
Disabling Smeltery Disables many of the alloy recipes in the Mixer
Orinai opened this issue ยท 5 comments
Just like It says, I have noticed - initially with manyllyum - that with the smeltery disabled, several of the mixer recipes disappear.
Reading through comments on curseforge, looks like you may already be aware of the issue, but reporting as a bug just to be sure
Yes I am already aware of that issue. The problem is that when the smeltery gets disabled no alloying recipes are registered and therefore this mod doesn't know where to get the recipes. I may take a look at it again and try to find a good solution, because adding all the recipes by hand seems illogical for me, becausd the mod should independantly register recipes. Currently I have only the default recipes of Tinkers hard-coded. But as I said it is a hard problem, but I will try to fix it.
The crazy thing is this actually worked. I now added the possibility to remove the different smeltery recipes:
- Alloying
- Melting
- Table & Basin Casting
If removing the Tinkers' recipes solves the problem, than this issue can be closed with 95ae839.
That solves several problems actually, since as you mentioned, disabling the smeltery breaks a number of mods! Glad it worked out!
This may be a dumb thought , but would it be easier to do the reverse, and have a config option to disable the smeltery from your end, after the recipies have been registered, instead of relying on the option in ticon's config? I immagine not, but figured even a dumb idea can sometimes start a new line of problem solving
That is actually a really interesting thought. Disabling the Tinkers' smeltery module also breaks a few mods like PlusTiC and Taiga. I'm not quite sure how I would go about disabling the smeltery though. Removing all smeltery related recipes may be enough for some people, because I don't think I can easily remove already registered blocks (and that would be a quite weird thing to do anyway). The problem is that I currently see no direct way to remove recipes (for example via function call) but it may be possible with reflections (changing fields in another class during runtime).
I will definitely try that out, it's a great idea I never would have thought of.