Official Everybody Edits Forums

Trytu

Member

From: Poland

Joined: 2017-12-10

Posts: 816

sub-switch/section switch

The sugestion:
Add second switch - sub-switch
sub-switch doesn't change state of any switches, but change the "section" of the switches
Section is a logical place "which switches you're changing"
that mean, when you change section, physical coordinates doesn't change, but you changing "different switches"
that saves space, because you don't have to add another switches, to do simmilar to each things, like switching switches, but in other place
then you only have to plase sub-switch, trigger it, and switch them in same place

▼Section

▼Now

There is only one section "default", and you have 1000 different switches on them:

Section 1
[0]
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[...]
[999]

▼Sub-Doors/Gates

Doors and gates'll have 2 ID's
The Section ID and the Switch ID
if specified switch from specified section is turned on/off, then door/gate change its state

▼Suggestion

There would be multiple sections with switches
you can have only one of the section turned on

Section1   Section2   Section3   Section4   Section...
[0]        [0]        [0]        [0]        [0]
[1]        [1]        [1]        [1]        [1]
[2]        [2]        [2]        [2]        [2]        
[3]        [3]        [3]        [3]        [3]        
[4]        [4]        [4]        [4]        [4]        
[5]        [5]        [5]        [5]        [5]        
[6]        [6]        [6]        [6]        [6]        
[...]      [...]      [...]      [...]      [...]      
[999]      [999]      [999]      [999]      [999]      

▼Images

What that suggestion allows:
-easily do "for" loop without adding so much place
-making typewriter map, without so much switches

it's hard to describe this... i hope someone'll understand and maybe do simmilar suggestion, but better explained :S
Any questions?

---

Thanks to Nikko99 for signature
https: //media.discordapp.net/attachments/402174325349941249/482121641745186816/KHiX2DEFewAAAABJRU5ErkJggg.png
https: //i.imgur.com/YFtzyXA.png

LukeM

Member

From: England

Joined: 2016-06-03

Posts: 3,009

Website

Re: sub-switch/section switch

Generally we (or at least I) believe that we should try to keep mechanics simple, the complexity should come from how you combine the simple mechanics into bigger things. Currently this would already be possible by having switch copiers that copy the sections from 'memory' to and from a 'live' set of switches. Although doing this would be slower and take up more space, you'd probably use things like this rarely enough that it wouldn't be worth it to add a dedicated feature to do it (if you specifically added features to do everything you'd occasionally want to do, you'd end up with a needlessly complicated system that nobody could really understand )

peace

Member

From: admin land

Joined: 2015-08-10

Posts: 9,226

Re: sub-switch/section switch

your image is weird the doords never openend

---

thanks hg for making this much better and ty for my avatar aswell

azurepudding

Member

Joined: 2016-11-18

Posts: 726

Re: sub-switch/section switch

Is 999 not enough?  Double IDs get confusing..

You could have IDs with letters if you want even more.  So AAA and BBB would be IDs, and so would 12C, B7C, MP3, and so on.  That would increase the ID possibilities from 1,000 to 47,988, I think, while still being 3 "digits" only.

---

peace

Member

From: admin land

Joined: 2015-08-10

Posts: 9,226

Re: sub-switch/section switch

Is 999 not enough?  Double IDs get confusing..

You could have IDs with letters if you want even more.  So AAA and BBB would be IDs, and so would 12C, B7C, MP3, and so on.  That would increase the ID possibilities from 1,000 to 47,988, I think, while still being 3 "digits" only.

lets doubele that we have uppercase and lwower case and allow 001 for exmaple too

---

thanks hg for making this much better and ty for my avatar aswell

Trytu

Member

From: Poland

Joined: 2017-12-10

Posts: 816

Re: sub-switch/section switch

Generally we (or at least I) believe that we should try to keep mechanics simple, the complexity should come from how you combine the simple mechanics into bigger things. Currently this would already be possible by having switch copiers that copy the sections from 'memory' to and from a 'live' set of switches. Although doing this would be slower and take up more space, you'd probably use things like this rarely enough that it wouldn't be worth it to add a dedicated feature to do it (if you specifically added features to do everything you'd occasionally want to do, you'd end up with a needlessly complicated system that nobody could really understand )

Currently i suggested that because normally, when i want to repeat something in switch system i need copy that system in another place. That cost time to build and much space when that repeated system is preety big.
You said, that doing it normally would be slower than my suggestion - it wouldn't, repeated thing in both cases last same amout of time.

Is 999 not enough?  Double IDs get confusing..

You could have IDs with letters if you want even more.  So AAA and BBB would be IDs, and so would 12C, B7C, MP3, and so on.  That would increase the ID possibilities from 1,000 to 47,988, I think, while still being 3 "digits" only.

like i said i didn't want more switches,
i do want repeatable way to go through the part of the system in one interval to second and next intervals, without copying whole of it.
double switch system easily move between next and next pat of the system, using only first interval of switches.
changing section, change the interval,
changing switches in each section changes the block states

---

Thanks to Nikko99 for signature
https: //media.discordapp.net/attachments/402174325349941249/482121641745186816/KHiX2DEFewAAAABJRU5ErkJggg.png
https: //i.imgur.com/YFtzyXA.png

LukeM

Member

From: England

Joined: 2016-06-03

Posts: 3,009

Website

Re: sub-switch/section switch

▼LukeM wrote:

Generally we (or at least I) believe that we should try to keep mechanics simple, the complexity should come from how you combine the simple mechanics into bigger things. Currently this would already be possible by having switch copiers that copy the sections from 'memory' to and from a 'live' set of switches. Although doing this would be slower and take up more space, you'd probably use things like this rarely enough that it wouldn't be worth it to add a dedicated feature to do it (if you specifically added features to do everything you'd occasionally want to do, you'd end up with a needlessly complicated system that nobody could really understand )

Currently i suggested that because normally, when i want to repeat something in switch system i need copy that system in another place. That cost time to build and much space when that repeated system is preety big.
You said, that doing it normally would be slower than my suggestion - it wouldn't, repeated thing in both cases last same amout of time.

I guess it depends on your priorities, if you just directly copied the system multiple times then it would take up a lot more space, but as you say would be just as fast. You could also implement the 'section' system by copying for example switches 100-199 into locations 0-99, and just having one copy of the large system for switches 0-99 (then I guess copying the switches back after the system has done what it needs to do). This way would be slower as it takes time to copy switches from one place to another, but if the main system was large, then you would be saving a lot of space, as copiers can be made pretty small.