Factorio is using something akin to ECS/DOD, simply because that's what you converge on when you try to make something fast on current hardware. It doesn't follow this strictly and universally, but it does when performance matters, like with the belts and the power grid. One of the FFF blog posts de...

Someone's probably said it already, but an obvious upgrade would be 3D rendering. Might make the game a lot smaller, too. Maybe, but show me a game that can render 30 000 3D objects (instead of sprites) on the same screen. It's a bit late for me to be telling you that any modern graphics card can e...

Someone's probably said it already, but an obvious upgrade would be 3D rendering. Might make the game a lot smaller, too.

Nobody would expect that calling entity.destroy() on a tree would cause their container entity to become invalid but if it raised an event then anything is possible.

In that case, how about raising an event after the current event handler is done?

It might seem just as obvious to simply remove the aliens, but the tricky thing is, that games need a variety of mechanics and systems. Not only to keep peoples' engagement, but also to stop the game feeling like a chore. The fact that there is a player character in the game to me seems even more s...

If you really did want a minimal server, here's what it would need to do: (Note: without the server running the game, you have little security against hackers) Coordinate new player connections (so when a player connects to the server, they really connect to one of the other players) Periodically do...

bobingabout wrote:I still think the solution is to store research progress in the game.forces[].technology[] table with a new .progress variable.

You know the game data isn't actually stored in Lua variables, right?

Trash does not imply the item is destroyed. When I put stuff in my trash can, it is not destroyed. It does imply the item is unwanted, though. In the case of logistics trash slots, you don't want the item right now, even though you don't want it to be destroyed either. In the case of active provider...

This is how RedPower 2's blutricity worked.

The problem is that you need lots of capacitance - because e.g. all the power you want to draw from a pole in a tick has to be stored in that pole.

But then it takes a really long time for all the poles to charge up/discharge.

Why do the pumps need to be at right angles? Why not just put them in a line, then connect the inputs and outputs together with pipes?

dee- wrote:I just don't understand why they have to use UDP, because every "tick" of the game can be sent out, but it does NOT have to be realtime.

Huh, why doesn't it have to be real-time? You do know that the game can't simulate a tick until it's received all the player input for that tick, right?

oLaudix wrote:

Wyrm wrote:

oLaudix wrote:How would you plan your solar then?

Carefully. They would require testing, to be sure, but what build doesn't?

Except if you randomize each planet you would have to test it every single time.

So?

Are you sure ssilk? This thread was originally for passive provider chests, which have been implemented. Filtered storage chests should probably have a different suggestion thread.

Missing a belt just under the top underground belt's exit?

PTR2013 wrote:And a small boat of course, to get to the location where you want to build.

Unless you have to use robots to build it.

hitzu wrote:What if to hide rail sleepers under the pavement?

Ooh, fancy.

I noticed you said the circuit network can be connected to the existing storage tanks, pumps and offshore pumps.

That is, there are not separate smart tanks and smart pumps.

Is this a temporary thing, or is this going to be the future direction of the circuit network?

You could build roads and have the cars drive on the roads. But then you've just reinvented more compact trains.

Agreed, this is silly and useless.

The last bug report link is broken.