Been trying to post some stuff in this thread and I'm getting this message.

Pretty cool but was sad you didn't fire that bad boy up.

That's very interesting thinking. I think maybe I see a way to make it work too, but I'm not so sure because it's late and I'm tired.

Gotta chew on that one a bit.

Yeah, mostly was just hoping that someone had some interesting black magic up their sleeve.

Probably for the best though. I try and avoid the dark arts where I can.


Edit - Err... No disrespect to the sorcerers out there.

This would integrate well with my suggestion to allow each side to force a switch in direction after every N trains. Now implemented. It works in a slightly non-rigid manner. Can't really see a point in forcing alternation if there's no train waiting to come from the other direction. The only use c...

When you have three pulse generators outputting to the same wire, you don't actually lose information when pulses coincide You misunderstand the problem. The issue here isn't the output side losing data but the input side losing data. splitting the data accross different signals and using multiples...

So I'm pretty I know the answer to this and I'm pretty sure the answer is "no" but I thought I would ask anyways. Let's say you want to turn a signal from a data source into a single tick pulse. Let's say it's for a counter. Easy enough. Now what if you want to do the same, where multiple ...

No for the rounding and yes for the handling of curve i would say ; there is no roundings but there are some particular numbers choosen to handle the curve (those are integer.) My best guess ATM is that this is a rounding issue in how the game handles the curves. What about rounding the bend? Oh go...

So this *might* be useless, it might not be. In any case, it's probably worth knowing about as it might cause a bug in your design. Here's the design - kinda weird.jpg And here's the BP (iron plates sold separately) 0eNrtWVtuozAU3Yu/ocLmFSJ1VtCv/o4qRILTWgKDjKkaVSygu5if2VhXMjakSUrtBHLVzlSanzSO4Vz7nON...

More tinkering. Here's a preview of what I'm working on adding - It seems to me to be important to consider that sometimes, one or both ends of a bi-directional rail may only have a limited number of blocks for trains. Imagine a crude oil outpost with an entrance, a loading station, and an exit. Wha...

Also, the number of bots you have has little to do with it. A lack of bots makes the problem worse. Basically the job manager cycles through jobs and then tries to assign a bot to each. This manager is only allowed to hold a certain number of jobs in the queue at a time for performance reasons and h...

(I don't understand the problem regarding the fork but i suspect that my english is lacking.) I think he's meaning a rail setup like in following trains D.jpg up above. With the design you have I believe a train can arrive at each entry station at the same tick. Then both trains will enter the one ...

You can test unlikely cases: At least with my test setup, the unlikely cases where less unlikely and where more or less certain. In prototype v 1 at the top, two trains entering from opposite sides on the same tick or perhaps within a couple of ticks of each other *will* cause deadlocks. I ended up...

Here's prototype version 2! The biggest change is that it no longer relies on having every signal on the rail wired up and set correctly like V1 did. That was just too dang bulky. It took the biggest advantage of single rail systems (flexibility) and threw it straight in the trash. Now, only the ent...

Only one exit signal (on each side) with the train limit controlled by a counter. Every time a train passes decrement the counter. This then blocks more trains from going in that direction and allows trains going the other way. Reset the counter once the trains in the other direction are moving. Th...

Being inspired by what you created i decided to try and make my own version. Hey cool. I look forward to taking a look at it. I have been mulling over a couple of possible solutions that rely on stations too but I decided I want to avoid that for a simple reason - you can't really do that with more...

Edit: Though , looking at it a bit more, ColonelSanders used the word " selfcontradiction" and not "confusion", i think then it would refers to something like 14.7 being rounded to down to 14, which is then not the "nearest" integer ? That's the one! Look, it's alright...

I have a similar issue, except not only for vehicles, but even for walls ! It just feels like the personal conbots randomly take their time to repair entities (while dead entity replacement is very quickly acted upon). Just now I've seen all of the 20/50 bots that I have available fail to all come ...

For clarity sake, you probably should say "rounded down to the nearest integer" That *hurts* my programmer brain because it's self contradicting... I think I know what it means but my brain thinks it's some kinda cruel buddist khone or something. That being said, I checked the wiki for an...

SoShootMe wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 12, 2022 4:38 pm

ColonelSandersLite wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 12, 2022 3:39 pm

Circuit networks only allow integers and they truncate.

mrvn wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 12, 2022 3:57 pm

Also beware the the number is rounded to the nearest integer.

At most one of these statements can be correct .

I'm pretty sure that it's truncation but It's possible that I'm wrong. It has happened!