go to x: (0) y: (0) t: (20)

This block would reverse the whole project state back to where it was (t) seconds after the green flag was clicked. This would very be helpful for things like errors.

Support. This would be a very useful block.

We also agree.

EVERY ONE OF US AGREE! ADD THIS NOW!

Do I need to comment that he is talking to himself and says that everyone agree?

No, I don't agree, scrunch already said no to 3d, 4d wouldn't make any sense, as we don't know what it looks like

Does the OP not understand what 4D looks like? Or is this just a prank? 3D Scratch has already been rejected, and you want a 4D Scratch now? No support! That would mean you can make 3D games with it!

Plus: 4D can be confusing for many Scratchers if it was added.

pippy2011eight wrote:

No, I don't agree, scratch already said no to 3d, 4d wouldn't make any sense, as we don't know what it looks like

No support for the same reason.

Yes, technically this isn't rejected, but the points listed below sort of still stand. Plus, this would be too complicated.

tolors wrote:

1.7 3D Scratch
A 3D Scratch interface, involving a z-axis in the project stage, could make it easier to create 3D projects. However, Scratch is a language that is designed to be as easy as possible for beginners to learn. The purpose of Scratch is to teach beginners basic programming concepts, which is best accomplished with a 2D interface. Adding a 3D interface could make Scratch more difficult to learn and teach. This includes having a separate website for 3D Scratch. This suggestion also includes the possibility for virtual-reality “Scratch VR” features, where a lot of the same difficulties come up; for more information, see this post.

For those who are interested, it may be worth checking out Snap's 3D Beetle extension or CreatiCode. They are block-based programming languages similar to the Scratch editor, but with 3D features. There is another similar program to Scratch that contains block programming with 3D features, called Starlogo TNG.

Imtwentytenth wrote:

Do I need to comment that he is talking to himself and says that everyone agree?

It's best to give the benefit of the doubt and assume here that the account could also be shared (albeit we don't allow for that unless it's a shared family account).

I also wouldn't necessarily say this is rejected. It's just that the title is quite confusing since Scratch operates in 2D space, so time would not count as a 4th dimension. There is probably a better term for it (like “timestamp tracking”), so I'll go ahead and change the title to that to prevent further confusion.

As a reminder: Please do be constructive when posting in the Scratch Discussion Boards. If a suggestion you think is rejected, it's best to just report it silently and not dogpile, otherwise we'd all end up with misinformation like what happened here.

This would be a bit complicated with games but its just going to a certain time in the project that would replicate what happened at that time. The fourth dimension is alot more complicated since it combines 3d with its own warpy system. I support this suggestion since there are projects that could use this really bad (like 80% of animations), it could also develop interesting games on to the platform.

This might cause quite a bit of lag, since the browser will have to keep track of every single save state up right up until the very moment the green flag was clicked.

da-ultimate-creater wrote:

This might cause quite a bit of lag, since the browser will have to keep track of every single save state up right up until the very moment the green flag was clicked.

This is the main reason this will probably be rejected. Adding time isn't a simple task, depending on the quality of it it could use a lot of data. Plus, there would be arguments about the max stored time, the quality of it, what things should be included…

I see this as useful for games that restart when you lose, but a lot of games like that track high scores, which is negated by this feature (unless it's cloud), then requiring additional features to even really be generally useful.

Remember, scratch are looking for things that improve the experience of scratch as a whole while also keeping the target demographic and goal in mind, which means most things that add complexity are rejected.

Plus, not only would it slow the browser down while ON the tab, it would slow it down if the tab is open at all, which is basically slowing the browser down in general while also using up even more RAM, which impacts every process the host machine is running.

This would be far too complex to add. You would need to parse all of the code to check for the timestamp then you would need to run the code. This would significantly improve lag. I also don’t really see the point of this when you can just use the wait block. You also wouldn’t be able to put anything but numbers in unless you want it to run with the values at the point where it shows (but why not just have the block earlier in the code?) there’s also no point of making timestamps in the future cuz u can just use broadcast and wait to run code simultaneously