Two new signals: ON and OFF.

[Claudius1729]

When an element of the circuit network receive the special signal OFF, it powers off (and does not transmit it to its output of course).
When it receives the signal ON, it turns back ON.

When an element that is wired to the circuit network receive signal OFF, it would ignore being wired until it is turned back ON.


It is already possible to control what part of a circuit is working by specifying certain conditions, but signals ON and OFF could make for simpler circuits in certain case, while staying a very basic idea.

[tamanous]

In addition, entities could output their activity status "working" (on) and "not working" (off), too.

[ssilk]

Actually I like it, but since ON is the preferred default I think only OFF is needed: If OFF has any value the device turns off, but still needs standby power.
So as long as the OFF signal is given device is turned off.

This prevents from turning something off but not be turned on again.

[Aeternus]

I personally just use the red and green signals for this but, yea, why not. Could be confusing for devices that have multiple operational modes though - combinators, chests, stations, rail signals, lights... What would a combinator do when receiving the off signal as input? Turn off, or use it for conditions?

[ssilk]

IMHO turn off any output but only transmit also "OFF", cause that would be the clou of this special signal. It enables a meta-level of control. And a handful of more complex problems to solve.

[Claudius1729]

Actually I like it, but since ON is the preferred default I think only OFF is needed: If OFF has any value the device turns off, but still needs standby power.
So as long as the OFF signal is given device is turned off.

This prevents from turning something off but not be turned on again.

This seems like a better idea.

IMHO turn off any output but only transmit also "OFF", cause that would be the clou of this special signal. It enables a meta-level of control. And a handful of more complex problems to solve.

That would spread contamination (unless we also apply tamanous suggestion). If you spread off to a circuit network, wouldn't it turn off everything?

[ssilk]

THAT is the intension.

Hm. Maybe to kill the OFF signal out of that circuits (they are not working anymore, so nothing can be calculated) therefore an ON signal makes sense, that removes any OFF signal from any circuit/device.

[Claudius1729]

Another idea for OFF:

When a logistic chest receive the signal OFF, it stops being logistic until it is turned back ON again (so they just become a steel chest).

[steinio]

On and off is the best example for a boolean.

You only need one new signal...
On = 0 building chest whatever is off
On = 1 it's on

Greetings, steinio.

[ssilk]

You only need one new signal...
On = 0 building chest whatever is off
On = 1 it's on

That's what I also though in the beginning, see above: If the combinators are not working anymore, cause they are turned off they would not transfer that signal.

[HurkWurk]

maybe only non-circuit entities could be "off" ?

that way the circuits are running, but not the sources... a water tank turned "off" does not transmit its value to the circuit network, thus anything trying to read it goes to null. in that way, they are also turned "off", in the sense that they have a null input so do nothing until null is replaced by a value again ?

or that becomes a circuit choice... null means do nothing, or null means do Y instead of X.

[Claudius1729]

On and off is the best example for a boolean.

You only need one new signal...
On = 0 building chest whatever is off
On = 1 it's on

But =0 is the default value for a signal in Factorio, and =0 values actually don't get transmitted in a network I thought?