Your input is two itemstacks, then yes, you need to make your wrapper a 2-stack object.

What are you referring to? Passing two ItemStacks into the constructor?

Your input is two itemstacks, then yes, you need to make your wrapper a 2-stack object.

What are you referring to? Passing two ItemStacks into the constructor?

 

Yes. His wrapper object currently also contains the output, which makes it hard to construct a search-object from two arbitrary inputs and locate the output.

Yes Darco is right, I only need a 2 stack obj.

 

Anyways, with these functions:

    public void addDualRecipes(Item inputFirst, Item inputSecond) {
        this.addDualRecipes(new ItemStack(inputFirst, 1), new ItemStack(inputSecond, 1));
    }

    public void addDualRecipes(ItemStack input, ItemStack inputSecond)
    {
        dualList.add(new InscriberWrapper(input, inputSecond));
    }

    public InscriberWrapper getResult(ItemStack input, ItemStack inputSecond) {
        for(InscriberWrapper recipe : dualList) {
            if(ItemUtil.areItemsEqual(recipe.item1, input, true) && ItemUtil.areItemsEqual(recipe.item2, inputSecond, true)) {
                return recipe;
            }
        }
        return null;
    }

 

where would I calculate the output?

 

 

 

 

 

Your input is two itemstacks, then yes, you need to make your wrapper a 2-stack object.

What are you referring to? Passing two ItemStacks into the constructor?

 

Yes. His wrapper object currently also contains the output, which makes it hard to construct a search-object from two arbitrary inputs and locate the output.

He is using a list of his wrapper, there would be no way for him to find the output from that.

So how would I even get the output?

So how would I even get the output?

You pass it to the Wrapper and if the inputs are the same get the output that was passed into the constructor. IE what your third stack was.

Okay, would I have to do anything different to this function:

 

    public InscriberWrapper getResult(ItemStack input, ItemStack inputSecond) {
        for(InscriberWrapper recipe : dualList) {
            if(ItemUtil.areItemsEqual(recipe.item1, input, true) && ItemUtil.areItemsEqual(recipe.item2, inputSecond, true)) {
                return recipe;
            }
        }
        return null;
    }

 

Okay, would I have to do anything different to this function:

 

    public InscriberWrapper getResult(ItemStack input, ItemStack inputSecond) {
        for(InscriberWrapper recipe : dualList) {
            if(ItemUtil.areItemsEqual(recipe.item1, input, true) && ItemUtil.areItemsEqual(recipe.item2, inputSecond, true)) {
                return recipe;
            }
        }
        return null;
    }

Yes if you want just the output return something like recipe.getOutput(). (Returns an ItemStack) If you want it to return the whole recipe you are fine, assuming your ItemUtil.areItemsEqual() method works.

Okay, so how bout defining my output, current I feel like this isnt 'correct', maybe it is, but I dont think so.

 

    public void addDualRecipes(ItemStack input, ItemStack inputSecond, ItemStack output)
    {
        dualList.add(new InscriberWrapper(input, inputSecond, output));
    }

 

adds the recipes to the list

 

    public void addDualRecipe(Item inputFirst, Item inputSecond, Item output) {
        this.addDualRecipes(new ItemStack(inputFirst, 1), new ItemStack(inputSecond, 1), new ItemStack(output, 1));
    }

 

adds recipes to the recipes list.

 

here is what the recipe looks like:

        this.addDualRecipe(Items.APPLE, Items.ARROW, Items.IRON_AXE);

 

in my eyes, APPLE + ARROW = IRON_AXE

 

however, I dont feel like this will work for some reason.

 

Anyways, so what your saying with my getResult is that ill return the output? I just want it to be the output. So would I just do:

return recipe.item3; //which is the output item

 

and change the function to an ItemStack instead of a InscriberWrapper:

    public ItemStack getResult(ItemStack input, ItemStack inputSecond) {
        for(InscriberWrapper recipe : dualList) {
            if(ItemUtil.areItemsEqual(recipe.item1, input, true) && ItemUtil.areItemsEqual(recipe.item2, inputSecond, true)) {
                return recipe.item3;
            }
        }
        return null;
    }

Okay, so how bout defining my output, current I feel like this isnt 'correct', maybe it is, but I dont think so.

 

    public void addDualRecipes(ItemStack input, ItemStack inputSecond, ItemStack output)
    {
        dualList.add(new InscriberWrapper(input, inputSecond, output));
    }

 

adds the recipes to the list

 

    public void addDualRecipe(Item inputFirst, Item inputSecond, Item output) {
        this.addDualRecipes(new ItemStack(inputFirst, 1), new ItemStack(inputSecond, 1), new ItemStack(output, 1));
    }

 

adds recipes to the recipes list.

 

here is what the recipe looks like:

        this.addDualRecipe(Items.APPLE, Items.ARROW, Items.IRON_AXE);

 

in my eyes, APPLE + ARROW = IRON_AXE

 

however, I dont feel like this will work for some reason.

 

Anyways, so what your saying with my getResult is that ill return the output? I just want it to be the output. So would I just do:

return recipe.item3; //which is the output item

 

and change the function to an ItemStack instead of a InscriberWrapper:

    public ItemStack getResult(ItemStack input, ItemStack inputSecond) {
        for(InscriberWrapper recipe : dualList) {
            if(ItemUtil.areItemsEqual(recipe.item1, input, true) && ItemUtil.areItemsEqual(recipe.item2, inputSecond, true)) {
                return recipe.item3;
            }
        }
        return null;
    }

All of that looks good, now you just need to implement it into your TE. I give you luck on your endeavor of limiting your two input slots as it can be quite the process. And if you need any source of how to do the smelting I definitely recommend looking at the vanilla furnace as it should give you some insight.

Okay thanks for your help!

 

Really amazing community around here!

He is using a list of his wrapper, there would be no way for him to find the output from that.

 

Ah yes. That is correct.  Was my mistake. Doing this asynchronously means forgetting some context.