How would i make a falling block out of this block class? I have tried extending FallingBlock instead of BlockBase, but then the

super(name, material)

gets messed up.

Here is my block class:

Spoiler

package com.artemaniac.islands.blocks;

import net.minecraft.block.BlockFalling;
import net.minecraft.block.SoundType;
import net.minecraft.block.material.Material;
import net.minecraft.init.Blocks;

public class BeachSand extends BlockBase
{
	public BeachSand(String name, Material material)
	{
		super(name, material);
		
		setSoundType(SoundType.SAND);
		setHardness(0.5F);
		setResistance(2.5F);
		setHarvestLevel("spade", 0);
	}
}

 

Thanks in advance!

Edited August 20, 20187 yr by cherrylime

9 minutes ago, cherrylime said:

BlockBase, but then the

super(name, material)

gets messed up.

Learn Java. Constructors and supers are basics of polymorphism.

26 minutes ago, Animefan8888 said:

Learn Java. Constructors and supers are basics of polymorphism.

I just don't know what class I should extend or what I should do. This is not a problem with not knowing java, it's just not knowing forge, which is what this forum is about.

Edited August 19, 20187 yr by cherrylime

17 minutes ago, cherrylime said:

I just don't know what class I should extend or what I should do. This is not a problem with not knowing java, it's just not knowing forge, which is what this forum is about.

Well if you want the functionality of BlockFalling you have to have the code in it apply to your block. Which normally means to extend it, but you also want the functionality of your BlockBase class. So here your solution would be recreating the constructor to simulate your BlockBase while extending BlockFalling or recreating the functionality of BlockFalling and extend BlockBase. The first one being the easiest.

 

Ultimately a Java problem not a forge problem.

Edited August 20, 20187 yr by Animefan8888

1 hour ago, cherrylime said:

BlockBase

This is an antipattern. You should never need to create your own "base" block class separate from vanilla.

13 minutes ago, Draco18s said:

This is an antipattern. You should never need to create your own "base" block class separate from vanilla.

I don't see this being ineffective or in any way counterproductive. It might need a rename of sorts, maybe "DecorativeBlock". Seeing as how it is useful for simple stuff such as Solid Blocks IE a solid block of steel. But it is more simply a way to cut down on writing similar code.

7 minutes ago, Animefan8888 said:

I don't see this being ineffective or in any way counterproductive. It might need a rename of sorts, maybe "DecorativeBlock". Seeing as how it is useful for simple stuff such as Solid Blocks IE a solid block of steel. But it is more simply a way to cut down on writing similar code.

Having a common class for related functionality is fine.

But by making all of your blocks extend BlockBase which extends Block, you've locked yourself out of extending other vanilla blocks (like BlockFalling).

BlockBase does nothing for a modder. I don't use it and my mod works just fine.

2 minutes ago, Draco18s said:

But by making all of your blocks extend BlockBase which extends Block, you've locked yourself out of extending other vanilla blocks (like BlockFalling).

So the problem isn't having a class like BlockBase, but with how a lot of people are using it.

3 minutes ago, Draco18s said:

I don't use it and my mod works just fine.

Well of course it does. ?

26 minutes ago, Animefan8888 said:

So the problem isn't having a class like BlockBase, but with how a lot of people are using it.

Block is already a "BlockBase" class.