komaramune
Assigned
Reported
Comments
I have provided feedback on this issue in the feedback Discord server.
If this issue concerns you, please consider voting or sharing your thoughts there.
I am very glad that this bug was fixed.
Don't be so sad, It is just that returned to the original state.
Finally I came to be able to summon falling_block without worrying that falling_block will continue to increase in the world.
Oh I'm sorry, I seem to had misunderstood the specification.
However, I think that it is more convenient to have specifications that can acquire the number of matches.
This bug has not been fixed yet.
If the blocks in the range match, the number of matches is returned, but if they do not match, 0 is returned.
It seems that code modification is incomplete.
I think this "bug" is very serious.
The falling_block that got into this state is very difficult to remove.
This bug often occurs when falling_block is used with a command.
@violine1101
It's a great!
I thank you for being writen appropriate sentences instead of me.
@violine1101
I hope that a way to rotate and move twice even if the bug is fixed be added.
In the current specification, I have to create a function each time.
@violine1101
It was my misunderstanding about rotation. I forgot that the angle of tp is strange. Stupid me too.
But it shows that the phenomenon is more strange.
Even though it rotates twice, it rotates only once.
@violine1101
Perhaps you are doing it in a world where there is no one other than yourself?
My writing is based on the assumption that there are two or more entities.
@violine1101
I'm sorry. There was wasted space in the command.
execute @e[c=2] ~ ~ ~ tp @p ~1 ~ ~ ~90 ~This command is valid in 1.12.
With this command, you will move two blocks and rotate 180 °.
Of course, I am aware of that change.
However, I interpreted the description to imply clamping within the absolute range of -90 to 90 degrees.
I understand the necessity of restricting the entity's angle to ensure it remains within a valid orientation range of -90 to 90 degrees, but is it truly necessary to impose a limit on the angle for a single rotation of the entity?