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

You can now automate Vibration Chambers #1624

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@TheCricket
Contributor

TheCricket commented Jun 20, 2015

When attempting to automate with a lava bucket you get the bucket stuck in there, You can now automate the system using lava.

@TheCricket

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@TheCricket

TheCricket Jun 20, 2015

Contributor

👯

Contributor

TheCricket commented Jun 20, 2015

👯

@yueh

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@yueh

yueh Jun 20, 2015

Member

I am not really convinved, that this is a good chance change.

First of all it will break consistency with vanilla furnaces, which do not allow fuel to be extracted.

Secondly it will break certain builds, these might not be used that much (if at all). But there is still the chance that someone uses it. For example if someone uses storage buses to keep them stacked with fuel and wants to be able to monitor it, but not allow the network to ever pull fuel from it.

Member

yueh commented Jun 20, 2015

I am not really convinved, that this is a good chance change.

First of all it will break consistency with vanilla furnaces, which do not allow fuel to be extracted.

Secondly it will break certain builds, these might not be used that much (if at all). But there is still the chance that someone uses it. For example if someone uses storage buses to keep them stacked with fuel and wants to be able to monitor it, but not allow the network to ever pull fuel from it.

@yueh yueh added review-waiting and removed review-accepted labels Jun 20, 2015

@FireBall1725

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@FireBall1725

FireBall1725 Jun 20, 2015

Member

I think if it was changed to only return true if the itemstack is an empty bucket would be fine.

Member

FireBall1725 commented Jun 20, 2015

I think if it was changed to only return true if the itemstack is an empty bucket would be fine.

@TheCricket

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@TheCricket

TheCricket Jun 20, 2015

Contributor

Ok I can do that :)

Contributor

TheCricket commented Jun 20, 2015

Ok I can do that :)

@yueh

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@yueh

yueh Jun 21, 2015

Member

Please squash the commits.

Member

yueh commented Jun 21, 2015

Please squash the commits.

@TheCricket

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@TheCricket

TheCricket Jun 21, 2015

Contributor

so much easier to do this #1633

Contributor

TheCricket commented Jun 21, 2015

so much easier to do this #1633

@TheCricket TheCricket closed this Jun 21, 2015

@ghost

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ghost

ghost Jun 21, 2015

Doesn't Extracells have a fluid vibration chamber?

ghost commented Jun 21, 2015

Doesn't Extracells have a fluid vibration chamber?

@TheCricket

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@TheCricket

TheCricket Jun 21, 2015

Contributor

this isn't extracells is it

Contributor

TheCricket commented Jun 21, 2015

this isn't extracells is it

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment