@jansuki (View Post)

 I mean, it's just a pixel. It's sad how all the useful elements are indestructable.

I'm guessing the problem with layering is that if GATE (or PINV if we want to call it that) is full, then each particle of GATE will only see the particles filling it up and not the other GATE particles surrounding it. This prevents the activation and deactivation from propagating cleanly throughout. A workaround I thought of is to have GATE be triggered by another element, LARY (layer ARAY), which works like ARAY except it can layer its BRAY on top of other elements. Since this BRAY will always be on the top layer, GATE will always be able to see it, and it will be able to turn on and off at least in the area below the BRAY.

If breakability is a concern, then BGTE (BPIN?) and BLAR (breakable layer ARAY) could be added.

Alternative solutions include:

• Breakable PPIP.
• Adding a layer mode to CRAY, accessible through tmp3 or a new conductive element. Since adding a layer of solid is likely to freeze fluid particles in place, CRAY layer mode may act similarly to GATE+LARY. However, making this destructible will be complicated.

@linfuciuscont (View Post)

 That would introduce a lot of uneeded complexity for really only one purpose. We already have CRAY, which does almost the same thing as PINV. Introducing LARY, BLAR, BPIN, and PINV to do basically only one thing that could already be achieved in a much more simple and intuitive way would be a waste of element space (which is a real thing; only 255 elements can be stored if I remember correctly).

@Moettiejoes (View Post)

That would actually make things easier. When GATE or BGTE is turned off, it will briefly destroy all the particles around or inside it (acting similar to VOID or CONV(EMBR)) except GATE or BGTE, thereby allowing the signal to propagate through.

This functionality is similar to DRAY+PSCN, though. Therefore, I could consider GATE redundant, and then BGTE would be left as the one element to add (alternatively named GATE or PINV).

In the meantime, I've made a simulation of what GATE might act like:

What I was suggesting is that since GATE would be redundant, leaving BGTE as the possible element to add, GATE could be destructible by default. In other words, BGTE would be renamed to GATE. Perhaps the tmp2 value could also be used to set how easy it is to destroy, thereby combining the two elements into one.