When moving blocks with pistons they change their behaviors while being moved.
In some - not all - cases it would make sense and remove some bugs if the moving block took some of the properties of the block inside it.
Here is an incomplete list of the properties that could be considered.
⚠️ Please note that each of these should be well thought about and discussed, as there is also great potential to introduce new bugs.
Behavior | Related Issues | Comment |
---|---|---|
Light opacity | Can cause flickering and a waste of performance due to unnecessary light updates in flying machines | |
Solid top | Could fix Rails popping out on finishing moving, returning solid for the moving block seems odd though, because when it starts moving there is certainly no solid top on the target side | |
Solid/Transparent block | Would break a well known and used redstone behavior | |
Visual Transparency | ||
Slipperiness | Basically just matters for ice, but would make sense | |
OnFallenUpon Behavior | MC-89043 (not the same cause) | e.g. slimeblocks should bounce players up while moving |
Blast resistance | Sometimes used to easily break blocks, kind of a cool quirk | |
Redstone power output | Frequently used redstone behaviour | |
Emitted light | ||
3rd person camera behavior | ||
Sculk sensor vibration blocking | ||
Block material/note block instrument | ||
Tinted glass for beacon beam color | beacons cannot quickly change colors with fast pistons |
❓ What else could be considered?
Another option would be to start using the holding block's behaviors once the block moved half the way, but it seems odd and might not be supported by the underlying structure to have changing behaviors without changing the block state like that.
:info: These issues are generally not vitally important, however I think they are worth considering for potential systematic changes regarding moving blocks.
Related issues
is duplicated by
relates to
Attachments
Comments


Relates to MC-93631.

This also includes moving a redstone block from next to one redstone dust to being next to another redstone dust (which are connected), right?
Yes.
I'm not sure if it should be like that, but that's true for many of the things listed here. In some cases issues can be avoided by passing the properties of the block it holds through, in other cases it is probably for the best to let moving block have their own properties.

Might want to add "redstone power output" to that list because of fabian's reply back in juli. 🙂

I know this is an older thread, but in 1.16.1 Ancient debris currently loses blast resistance when moving.

Wool does not incur vibrations when pushed. See MC-213587

Can confirm in 21w05b

"Community consensus" means less than "Confirmed". It's for bugs that are reported often, but no mod or helper was yet able to reproduce it. I'm not sure what you understand under that term, but it definitely doesn't mean "please leave this bug because many people like to abuse it". That is not a supported usecase.

Can confirm in 1.17.1.

can confirm in 1.18.1

Add the line
Block material/note block instrument |

I would have to say some issues listed here are really "hijacked" by other issues. Though some issues are indeed potentially used in a lot of redstone contraptions, but there are others that make complete sense to redstone users if fixed.
Just like MC-250307 (Block material/note block instrument), this behavior restricts the possibilty of note block based block sorter, that half of its functionality is blocked due to the incorrect redstone signal triggered by moving piston block.
This behavior could have been easily fixed by ignoring the instrument update from moving piston block in note block's implementation, just along with some other note block updates introduced in 1.19 (and thus made possible to a efficient clay-based mud farm), but after placing it in this general issue, it is really "hijacked" by other issues that contains side effect and thus prevented from being fixed forever if no such "community consensus" could be reached.

yea na this would break basically everything

Do the following images demonstrate the transparent rendering issue mentioned in this ticket, or is that a different issue entirely?
[media][media]
[media]
[media]

Yes, that's it. The duplicate report linked here has a video attached. Maybe a better wording would be "rendering of connected faces of transparent blocks of the same type".