Chill with the personal attacks. You can suggest other solutions, but there's no need to argue against modding interface requests. In the end it will be us developers making the decision for whether something will be implemented. If that then results in a bug, you can always make a bug report then ...

it's obvious there's no convincing this individual, they quite obviously and simply really dislike when people ask for stuff that they don't like the idea of, so I'm just gonna say:

On a dropdown menu, to select a percentage value I have to click 3 times, click the dropdown, click the scroll on ...

so a better example would be a mod setting that changes how much of an item you spawn with - yeah sure you could use a dropdown for it, but why not also let people use a slider for it? it'd appear visually better, and allow for a lot more values to be included compared to a dropdown.
ontop of that ...

but its not the only way to control them, so i'm using the other way to control them :lol:

to go back to the original point of this post, I just think that it'd look a lot cleaner then doing what im currently doing (while still setting pre-determined values) - and giving more options to modders ...

Entirely because i would prefer control over how high or low a multiplier can be, rather then having to put the min/max values in the description of the mod setting, for example :]

Setting min/max is exactly how you control the setting's range. So use them.

I defintely could just let the ...

But why are you limiting a multiplier to a select few values? Same for the fish thing, just a regular integer input field works great.

BraveCaperCat wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 11:42 pm Related to 126369.

Not at all. One is about making object properties' quality scaling configurable, the other is about allowing recipes to manipulate quality.

Why not the item stack itself?

Duplicate of (a poorly formulated) viewtopic.php?t=127091

If at all, it should be a property in SpritePrototype, not button style. But you can already include manually modified files and use those.

wiggleshark wrote: Sun Mar 09, 2025 10:14 pm Okay, so there was a bit of a miscommunication. I am seeing new stops added to the front before the active temporary stop. I'm running 2.0.36.

Then why are you writing in a post-2.0.37 bugfix thread that can't possibly be the cause of your issue?

Maybe it's your turn? Download it and try. It has never had the behavior you describe. Unless you're misunderstanding...

1.1.109, 1.1.110:
stop is added to the end
active stop not changed

2.0.34, 2.0.39:
stop is added to the end
new stop made active

At no point have I observed what you ...

https://lua-api.factorio.com/latest/cla ... #animation
The exact same property name as on creation.

Or if you mean that animation prototypes are missing from runtime entirely, you should rephrase your request to ask for that.

Would be great if it recalculated the offset to preserve the current frame instead of a dedicated pause function. Then it will work for any change of speed.

Are you sure? It used to be [ edit on 1.1.110] that when I created a temporary stop, it would either
Insert it before the current stop [ edit and makes it active] or If a temporary stop is active, append it to the sequence of temporary stops.

Now, regardless, it just inserts it before the ...

Surely the items limitation is purely for balance. Meaning it should be for the mod to verify.

PietersieliePC wrote: Thu Mar 06, 2025 7:31 am I'm asking for the right way to do it to be made available.

But it's the wrong way. The property doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

Yes, putting this into entity seems like a wrong approach to the problem.

boskid wrote: Wed Mar 05, 2025 5:53 pm There are no restrictions for entities having hidden inventories and moving items into them or advertising output inventory to be one of those not accessible through LuaEntity(LuaControl)::get_inventory.

Right, that's called a missing API.

Rseding91 wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 1:31 pm which is probably what add_record should have been but oh well.

Better change it now while few mods use it and it's not in stable than wait till 3.0 and then leave it as is due to deadline.