Factorio Forums

tehfreek wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:39 pm I'm comfortable with leaving this as Undefined Behavior, i.e. "stop hitting yourself".

TRauMa wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 7:23 pm This breaks Angel's Bio processing. He uses recipes where you use a temperate garden (rare item found as tree entity on the map) and get one garden back, plus a some % chance for another. Changing that to a 51% chance to get two gardens would have the same expected yield, but it wouldn't be the same because you had a real chance of ending up without the item at all, and it might not be replaceable.

So I agree that the change makes sense for inputs, but not necessarily for outputs, too. Are there any bugs with multiple same outputs? Or maybe you could add an exception in the check to allow two same item outputs if exactly one of them has a probability?

Rseding91 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 7:49 pm

TRauMa wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 7:23 pm This breaks Angel's Bio processing. He uses recipes where you use a temperate garden (rare item found as tree entity on the map) and get one garden back, plus a some % chance for another. Changing that to a 51% chance to get two gardens would have the same expected yield, but it wouldn't be the same because you had a real chance of ending up without the item at all, and it might not be replaceable.

So I agree that the change makes sense for inputs, but not necessarily for outputs, too. Are there any bugs with multiple same outputs? Or maybe you could add an exception in the check to allow two same item outputs if exactly one of them has a probability?

I'll just remove the check for products for the next version of 0.17. I wasn't sure on the check for ingredients in the first place - since there are so many weird cases that stuff like these checks can break. So, I don't mind not having it for products until some future time when someone finds an issue with it.

  ["dry411srev-power-armor-mk2"] = {
    category = "recycling-1",
    enabled = false,
    energy_required = 25,
    group = "dry411srev-combat",
    hidden = false,
    icon = "__base__/graphics/icons/power-armor-mk2.png",
    icon_size = 32,
    ingredients = {
      {
        "power-armor-mk2",
        1
      }
    },
    localised_name = {
      "recipe-name.recycledparts",
      {
        "item-name.power-armor-mk2"
      }
    },
    name = "dry411srev-power-armor-mk2",
    order = "e[power-armor-mk2]",
    results = {
      {
        "effectivity-module-2",
        25
      },
      {
        "speed-module-2",
        25
      },
      {
        "processing-unit",
        60
      },
      {
        "electric-engine-unit",
        40
      },
      {
        "low-density-structure",
        10
      },
      {
        "low-density-structure",
        10
      },
      {
        "low-density-structure",
        10
      }
    },
    subgroup = "dry411srev-armor",
    type = "recipe"
  },

Rseding91 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 7:49 pm I'll just remove the check for products for the next version of 0.17. I wasn't sure on the check for ingredients in the first place - since there are so many weird cases that stuff like these checks can break. So, I don't mind not having it for products until some future time when someone finds an issue with it.

Arch666Angel wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:25 pm

Rseding91 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 7:49 pm

TRauMa wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 7:23 pm This breaks Angel's Bio processing. He uses recipes where you use a temperate garden (rare item found as tree entity on the map) and get one garden back, plus a some % chance for another. Changing that to a 51% chance to get two gardens would have the same expected yield, but it wouldn't be the same because you had a real chance of ending up without the item at all, and it might not be replaceable.

So I agree that the change makes sense for inputs, but not necessarily for outputs, too. Are there any bugs with multiple same outputs? Or maybe you could add an exception in the check to allow two same item outputs if exactly one of them has a probability?

I'll just remove the check for products for the next version of 0.17. I wasn't sure on the check for ingredients in the first place - since there are so many weird cases that stuff like these checks can break. So, I don't mind not having it for products until some future time when someone finds an issue with it.

Well I wouldn't mind if you implement other options to model cases like the one mentioned by Trauma. There have been multiple suggestions over time what could be added to recipe outputs in regards to probability and products. But anyway thanks for the fix.

EmperorZelos wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:26 pm The input one might make sense but for output, we NEED to be able to have duplicates to make certain features work nicely and there you don't need a check in the same way, it is just grab what ever is in the slot and shove it out!

  {
    type = "recipe",
    name = name,
	(other things needed for a recipe)
    ingredients =
    {
      {"ingredient", 10},
    },
    results =
    {
      {
        name = "result",
        amount = a particular amount that you're sure to obtain
      },
	  
      {
        name = "result",
	probability = 0.5,
        amount = the probability to obtain a bigger amount than the normal
      },
	},  
  }
  

Bilka wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:50 pm Rseding already said that duplicate products will be allowed again in the next version.

Bilka wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:50 pm Rseding already said that duplicate products will be allowed again in the next version.