The Powder Toy

Console particle

  • tomastarkie     7th Oct 2013 Member 0 Permalink

    Thank you all for your feedback, 

    @mniip (View Post)

     I am not too familiar with console commands I must say but that is my point as not everyone knows what they are doing.

    @nijalninja98 (View Post)

     I guess maybe it could have a range and arguments to give it added functionality.

    @xetalim (View Post)

     It seems that way but who knows.

    @FeynmanLogomaker (View Post)

     that is a good point as it could be used to spam or just mess up TPT but to fix it would be just to close and open it again (I think)

  • billion57     8th Oct 2013 Member 0 Permalink

    No

    Jacob1 and Simon rejected it (for no real reason) several times

     

    Edit: Even with a bunch of safety restrictions proposed, so no.

    Edited once by billion57. Last: 8th Oct 2013
  • Incredy     8th Oct 2013 Member 0 Permalink
    This post has been removed by jacob1: arguement
  • xetalim     8th Oct 2013 Member 0 Permalink
    This post has been removed by jacob1: arguement
  • jacob1     8th Oct 2013 Developer 1 Permalink
    ...

    stop arguing over who can reject things, it's much worse than actually rejecting things. Also none of your arguments are valid.

    As for why we aren't adding this, just read https://powdertoy.co.uk/Discussions/Thread/View.html?Thread=15385&PageNum=1#Message=224643

    Edit: Note that I actually like the idea ... i'm just not going to add it to official.
    Edited once by jacob1. Last: 8th Oct 2013
  • tomastarkie     8th Oct 2013 Member 1 Permalink

    @jacob1 (View Post)

     Thank you for that...it was getting rather annoying
    but also thank you for clarifying the reason, he does make some rather good points. 

    Well I tried and I accept defeat with my head high because my idea is a good one but it would mess up a lot.

  • Schneumer     8th Oct 2013 Member 0 Permalink

    there was another thread about this...but as i said overpowered. small phot lasers with....you know

  • china-richway2     12th Oct 2013 Member 0 Permalink

    I has to say that I also thought this was cool too.

    But I had to agree with the developers.

    First of all, it will be hard to store things like strings, there's nowhere to store that in general.

    Second, not everybody learns Lua. This is really annoying to learn, and it is going too far from real life. (Particle type God exists? Build a calculator with just elements like these? @arK is going to cry because he don't has to build his own memory or ALU.)

    Third, it is unsafe to have such an element like this. We have Lua file system that can kill your computer. Socket system that can be used to steal your account. If we don't have any of these this element is going useless.

    I had to say:

    REJECTED.

  • MiningMarsh     12th Oct 2013 Member 1 Permalink

    @china-richway2 (View Post)

     

    I just want to point out how stupid it is to reject just because not everybody will learn lua.

     

    Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea becaue it would have to be heavily sandboxed and would most likely cause compatibility problems in the future, but saying that it is pointless because not everybody learns lua is like saying computers are useless because not everybody can learn how to use a mouse and keyboard.

    Edited once by MiningMarsh. Last: 12th Oct 2013
  • china-richway2     12th Oct 2013 Member 0 Permalink

    @MiningMarsh

    It would be unfair to those who actually use those TPT features to build a computer instead of using Lua.

You need to login before you can post replies