Skip to content
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

Ingredient suggestions 1 #8174

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Aug 20, 2024
Merged

Ingredient suggestions 1 #8174

merged 6 commits into from
Aug 20, 2024

Conversation

thiakil
Copy link
Member

@thiakil thiakil commented Jul 28, 2024

Changes proposed in this pull request:

  • Circuit tiers using the infuser directly, saving the ingot for the alloy and a small efficiency bonus on the infusion stack
  • Allow copper as an alternate to iron for the infused alloy. Kinda want this to be a replacement though

Open to suggestions/changes

@thiakil thiakil requested a review from pupnewfster July 28, 2024 04:30
@thiakil thiakil marked this pull request as ready for review July 28, 2024 04:31
Copy link
Member

@pupnewfster pupnewfster left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am fine with the copper recipe (and agree we should remove the iron to infused alloy one), but am kind of against the circuit recipe adjustments in their current state.

@thiakil
Copy link
Member Author

thiakil commented Aug 17, 2024

Using ingots:
image

using 3x infusion:
image

Copy link
Member

@pupnewfster pupnewfster left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall looks quite good. One minor thought is do we want to adjust in MekanismEmiDefaults which circuit recipe we declare as defaults? Personally I think leaving them as is probably makes the most sense, as users can switch them over to these new recipes if they want, but I figured I would bring it up here.

@@ -64,6 +64,11 @@ public void addRecipes(RecipeOutput consumer, HolderLookup.Provider registries)
IngredientCreatorAccess.infusionStack().from(MekanismAPITags.InfuseTypes.CARBON, 10),
MekanismItems.ENRICHED_IRON.getItemStack()
).build(consumer, Mekanism.rl(basePath + "iron/enriched"));
ItemStackChemicalToItemStackRecipeBuilder.metallurgicInfusing(
IngredientCreatorAccess.item().from(MekanismTags.Items.PROCESSED_RESOURCES.get(ResourceType.DUST, PrimaryResource.IRON)),
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we want to add a second recipe like this, or just make the first recipe use an an or (compound) ingredient? I am fine with either. If you do decide to use an or ingredient you can use one of our helpers: BaseRecipeProvider.createIngredient, which you can see how we do it in how we add the recipes that create carbon.

I sort of think it makes more sense for it to just be a single recipe. But I am leaving that up to you.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe we can merge it later if we remember. Separate for now would promote visibility?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Up to you, though I don't think the visibility is that bad given the fact there is basically only ever one iron ingot in modded playthroughs, and then it just cycles between the two inputs.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think I am going to merge them for now. Visibility doesn't seem that bad to me for the above stated reason

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actually scratch that, I didn't think about the fact that whil ethere is only one iron ingot, there are often multiple iron dusts.

Copy link
Member

@pupnewfster pupnewfster left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

MekanismLangProvider, please update the translation for MekanismAdvancements.INFUSED_ALLOY

@pupnewfster pupnewfster merged commit 62a305b into 1.21.x Aug 20, 2024
2 checks passed
@pupnewfster pupnewfster deleted the ingredient-suggestions-1 branch August 20, 2024 15:12
@pupnewfster pupnewfster added this to the 10.7.0 milestone Aug 20, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants