New recipe involving any stone chunk, having issues.

[squirrel gnut]

Hi Peeps. I am interested in creating a new item, lets call it #1, by combining any stone chunk and another item I have created. Ingredients and recipe are showing up in the Table correctly, I just get the message that I need materials before crafting, even though I have plenty of stone chunks and other new item. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Code is below.

Code Select Expand

<RecipeDef>
<defName>MakeSomethingNew</defName>
<label>Something New using Stone Chunks</label>
<description>Help!</description>
<workerCounterClass>RecipeWorkerCounter_MakeStoneBlocks</workerCounterClass>
<ingredients>
<li>
<filter>
<categories>
<li>StoneChunks</li>
</categories>
</filter>
<count>1</count>
</li>
<li>
<filter>
<thingDefs>
<li>ItemCreatedAlready</li>
</thingDefs>
</filter>
<count>5</count>
</li>
</ingredients>
<products>
<DesiredNewItem#1>1</DesiredNewItem#1>
</products>
<fixedIngredientFilter>
<categories>
<li>StoneChunks</li>
</categories>
</fixedIngredientFilter>
</RecipeDef>

[squirrel gnut]

I know that making a recipe that adds a <category> item, like stone chunks, with another item that is a <thingDefs> complicates the issue. I can make the new item using only stone chunks, but that negates the entire premise of my secondary item required to create Item #1, and makes Item #1 too easily produced. Not to mention the RP factor. I guess I could create a new <thingDefs> with stone chunks that would be a intermediary link. Not the extra step I wanted in my mod....

[Fishbrains]

Any chance you can take the cost code right out of something like the stone cutters bench just to see if it works with all stuff? I don't know the differences between building costs and recipient costs but it might work.

[Smexy_Vampire]

did you try to call the stone type ? like slate chunk ?

[squirrel gnut]

did you try to call the stone type ? like slate chunk ?

My new table already has quite a large recipe list, calling out single stone types would further worsen the problem. Nice idea though. I have figured out a work-around using a secondary process.