2.1 Wire selection on assemblers etc

[Khazul]

The current implementation seem to completely miss the point of this being a requested feature in the past.

I thought in the post this was a requested feature so we could (for eg) output the machine contents on one wire and the current ingredients on another wire. Separating input vs output was never hard to do an only needed a combinator to function as an isolator at the cost of a tick of latency.

Other conflicts of output signal usage exit as well and see no resolution of this issue in 2.1 or have I missed it?

[boskid]

Current implementation covers exactly as much as i was happy to add, no more, no less. I was considering per-option checkboxes but that was not acceptable because there was no sane solution available for gui that would not explode those guis beyond reasonable, and it would involve completly breaking lua api for interacting with control behaviors by script, huge amounts of migrations to try keep existing blueprints somewhat usable and even more migrations to keep existing saves loadable. Current approach is slightly less powerful but it was just enough to make it possible to get rid of magic-self-subtract that was part of 2.0 asteroid collector's set filter and assembling machine's set recipe, make it possible to have logistic container set filter and read contents both enabled at the same time while requiring almost no migration, introducing no lua api changes and also i was not impressed by any of the arguments about need for independent read of ingredients and contents of an assembler to be really that important, its always possible to just build a second assembler to read the ingredients for a given recipe.

[xkhaozx]

2.1's Input/Output wire split are a welcome addition, so thank you!! However, I desperately want to convince you on per-option masks, so I have a proposal:

Keep the group masks exactly as they are, and let any individual option override its wire. Unset = inherit. Old blueprints, saves, and mods never set it, so nothing changes for them.

GUI: reuse the per-operand red/green wire icons the decider and arithmetic combinators already have. Show them only beside checked options, greyed when inheriting. Unchecked options look exactly like today, so the GUI doesn't grow unless you opt in. Alternative: a "split" button that turns the Output frame into a Red frame and a Green frame you move options between.

Why? There are a lot of cases where it still bites:

• Read recipe + read contents on an assembler. The recipe signal is usually the product item, so "product count in output slot" and "current recipe" are summed and ambiguous.
• Read ingredients + read contents. Same problem. The suggested workaround of a second assembler is basically the same as the previous isolator combinator workaround, which is the exact thing the 2.1 feature was meant to remove.
• Read fuel + read contents on a biochamber when nutrients are both fuel and ingredient (egg breeding, fish). See this thread. Current workaround is filtering the fuel slot to a different quality.
• Prior request: this thread asked for exactly per-option R/G selection, naming assemblers (ingredients + contents) and silos (contents + requests).

I hope this solves the GUI / migration challenges, but I might be missing something about the underlying implementation, so apologies if so. I would just be so ecstatic to finally have this feature, to the point where I'd literally offer my time/help to make it possible. But I know y'all are trying to close out this project, and 2.1 already delivers so much. We all appreciate it so immensely!!

[mmmPI]

Read fuel + read contents on a biochamber when nutrients are both fuel and ingredient (egg breeding, fish). See this thread. Current workaround is filtering the fuel slot to a different quality.

And what do you think will be different when you can read the fuel and the content on 2 different wire ?

Because reading the thread you linked it appears to me that it is NOT about reading on separate wire the different tickboxes, but rather about adding a new "read output slot" and a "read trash slot" which would be of little to no purpose if you can't also decide on which slot the nutrient is going for that biochamber case.

Filtering the fuel slot to a different quality was mentionned for the reason that it allows the nutrient to be added specifically to the fuel slot when needed. Reading on separate wire would not allow such things anyway, this is why i think there is a misunderstanding, the argument is not convincing, you would still need to use the quality filter if you try to reproduce the hypothetical situation that was mentionned in the other thread.