Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Send ingredients sequently #107

Open
RuelYasa opened this issue Jul 10, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Send ingredients sequently #107

RuelYasa opened this issue Jul 10, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@RuelYasa
Copy link

RuelYasa commented Jul 10, 2024

Issue type:

  • ➕ Feature request

Short description:

Crafting Interface's behaviour now is sending ingredients to the block that it is facing all at once, which makes it refuse to work if the block hasn't enough slots to contain all ingredients. However, sometimes we need to send ingredients into multiple blocks rather than one, resulting in inability to send crafting requests when the actual number of ingredients is larger than the biggest available buffer's capacity, which is espicially obvious when handling recipes with multiple liquid inputs, because most liquid containers have only one slot.

To address the problem, I think it is possible to add an option to let the Crafting Interface send the ingredients sequently, which means stop checking the block in the front and just keep trying to push current ingredient into the block, just like what Item Exporter and Fluid Exporter do. When finish sending current ingredient, it switches to next ingredient and repeat the process. It will make disturbing abundant ingredients with pipes possible.

Moreover, with additional functions, such as sending redstone signal upon finish sending an ingredient, or only switch between ingredients on redstone signal, it can facilitate several scenarios like Gregtech's Assembly Line, providing wider applications. This change can increase the flexibility of Crafting Interface, enable some practical usages which are unavailable currently, and isn't hard to be implemented, therefore is worth adopting in my opinion.

Thanks for your consideration.

@rubensworks
Copy link
Member

Thanks for the suggestion!

@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this to Options in Features Jul 10, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: Options
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants