Seems like a HIGHLY specific change considering most recipes take several different types of input liquids and often output something completely different.
I don't think it makes sense to make such a change.
The only change of this nature that I would like to see is that ports with the same fluid type are internally piped to one another.
So for instance a battery-making chemical plant, if I hook one input to the acid supply I can then have an underground pipe from the other acid port go across my base to something else that needs it.
Similar with outputs.
The result is that ports of the same fluid type are bridged to one another internally. Which isn't really that different from what the OP is requesting- though to avoid unwanted issues with cross contamination I don't think it wise to allow flow from an input to appear unprocessed at the output.
In my mind, Steam is the eternal king of the railway.
Cool suggestion: Eatable MOUSE-pointers. Have you used the Advanced Search today? Need help, question? FAQ -Wiki -Forum help I still like small signatures...
I am making batteries in a chemical plant, a recipe with no fluid output. In this situation, it would be very useful and realistically plausible for the fluid inputs to flow through and come out the other side, similar to water through a boiler or steam through a steam engine.
I think that this would also be really nice with recipes in assemblers that use fluids as well (thinking concrete, blue circuits, engines). But probably not the barrel/barreling recipes. If we can do it with sulfuric acid and the miner, we should be able to do it everywhere.
Cool suggestion: Eatable MOUSE-pointers. Have you used the Advanced Search today? Need help, question? FAQ -Wiki -Forum help I still like small signatures...