/particle's iconcrack no longer supports data values
Previously, the following would allow the use of Damage values for iconcrack particles:
/particle iconcrack_1_3 ~ ~1 ~ 0 0 0 0 1
However, the new /particle syntax does not allow for anything other than an integer, so the original format is unusable. Only regular stone can be created:
/particle iconcrack ~ ~1 ~ 0 0 0 0 1 @a 1
The format for blockdust and blockcrack (blockId | (metaData << 12) via MC-61033) also cannot work with iconcrack.
Checking the 15w50a source (class bks) shows that it's still expecting two input values, but the second always defaults to 0. The /particle command class (au) no longer provides a second value. Possible fix is a secondary parameter after the first in the syntax, though may be short-lived via this comment.
Created Issue:
/particle's iconcrack no longer supports data values
Previously, the following would allow the use of Damage values for iconcrack particles:
/particle iconcrack_1_3 ~ ~1 ~ 0 0 0 0 1However, the new /particle syntax does not allow for anything other than an integer, so the original format is unusable. Only regular stone can be created:
/particle iconcrack ~ ~1 ~ 0 0 0 0 1 @a 1The format for blockdust and blockcrack (blockId | (metaData << 12) via
MC-61033) also cannot work with iconcrack.
Previously, the following would allow the use of Damage values for iconcrack particles:
/particle iconcrack_1_3 ~ ~1 ~ 0 0 0 0 1However, the new /particle syntax does not allow for anything other than an integer, so the original format is unusable. Only regular stone can be created:
/particle iconcrack ~ ~1 ~ 0 0 0 0 1 @a 1The format for blockdust and blockcrack (blockId | (metaData << 12) via
MC-61033) also cannot work with iconcrack.Checking the 15w50a source (class bks) shows that it's still expecting two input values, but the second always defaults to 0. The /particle command class (au) no longer provides a second value. Possible fix is a secondary parameter after the first in the syntax, though may be short-lived via this comment.
You mess up some parameter, look at the command prototype :
And here is a working command :
@mrpingouin1, Woops, missed the normal/force. I guess that's why I couldn't get a secondary parameter working, thanks! (This ticket can be closed as invalid)