Information

Minecraft version: 1.12+
Modloader: Forge / Fabric

Mod name: Nether Portal Spread

Feature description

In the ".config/netherportalspread/spreadsettings.txt" file, users are unable (so far as I've tried) to specify block data for certain blocks that have different variants depending on their block data. This seems like a small feature but some mods use block data a bit too heavily; Thermal Foundation uses it for pretty much everything, specifically their ores which all use "thermalfoundation:ore". without the ability to differentiate the vastly different blocks, some immersion could be broken due to this and the ore will have to be left alone completely. If there isn't already a way to do this it would be nice if it could be added in if possible.

Maybe support for ore dictionaries would be a good idea too.

Hey!

I appreciate the suggestion! While I'd love to add all features submitted on the issue-tracker, I've got to prioritize working on them due to having limited time. In order to see which features users would like to see most, I've created https://serilum.com/mods/requests, which shows a table with all feature request submitted.

I'm aware that this is not the reaction you were looking for, but the reality is that I can't keep up with the demand. I try to do as much as I can.

Users are able to upvote requests by reacting to the first issue comment on this GitHub page with one of the 👍 😀 🎉 ❤️ 🚀 👀 emoji's. The request with the most unique reactions, will be shown at the top. You can of course add the reactions yourself too, but don't have to :). The author of the feature is already counted as +1.

I won't only focus on popular features in the upcoming years, but it does help with prioritizing. I'll probably work on a combination of popular and interesting/needed/fun submissions.

I'll close this issue with "not planned" as a way to separate an open feature request from an actual completed issue. This does not actually mean it's not planned! Incompatibilities and bug reports will still remain open.

When the feature is implemented, I'll again post a comment and close it as "completed".

Thank you for taking the time to submit the suggestion! ❤️

In general, this entire issue is a duplicate of #246, so if you, @ShadyPlar, just like me, are still interested in having this implemented, please upvote the aforementioned GitHub issue.

Maybe support for ore dictionaries would be a good idea too.

This, in turn, has already been reported as #151. If you'd like, you can also vote for it at this link, and I strongly encourage you to do so :)