Decider combinator should have ability to output "constant"

[Erfar]

Before there was technicaly imposible to make this so the only way was use decider + arithmetic combinators, but now it is technicaly possible to make that circuit, but that create readibility problem

11-18-2024, 01-33-05.png (143.88 KiB) Viewed 235 times

[breadpudding]

100% agreed, let us set a value.

[kitters]

Searched a forum before suggesting exactly this.
Fully agreed, it should be implemented, even though there is a hack to solve the problem.

[spacedog]

This is a miss across the board for all circuit devices, not just decider combinators. I never understood why the only choices are "input count" or 1. If one of the choices is going to be a constant, let us pick the constant.

[AileTheAlien]

This is a miss across the board for all circuit devices, not just decider combinators. I never understood why the only choices are "input count" or 1. If one of the choices is going to be a constant, let us pick the constant.

I think it's because you can output constants with a constant combinator, and then use a decider combinator to choose the values from the constant combinator instead of the non-constant signals from the other combinator(s).

[spacedog]

I think it's because you can output constants with a constant combinator, and then use a decider combinator to choose the values from the constant combinator instead of the non-constant signals from the other combinator(s).

That's true, but it's extra circuitry and wires that clutter things up. It can already output a constant value anyway... so it's hard to see what the downsides would be to making it configurable.

Maybe the devs want us to have messy circuits, but most of the changes in 2.0 were added from a desire to do just the opposite. I get not wanting to make combinators so powerful that huge circuits can be reduced to a single combinator with complex branching conditions, but this request is pretty far from that.