-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Digtron Ejector module and builder #74
Comments
That is also useful feature for some building tasks.. I believe it is intended to work like this. |
Improved bug description. |
For farming it makes sense to eject some of building materials, for that ejecting would be good. This is why configuration option is needed as ejector cannot know how you want to use it, so another check box for ejector formspec. I believe this is exactly why ejector is designed to not eject building materials. |
Ah yes, I see. Otherwise machine needs to harvest/dig at least a full stack+1 in order not to trigger the underrun. What ejector needs is correction if formspec and additional logic to specify a low limit, past which it wont eject and leave in system storage. It is also useful to call builder code first, and only afterwards the ejector code, this way builders will first profit from diggers. |
Ejector module doesn't seem to work on digtron with builder module. This is most evident with planting crops by builder (at 1 node distance above soil, pointing to it).
Test case: 3 module digtron
CH++EJ
++
BL
where:
EJ digtron ejector module, pipe rotated outside
CH digtron storage
BL digtron builder module, facing downwards, floating 1 node above soil.
If BL is removed, EJ function is restored.
This is featurekiller bug for EJ.
I would like also to ask for ejection direction or just make ejector eject into opposite vector of digtron movement, as ejected items (diggerhead config only) start moving into same direction of digtron travel, catch up on next cycle and travel back into ejector. Which forces to create a full line of sorting tubes, which is not cost sufficient :/ but if this isnt closely related code-wise, then I will open another bug after above blocker is ressolved. Thank you for reading
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: