Talk:Tutorials/Man-made lake

Hello, I am the writer of this article, and maybe you have noticed that english isn't my first language so please excuse if my text is something clumsy. Anyone who wish to add contents can do so,please just leave the last two sections at the end. Kinperor 15:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to Troagador and Somebody500 for correcting a lot of typos, I appreciate it a lot. Kinperor 17:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to SuperMario12 for making the first schemas looks better, i could then do the same with the second set of schemas. Kinperor 14:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

A good tutorial to create a calm surface, but this leaves a downward current in the water. Generated lakes (or oceans) are all source/spring blocks, not just on the surface. With the downward current it's harder & slower to swim upward. Are there any efficient methods to fill an entire man-made lake with source blocks?  Other than the brute-force method of building from the bottom up with frequent block removal (to have something to place against). Ebkrem 08:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no other method than the brute-force method you said. C ali nou - talk × contribs » 11:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunaly you have to deal with the downward current, which is regretable. However, you can create a collumn of springs with no downward current. I'll add a section about it, I've never really noticed the downward current but now it definitively deserve a mention in the article.Kinperor 16:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Pure Lake
While I'm a little uncertain if the proposed method is really the fastest, I'm certain the statement about the 3x3 square is just plain wrong, because I already did this. You can use a setting like this to fill a vertical 3x3 tube with water (or magma) source blocks:

(Remove the dirt as last step and replace it by water.)

You can also fill up any given shape with water source blocks by using a pattern of alternating lines of air and dirt, filling up the air, then removing the dirt and replacing it block wise. Seems not that impossible to me, but please feel invited to prove me wrong. --Yatsufusa 20:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct and yet incorrect. Correct in the sense that, yes, you can fill your 3x3 space that way, however if you stick to the grid principle I suggested, you're not supposed to make more than a simple grid (except if the lake is oddly shapped), to me it looks more like a awkward way to fill an empty and unreachable block. Actually, if you read the "there are currents" section, one part mostly boil down to "placing blocks until you reach an empty and unreachable way and place a block of water".

There are several ways to go about, and the 2x2 grid is my personnal favorite, but if we took the time to make some math, I think the 3x3 you suggested would be better for bigger pools.

You are also correct about the alternating lines, you can do it that way, and in fact this technique is stated in the first Deep Pool, except that the water fill itself by the way the rows are placed. But those are made to fill a lake from the up to the bottom, and it is very possible to use it to fill from the bottom up.(Except the first level where you have a flat full bottom, this one should always filled with water as it basically fill itself.)

I guesstimated that the grids should be faster on bigger pools, since you have to place only half the rows you would need to in addition to the ones crossing. Let's take a lake of 12. I made a table quickly on excel and at 12 by 12, you need 5 rows to fill the same square pool (60 blocks) and with the grids you need 64 blocks. So it's pretty similar really block wise, and I think the factors in play here are: the size of your sides (odd VS even) and the size of your pool.

In short, both are do-able, it comes down to preference in my opinion.

Feel free to add your section about your way to fill a lake if you think people can profit from it!Kinperor 00:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)