1-directional logic transmitters/receivers.

[ManTheMister]

I think that there should be a part that would receive signals from the core, and not send them (and another part that does the reverse), as the logic connector does, would allow for much more complex behavior, such as being able to send commands to a swarm of factory-produced mini-drones without having all of them be able to crosstalk.

there would also be a toggleable whitelist and blacklist, where you can set up to 4 keys to be only allowed through or not be allowed through, respectively. This way, sub-drones could both send and recieve signals from the core without getting all of the signals that the other sub-drones are sending.

Edited November 17, 2018 by ManTheMister
Add white/blacklist section

[Lurkily]

I'm worried that disparate parts for separate wireless functions that are already a little confusing might be a bit much for an entry-level drone builder.

I think I'd prefer transmitter-receiver parts.  Set an input or an output, or both.  Anything with an input set is a transmitter for that input.  Anything with an output set is a receiver for that output.  If you can be selective about what signals are transmitted, you don't HAVE to be selective about which direction signals are allowed to flow.  And if you don't have to worry about which direction signals flow, wireless connectors don't have to split any signals, wireless or non-wireless.  Connectors connect, splitters split, and there are no special cases.

[ManTheMister]

43 minutes ago, Lurkily said:

Anything with an input set is a transmitter for that input.  Anything with an output set is a receiver for that output.

I assume you meant the reverse?

I don’t fully understand how having separate transmitters and receivers would be any less intuitive than what we have now, which is not very intuitive. What they do is essentially described in thier name, and couldn’t really be confused for something other than logic transmit/receivers as long as they are in the logic tab of the drone builder. There would also be logic transceivers that could receive AND transmit keys/tags, replacing current connectors. I just don’t understand why it would be unintuitive, at least any more so than any other wireless logic system.

[Lurkily]

The reason is because you won't have connectors that disconnect signals.  Wireless receivers would bring a signal to connected parts - ALL connected parts.  Signals don't only go downstream, and children aren't isolated from parents, there's no need to treat wireless signals and local signals differently.

Splitters, as their name implies, are the one and only part that split, and wireless parts don't separate anything from anything.  All signals are treated consistently.

[ManTheMister]

36 minutes ago, Lurkily said:

The reason is because you won't have connectors that disconnect signals.  Wireless receivers would bring a signal to connected parts - ALL connected parts.  Signals don't only go downstream, and children aren't isolated from parents, there's no need to treat wireless signals and local signals differently.

Splitters, as their name implies, are the one and only part that split, and wireless parts don't separate anything from anything.  All signals are treated consistently.

I never said that that was how they would work. if the devs decide not to change how the logic connectors work, then this would work like that. If they do change it, then that is how this would work. Personally I’m in favor of the later, but If this got implemented, I wouldn’t be too upset if the devs went with the former.

[Lurkily]

But that's exactly what a 1-way splitter would do; treat signals differently based on whether they were coming or going.  It's what connectors do now, letting signals flow down the hierarchy, but not up.  It's what my suggestion for wireless parts not acting as splitters would do - segregate signals based on whether they were wireless or not.

It splitters were the only part that segregated signals and connectors sent only a single signal, instead of all signals, connectors could just connect everything, and splitters just split everything.  No special cases, no direction of travel, very straightforward operation and simple segregation of which signals are sent.

I like that solution better than my suggestion to let local signals cross a connector.  It makes signal behavior completely consistent regardless of what direction it travels or whether it's local.

I'll add a feature request tomorrow.  When I can caffeinate, and after sleeping on  the matter.

[ManTheMister]

The one-directional part is not letting the signal go up and not down the hierarchy, or vice versa, what it is is only transmitting logic events to the core, but not reading any of the info in core, or only recieving info from the core, without sending the core anything. The receiver would only pass on the signal to its children, not its parents, but its children could still talk to its parents. The transmitter would only send signals from its children, but wouldn’t prevent its children from also speaking to its parents.

[Lurkily]

My revised suggestion is that the receiver talk to all connected parts.  Parents, children, cousins, all of it.  If you can segregate signal flow with single-key transmitters,  you don't need to juggle which signals travel past the receiver and which don't. 

The receiver would just act like any button, and not split any signals, whether wireless or local. The only splitter part would be the aptly named splitter.  Thus wireless parts would not separate any signal, and treat all signals separately. 

[ManTheMister]

There would also be an optional whitelist and blacklist with a max of 4 signals (precise number up for debate) that could be set. If you needed more than that, then just use multiple whitelists.

[ManTheMister]

@Lurkily could you move this into the new part suggestions thread?

[Lurkily]

Sure.  You may want to edit the top post, so that the title and parent post contain the outcome of this discussion, rather than people voting on the thoughts the discussion began with.

[ManTheMister]

Come to think of it, only receivers need filters. Transmitters can just send everything

[Lurkily]

As I said elsewhere, either transmitters can hold the white/black list, or the receiver, but both don't require it.  I think the transmitter is a better place for it.  The receiver is taking the sum of all transmitter signals, so I think keeping needless signals out of the air is more useful.

Truthfully, though, I don't see any reason why both should not have a whitelist and blacklist.

[ManTheMister]

I think that receivers should have the filters. If the transmitters had the filter, then you couldn’t send a different set of signals to two different drones. The opposite would be impossible if the receivers had the filter, though that is much harder to describe and I can’t think of any reason why it would be useful. But maybe both should have filters, just to be safe.