Placing assembler manually on blueprint sets recipe

[cybersteel8]

You know when you have a blueprint that has the recipes for assemblers already set, so when you place down the blueprint, construction bots will place the assembler down and the recipe will already be set? When you physically put down the assembler on this same blueprint, you have to set the recipe manually, even though the blueprint that's there already knows what recipe it is going to be. Is it possible (or is it already in the game?) for the assembler to automatically choose the right recipe when it's placed on its slot in a blueprint that has the recipe set? This is useful long before flying robots are available, since blueprints are now available from the very beginning of the game.

[Roxor128]

That is definitely a much-needed feature. Requiring the player to remove the ghost to avoid auto-setting the recipe would be much more useful.

[ssilk]

Sidenote: Oh man, couldn't the users not just look, if suggestions are already made? The current rate of really new suggestions is dropped down from 30% before 0.15 down to 10% now. Which makes any afford to bring in any systematic into this useless.

Similar suggestions (just the first page of what I found):
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=17897 Manual Blueprint Filling
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=46239 Automatically place blueprint items from inventory.

And I havn't searched deep.

[cybersteel8]

Sidenote: Oh man, couldn't the users not just look, if suggestions are already made? The current rate of really new suggestions is dropped down from 30% before 0.15 down to 10% now. Which makes any afford to bring in any systematic into this useless.

So, in what way has this suggestion been addressed? I understand that you, as the moderator of this subforum, would see a lot of trends and common suggestions, but why should I see a post from over a year ago and avoid repeating that suggestion? I'm not going to necro an old thread. Not to mention that the recent post wasn't even the same suggestion as what I'm talking about.
Instead of being rude and calling out a duplicate, how about acknowledging that this is a common suggestion and provide an update on the status of this feature? Is it being considered, is it being worked on, or is it even in the pipeline at all, or is it denied as a suggestion request? If it has already been accepted, i'd like to know that, and if it has been denied, then I would also like to know that. In no way would I prefer to hear that somebody else already suggested this. That isn't helpful to me at all.
If many people suggest the same thing, then why hasn't it been considered yet? None of the threads I found during the search provided any conclusion about whether this feature would be included or not. As moderator, possibly you can find one that I can't, and if you do have a conclusion about this suggestion then please share it with me! All I ask is that you respond with something useful.

[ssilk]

If many people suggest the same thing, then why hasn't it been considered yet?

Cause the backlog is 1-3 years. So suggestions from 1-3 years old have a bigger chance to be implemented, than new. I just want to help.

None of the threads I found during the search provided any conclusion about whether this feature would be included or not. As moderator, possibly you can find one that I can't, and if you do have a conclusion about this suggestion then please share it with me! All I ask is that you respond with something useful.

Well, here there are some similar suggestions. This wants to interact with the ghosts, like yours. Search took me five minutes:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=46794 When placing a combinator on a ghost, retain the conditions

And what you seem to misunderstood: I'm not the one, who brings "order into chaos". If you mean it's my job, well, that's just wrong. I make this, because of fun. But you bring me to think about, that's perhaps better to leave it, because it doesn't seem to be any longer useful.

This forum is community driven, and if you just want to fire your suggestion and forget, well, then we don't need to discuss, cause I don't like to repeat ...

[Azzinoth]

I also like this idea.

but why should I see a post from over a year ago and avoid repeating that suggestion? I'm not going to necro an old thread.

Why not? If it has the same topic, than it is still relevant today. It is better to have the discussion in one thread, than splitted over many threads.

Here is another similar suggestion: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=47961