I would request that Transformers function Unless they recieve redstone current, which is the reverse of how they function currently. I personally would find this to allow me much more flexibility in my setups, as an *always active* transformer would not take up extra space, (nor would it require you to go to the forums to search for a guide on how to do it) Unless you wanted to setup a toggleable transformer, which would use up the extra space anyway.
Suggestion: Reverse Transformer Trigger
-
just allow lever to be placed directly on transformator.
but yes, redstone shoud be used to turn them off if not needed.
-
just allow lever to be placed directly on transformator.
1. you can already place levers directly on Transformators. At least that's what i've coded in. May was the Induction Furnace, though.
2. You don't "turn them on" with redstone, but switch between upward/downward transforming. Linking redstone to downward transforming would be stupif, because in the second you place a Transformer, you usually do not have redstone on it... it would blow up you wire network, until you apply redstone. It's much safer the way it is now. And does actually make more sense (> "More" redstoen input = Higher Output) -
1. you can already place levers directly on Transformators. At least that's what i've coded in. May was the Induction Furnace, though.
2. You don't "turn them on" with redstone, but switch between upward/downward transforming. Linking redstone to downward transforming would be stupif, because in the second you place a Transformer, you usually do not have redstone on it... it would blow up you wire network, until you apply redstone. It's much safer the way it is now. And does actually make more sense (> "More" redstoen input = Higher Output)1: I didn't realize you could you could place levers on a transformer. This saves 33% space, more considering no way for the redstone to interact with anything else.
2: I read the tutorial more closely, and now I understand this.Thanks, cancel my suggestion.
