Question about ids, worldedit, and schematics in forge/sponge

Before I start typing, I want to point out i haven’t used forge 1.8 or sponge yet to know if this issue is still relevant. On modded forge 1.7.10 servers, minecraft assigns ids to blocks. If you were to make a new server with more mods the ids will be completely different. This on its own is a pain with saved worldedit schematics, you load in something and have your build turned into… well for me, my build turned into sludge… I believe the ids are stored in the level.dat of each world. The question is, will there ever be a mod/sponge plugin to auto change ids or a way to inject old ids into newer servers to prevent schematic breaking? or has this issue already been resolved in the newer versions?

Bad start, mate. You’re essentially asking people to do your homework for you, because you’re too lazy. Figure asking us is a lot easier than just looking for yourself, eh? Pro-tip, you’ll get no where asking people to do your dirty work for you.

To answer the rest of your question. If it’s possible, then someone will definitely do it. Is it possible? Look for yourself.


prevent schematic breaking

Really what needs to happen is the schematic format (and by that I mean the MCEdit schematic format) needs to be updated in order to store a mapping of id → name which is relevent only in the context of itself, that way even moving between servers the mapping of id → name can be used to turn the byte arrays back into the correct blocks by name instead of making a best guess in a situation where you have no context.

This change has already been discussed at some length in a couple of placed, two that I remembered off the top of my head are here and here.

1 Like

Yea this. Unfortunately we are running into the classic standard competition xkcd: Standards
Regardless of how the mapping ends up serialized though, the biggest issue is that atm minecraft itself doesn’t have a notion of this, and doesn’t really care. It’s completely up to the various users of the schematic format to come up with a way to transfer old to new data.

So, ferus what you’re saying is, no matter if someone has already solved this issue, you think everyone should solve it themselves?

He has every right to ask, if someone’s already fixed this issue before, why reinvent the wheel so to speak?

Eh? No one is asking anyone to re-make anything. I’m asking him to find the answer to his question. The main issue isn’t that any question asked shouldn’t be answered. But readily apparent answers shouldn’t be.

If someone was asking, say, how to develop an algorithm for creating a large cylinder, I’d probably help. It’s a pain in the ass, really, to do that kind of math (especially when you can just ask for the answer).

However, if someone starts off a post with “I haven’t even tried using the software to figure out the answer, but can you tell me?”, I’m going to tell them to go find out for themselves.

EDIT: While the point above is entirely valid, I don’t believe anymore that it’s relevant to this topic.

1 Like

To be fair, I took the first sentence of this topic and misinterpreted the rest of the OP in a negative light. In hindsight, the question is perfectly valid. @Cataclisto if you’re still here, the response that @Deamon gave pretty much sums up the issue.