Huh, you're absolutely right there. I guess this does make what I'm asking for more of a minor QOL thing than a useful feature.

Essentially:

1. Typing in a name identical to an existing logistic group uses that group, instead of creating a new one with the same name
2. There is no existing way to search through logistic groups (and it's awful when you have many to find the right one)
3. The name box could act as a search ...

You're right, I was confusing the way requests work for roboports and space platforms, which operate completely differently. Since space platforms are their own surface, they can track construction requests accurately.

I'm fine marking this as a feature request instead of a bug, since these aren't ...

I think it would be fair to maybe display the item request directly over the alt-mode display of the inventory, since gun turrets do only have one slot for inventory. If there were an item request for a different item than it currently contains, that would already be shown as an item removal ...

My main logic here is that construction requests are included in the logistic requests: if I build something in the logistic area, they do count under the same circuit. So, for example, if it wasn't just the modules being requested, but the entire building and the modules, the building would be ...

Essentially:

1. Connect a roboport to a wire and choose "show logistic requests"
2. Requests to insert modules do not get added to the circuit

In case it matters, in this particular case, I used an upgrade planner to request that efficiency modules be added to miners and pumpjacks. It may be ...

I forgot to reply, but done.

See attached image:
06-22-2025, 17-10-43.png

Because the icon has an arrow pointing down, it looks like the request is for the turret below the one actually being requested.

factorio --version:
2.0.57 (build 83368, linux64, steam)
Version: 64
Map input version: 1.0.0-0
Map output version: 2.0.57 ...

I'm going to just assume that this is the same as 121029, especially since I didn't supply a save file showing this inconsistency and can't really check if it was fixed. If I find this is still present when I visit Aquilo, I'll file a new bug.

Can confirm this still happens on 2.0.17.

Attached log and save file. This is just a testing world I've been using to make blueprints for Space Age, and it appears to have crashed when loading the save, and starting a new scenario seems fine.

It took me a while to wrap my head around how "pollution" on Gleba works, and this didn't help. While the "pollution" overlay is changed to "spores" on the map, the Factoriopedia still refers to "pollution absorption" for tiles when it's really spore absorption.

Here's just one example:

11-06 ...

When a space platform first arrives in orbit over a planet, the planet is added to the list on the surface view, but the map is entirely black, indicating that it's not been seen. Normally, you just send a player to the planet first in this case, and you can see the planet that way, and it's fine ...

I assume that this is because the roboports become disconnected, and thus are treated as a new network.

As of 2.0, all requests are available via circuit conditions… except for roboports. While you can get the logistic requests for the entire network from a single roboport, it would be useful to be able to read the robot requests directly from a single roboport, so you can e.g. insert them directly ...

I'm running into a different error in the sea block mod itself. I tried disabling all mods then enabling just sea block, and it appears that the mod itself is trying to index a nil field when it loads.

The dependency loop issue doesn't seem to be there at least.

Want to bump this and point out that I also would love this. Basically, my ideal scenario would be an option to make logistics chests always show their filter first on the list of contents, even if they don't contain any of the filtered item.

Factorio has dropped support for 32-bit systems with 0.14/0.15 :
https://factorio.com/blog/post/fff-158


OP is clearly talking about switching from uint32 to uint64 integer variables in terms of signal value storage, not about memory adressing and hardware architecture issues. I mean, you ...

Right now, the circuit network uses 32-bit integers for signals. If you're counting items, this is more than plenty, but the limit of ~4 billion can be a bit limiting when measuring other values, e.g. energy.

Right now, I'd like to be able to set a circuit signal to measure energy in J, but because ...

See attached image; top layer of cannon is drawn over pole.

Edit: image failed to upload, so, here.