Abstract: Separate conditions for enabling and disabling machines connected to circuit network.
Description:
This would allow you to put different conditions for enabling and disabling the machine based on circuit network signals. If the enabling condition is true, the machine will turn on and will stay this way until disabling condition is met. Here is and example of how the interface might look:
Enabling condition (if the machine is off, turn it on)
Iron>150 000
Disabling condition (if the machine is on, turn it off)
Iron<10 000
[checkbox] Same as enabling condition (checking this box would set disabling condition as direct opposite of enabling condition, so the condition would work like it does now)
Purpose:
This could serve well for example at train stations. If the conditions are set as written above, the station will turn off, when the amount of Iron in connected chests falls under 10 000. It will stay off until the amount of iron climbs over 150 000, then it will turn on and stay on, until the amount of iron falls under 10 000 again.
Separate Enable/Disable conditions
Moderator: ickputzdirwech
Re: Separate Enable/Disable conditions
This is done in Factorio and irl with (any of the many possible variations on) S-R latches.
Re: Separate Enable/Disable conditions
Thanks, that's helpful.
Re: Separate Enable/Disable conditions
It's possible to do with combinators and I have done one with chests and inserters moving around a pistol instead of using combinators.
possibility for undefined states
What in this case:
on-condition: x>10
off-condition: x>11
what is the machine going to do at x=12 , to be more specific, when the first and only value is x=12 (there was no x=..7,8,9,10,11 before) ?
My point is, two conditions are a frame that allows for undefined states.
You might reply now that the on-"range" is x=11 and the off-"range" is x>11. What about x<11 ?
What about on: A=B, off: C=D ? etc ...
I like the idea, that logic can be handled by some other means than combinator setups. I don't like all the wiring work, the punching in numbers in n entities, the rewiring when rearranging, etc ..., but I like that the entities connected to the circuit network are kept clear of complex logic. If there has to be complexity, keep it in the hard work to build combinator arrays. Imo one condition for a binary choice seems well suited and undefined states are not possible this way.
on-condition: x>10
off-condition: x>11
what is the machine going to do at x=12 , to be more specific, when the first and only value is x=12 (there was no x=..7,8,9,10,11 before) ?
My point is, two conditions are a frame that allows for undefined states.
You might reply now that the on-"range" is x=11 and the off-"range" is x>11. What about x<11 ?
What about on: A=B, off: C=D ? etc ...
I like the idea, that logic can be handled by some other means than combinator setups. I don't like all the wiring work, the punching in numbers in n entities, the rewiring when rearranging, etc ..., but I like that the entities connected to the circuit network are kept clear of complex logic. If there has to be complexity, keep it in the hard work to build combinator arrays. Imo one condition for a binary choice seems well suited and undefined states are not possible this way.