Viktor_Berg]

I think he was wondering WHAT kind of information the error message will return. I.e. the content of the message.

[jakj]

I think he was wondering WHAT kind of information the error message will return. I.e. the content of the message.

The error message is the error. It tells you what's wrong. It's plain English.

[MehdiSaffar]

I think he was wondering WHAT kind of information the error message will return. I.e. the content of the message.

That's exactly what I was trying to find out! Anyway, point cleared now :)

[Fiberz]

Server crashed with this log, not sure if this is a RIM issue or Thermal Expansion. Server is unable to be started now.

http://pastebin.com/bEDShNhE

[Jyzarc]

the game crashes when I place secret rooms gates on carriages

[jakj]

Server crashed with this log, not sure if this is a RIM issue or Thermal Expansion. Server is unable to be started now.

http://pastebin.com/bEDShNhE

Unfortunately, all this tells me is that somehow one of my tile entities got Frankenstein'd with one of TE's blocks, and not when or how. The best I could suggest is try to reproduce it with as few mods as possible, and see if you can figure out whether some other mod is interfering, or if you could use that to tell me more about what's going on.

To get your world back, delete the block at (194,96,-8215) with a world editor.

the game crashes when I place secret rooms gates on carriages

This is a useless report. Go find a clue, then come back.

[jakj]

By the way, Lethosos, I just now got around to looking at those textures you made. (Yes, just now, I'm *that* lazy. ;-)) And they are really good. For some reason, they make me think of delicious jelly-filled pastries with sprinkled sugar......or maybe I'm just really hungry right now.

Anyway, I'm working on a small update to be put out in the next few days (yay one-month no-update anniversary!) and have added your textures.

[Jyzarc]

This is a useless report. Go find a clue, then come back.

Do you want me to post a log on pastebin? or?

[jakj]

Do you want me to post a log on pastebin? or?

Yes, post the full forge error log to pastebin or send it to me in a private message.

[Lethosos]

By the way, Lethosos, I just now got around to looking at those textures you made. (Yes, just now, I'm *that* lazy. ;-)) And they are really good. For some reason, they make me think of delicious jelly-filled pastries with sprinkled sugar......or maybe I'm just really hungry right now.

Oh great, I passed up some tasty-looking cheese danishes at the Farmer's Market earlier because I didn't need those calories, and now I want them badly.

Anyways, those were fun to make because I didn't have to do much except dip into my assets and go wild. I saw the frames more like boxes than structures, which was a nice departure from the normal empty truss design. Besides, you used wood in the recipes, frames get wood-framed.(I might go and make a second set, just to have fun with shapes and styles, but I would rather finish up Dynasty textures first.)

[Jyzarc]

Here is the crash with secret rooms gates, http://pastebin.com/Aczf9Fza

[jakj]

Here is the crash with secret rooms gates, http://pastebin.com/Aczf9Fza

I told you to post the log, not just clip out the error. But there's some useful information in there, so I'll see what I can do with it. I'll post again if I track down the issue.