Read by Council Grid based logic computer system

[Parameter]

DukeofRealms, you're awesome. Thanks for the quick response!

BDLS, what say you? Is this thread worthy of merging with yours?

 

[BDLS]

Make it so.

 

[spunkiethefirst]

Instead of just a 2D grid, how about an instanced 3D space that pops up on a specialized fabricator block? Kind of like how shipyards are thought to be for building blueprints?

Fabricator blocks make blank circuit board meta-items of varying capacity (the more of whatever resource is used for them, the larger the grid dimensions), and afterward they can be edited at the fabricator adding in logic blocks. Then those circuit boards can be accepted into a function block (maybe call it a logic controller instead because it would sound cooler?). Anything connected to or from the function block can be managed inside of the function block itself via a side menu and linked virtually.

Would this be a suitable variant of BDLS' original idea in the OP? Logic meta items could allow for easy importing and exporting of logic systems as well. It would be cool to see competing standards between players and give a breather to the new players who can't into logic as well.

Making it a 3d space would maintain familiarity, and if you wanted you could work 2 dimensionally within it, which would also remove having to make a special 2d gui for it.

I would limit the inputs/outputs that show up in the programming space to only those logic modules linked to the computer, and within the programming space they are shown with their entity relative coords and a color highlight or tint. All the other modules in the space would be used for processing. Module placement would be best served by using the free air placement method of placing the core in "create docking" making it unnecessary to place blocks touching each other.

For those not familiar with entity relative coords:
The entity relative coords are shown when you hold right shift while looking at a block in build or astronaut mode.

 

[Magrim]

I was about to post a suggestion very similar to the op but found this. So instead of making a new one I'll put my thoughts here.

tldr:
3d space to maintain familiarity.
Don't create more blocks. Add functionality to existing blocks.
Circuit and charged circuit blocks house the logic.
Drop them into a shipyard to build your holographic logic circuit
Display modules execute lua scripts and control the inputs and outputs of the circuit block.

The ability to put more complex circuits on smaller ships without taking up tons of space not only make sense from an RP technological standpoint but also gives this suggestion a great amount of merit and should be taken seriously by the devs.

If this does become a thing then it should remain as familiar as possible, which is why a 3D space would probably be best. I don't think we should take away the ability to place logic blocks like we can now either. If someone wants to put their complicated hanger control circuit under the floor of their hanger then by all means go nuts but, you could take the same circuit and put it into a single controlling block and save space. BTW if implemented all logic blocks placed "normally" should have zero mass in order to maintain balance between these two methods.

We don't need to add another block to the game to make this a reality. We just need to add functionality to already existing blocks. Take the circuit and charged circuit blocks for instance, it makes the most sense to me that they should be the blocks that house the logic circuit. Place one of these blocks into the shipyard computer or maybe the anchor, I'm not sure which. Then you build your holographic circuit the same way you do a ship. While building your logic circuit in this way you will have the ability to tag and label inputs and outputs so that after you've placed your charged circuit block on your ship, pressing c or v opens a drop-down menu of all the inputs or outputs you labeled

I chose the shipyard so as to avoid any instanced "computer worlds" because Schema has said many times he will not do instances.

Compute blocks could optimize logic calculations. When a user exits compute mode, the game creates a BooleanLogic object under the hood to call instead of simulating logic blocks.

I know nothing about code but, if this is true and can be done with extremely complicated logic, then this reason alone is enough for me to say do it.

As far as adding a programming language to the game, lua seems to be what most people want, and I seem to recall Schema himself mentioning it. I may be unknowingly putting my foot in my mouth here but, lets say we add some functionality to the display module. We give it the ability to execute scripts and also give it the ability to link to and control the inputs and outputs of the circuit block along with the ability to display what is going on. So that instead of pressing c or v on the circuit itself and using the drop down menu, all the inputs and outputs are run through the display module in a neat gui.

With all that being said I do see an issue with testing and troubleshooting logic circuits being built in the shipyard. I don't readily see a solution to this, maybe you guys can come up with something.

 

[<SCRIPTKITTY>]

Logic and computers?*shrugs*

Why not both?
*Mexican music plays*

 

[Ithirahad]

Reminds me of Lego Mindstorms programming. Though I do not approve of this suggestion because:
1) It removes the ability to have a dedicated logic/computer room (debatable, since computers you suggested would still require space)

With RP you can have this anyway; multiple computers would still be needed regardless. In the end it would look a lot better than a big logic room.

2) Since everything is condensed into one block, you can't partially destroy a logic system, which could lead to some interesting malfunctions (for example, you take out a chunk of a mech's leg and it starts twitching due to the logic circuit being damaged). Condensing everything into one block would remove such a posssibility.

Edge case; in practice the logic computers would actually be a much better combat mechanic than current logic, if there's any difference at all. And, fact is, currently, in most cases if you shot out a mech leg it would simply stop moving. (Plus, mechs are useless and impractical in this game just as much as in real life, so they wouldn't see very much combat use anyway. Again - edge case.)

3) I don't know about other people, but to me, this wouldn't make logic any simplier (not that it's too difficult)

Not simpler, but more compact. And compact is god in a game where every block of non-system-or-hull mass counts against you.

Logic and computers?*shrugs*

Why not both?
*Mexican music plays*

Sí, ¿porqué no los dos? Simpler implementations, like an activation block with a NOT gate, are a lot easier than setting that up in a logic computer, so things like that should stay. The computers are for more complicated things.

 

[Magrim]

Do people really not want this? I would think this would receive massive support. What is it that people don't like about it?

Oh yeah...bump

 

[Zaphord]

I'm all for it. If I can add more logic to smaller ships without having them double on size due to logic then all the better.

 

[FatCobra]

This is a great idea. I would love to be able to reduce complicated logic down to a single block.

 

[BDLS]

Maybe someday the council or schine will read it :^)

Also, you guys who want the designing aspect to remain as 3d blocks are crazy. Flat wiring diagrams are easy as pie to construct and read. Although if that's the popular consensus, I can deal with it.

 

[FatCobra]

Another nice thing about having grid based logic is it would be possible to add other logic blocks with out increasing the total blocks used. It would be possible for some blocks to only be in the "grid" XOR or XNOR blocks would be nice.

 

[lilheartless]

Another nice thing about having grid based logic is it would be possible to add other logic blocks with out increasing the total blocks used. It would be possible for some blocks to only be in the "grid" XOR or XNOR blocks would be nice.

not that it would matter if you have unlimited space in the grid you can create complicated circuits using what we do have and be none the worse for wear

 

[StormWing0]

Maybe someday the council or schine will read it :^)

Also, you guys who want the designing aspect to remain as 3d blocks are crazy. Flat wiring diagrams are easy as pie to construct and read. Although if that's the popular consensus, I can deal with it.

It's not that we're crazy it's that it'd be more familiar to us. Also there are some types of logic that can only be constructed in 3D space. You also need a way to account for multiple inputs and outputs. Say you go into the block to select a block than come out to link it to what it needs to be for an output, for input you'd select a block on the outside of the space and go into the block's space and link to an input target there. This would solve the issue of input and output.

 

[BDLS]

I'm a former auto technician and dabble in electronics. I have yet to see a circuit diagram that couldn't be written on a sheet of paper. Even ones with tons of inputs and outputs. Just sayin'. But I'll be the first to admit there's probably something I'm misunderstanding or haven't seen.

 

[Magrim]

Maybe someday the council or schine will read it :^)

Also, you guys who want the designing aspect to remain as 3d blocks are crazy. Flat wiring diagrams are easy as pie to construct and read. Although if that's the popular consensus, I can deal with it.

I know dick about actual circuits but, I assume it's similar to Starmade logic, correct me if I'm wrong though. So, if that is the case, cant we have it both ways? Wouldn't you be able to place the blocks all on the same plane without having to worry about the spread out nature of it because it will all be contained in one circuit block?

 

[Parameter]

I'm a former auto technician and dabble in electronics. I have yet to see a circuit diagram that couldn't be written on a sheet of paper. Even ones with tons of inputs and outputs. Just sayin'. But I'll be the first to admit there's probably something I'm misunderstanding or haven't seen.

You can represent any circuit on a piece of paper, but as someone who's done printed circuit board layouts I can tell you there is a reason there are 2,4,&6+ layer circuit boards. Sometimes layouts just need to cross wires. In 2d space we can use junction dots to indicate wires that touch, and don't just pass over each other, but that can get really complicated for buses or large interconnected logic circuits. If we only had a 2d space for designing, I would at a minimum ask for the ability to make sub circuits, boxes that encapsulated a larger circuit in a single box. That feature would be nice, but not required,imo, for a 3d space, as you have much more space for organizing your logic components.

 

[alterintel]

You can represent any circuit on a piece of paper, but as someone who's done printed circuit board layouts I can tell you there is a reason there are 2,4,&6+ layer circuit boards. Sometimes layouts just need to cross wires. In 2d space we can use junction dots to indicate wires that touch, and don't just pass over each other, but that can get really complicated for buses or large interconnected logic circuits. If we only had a 2d space for designing, I would at a minimum ask for the ability to make sub circuits, boxes that encapsulated a larger circuit in a single box. That feature would be nice, but not required,imo, for a 3d space, as you have much more space for organizing your logic components.

Starting out as an Electronics Tech, and now a Communication Engineer, I have done allot of circuit designs. Some were easy some were very difficult. at Parameter and BDLS, you both have good points. I think we need to reach some kind of half way point.

The biggest reason why real world circuits aren't 3D, is because they have to actually be built in the real world by Machines, Technicians, and Engineers. If there was a cost effective way to build and maintain them in a 3D, then that's the way we would do it. Circuit diagrams are recorded in 2D, because they need to be printed on paper, so that Technicians, and Engineers can read them.

My personal preference would be to have circuits in 2D, but this is only because that's what I'm accustomed to. I'm sure if someone has no other preference, they would learn to design circuits just as easily in 3D (I'm not sure how they would print said circuit on paper, but that's a different issue)

As long as Schema, can figure out a way to make the 3D circuit understandable after it's been built, I think 3D would be fine. The current system of C and V with bars running between blocks can get pretty confusing, it should probably be updated.

 

[BDLS]

Yeah, I'd like 2D with the ability to have multiple pages. Just didn't want it to look the same as building ships currently. But I'm not picky if I can have logic on smaller ships.

 

[FatCobra]

Heck if we do go 2d we could actually just have schematics and a circuit simulator for the grid logic

 

[Zovc]

Ok, think about it this way. You have 3 types of physical blocks: The Input Senders, the Computer Blocks, and the Output Senders.
The Input Senders could be labeled and tracked. Perhaps a special computer (a router) for Wi-Fi signals to be sent, in order for multiple inputs.

So I go into my system. Start designing my logic.. and: oh no, its too big!

So why can't my set up have "choke points"?

This could be where output blocks could be useful. They could be used to choke at a thin part of the operations, for they could relay things exactly as they come in.

So I have an input coming into a not block.. it would turn the not off, and of output, which would consequently changed the next computer in line as if it wasn't there... And since the computer can interpret multiple inputs.. this works.