- 1.jpg (866.53 KiB) Viewed 1233 times
- 3.jpg (869.29 KiB) Viewed 1233 times
Why the Decider combinator does not work
Why the Decider combinator does not work
The decision combiner does not work on Each signal if it is equal to 10,20,..,100,110,...
And work with Each signal if it is equal to 1-9,11-19,..111-119,..
google translate
Re: Why the Decider combinator does not work
[Koub] Moved to Gameplay Help.
Koub - Please consider English is not my native language.
Re: Why the Decider combinator does not work
Could you provide some more information about what you are trying to do as well as what is not happening when the test is a multiple of 10? And a blueprint with all the combinators would make it easier to replicate and investigate the issue.
I am trying to learn how to use the Each operand and it is tricky; I am finding that in my own combinator creations, it isn't a single combinator but how I am putting them together that doesn't do quite what I expect
I
I am trying to learn how to use the Each operand and it is tricky; I am finding that in my own combinator creations, it isn't a single combinator but how I am putting them together that doesn't do quite what I expect
I
My own personal Factorio super-power - running out of power.
Re: Why the Decider combinator does not work
Not having a blueprint means a lot of this is just guessing.
The arithmetic combinator "+1" is supposed to add one to each every tick. And the decider combinator "each < 120" makes it a cyclic counter.
There is the first problem. The construct has 2 ticks latency. You actually get 2 values running through the network at 1 cycle offset. If they ever get out of sync, e.g. due to low power or someone turning the constant combiantor on/off you get wonky results.
Next problem "+1" only works for signals already present on the wire. So the constant combinator must also feed some signals into this setup. But those are added to the values going around the loop as well. So beside the "+1" you also get "+constant combinator". So it's possible you add 10 to the value each cycle and a sequence 10, 20, ... is exactly what you programmed into it. At a minimum you would get a +2 increase with a circuit like this.
You should remove the arithmetic combinator. Just the decider and constant combiantors are already making a clock.
The arithmetic combinator "+1" is supposed to add one to each every tick. And the decider combinator "each < 120" makes it a cyclic counter.
There is the first problem. The construct has 2 ticks latency. You actually get 2 values running through the network at 1 cycle offset. If they ever get out of sync, e.g. due to low power or someone turning the constant combiantor on/off you get wonky results.
Next problem "+1" only works for signals already present on the wire. So the constant combinator must also feed some signals into this setup. But those are added to the values going around the loop as well. So beside the "+1" you also get "+constant combinator". So it's possible you add 10 to the value each cycle and a sequence 10, 20, ... is exactly what you programmed into it. At a minimum you would get a +2 increase with a circuit like this.
You should remove the arithmetic combinator. Just the decider and constant combiantors are already making a clock.
Re: Why the Decider combinator does not work
It seems you want to activate the inserter for 1 tick as soon as a counter reaches 120.
The whole thing will only start, if you use the constant combinator with a value of 1 on some signal.
In this case, your counter will count 1, 3, 5, 7, and so on, and will miss the 120, because it will start with 1 and increment by 2. The increment by 2 is coming from the constant combinator (1) and in addition from the arithmetic combinator where you also add 1.
It might be you overlooked the fact that all values from all sources on the same wire are added. In this case, the constant combinator constantly adds 1 to the counter and the +1 combinator also adds 1. So you're counting all odd values.
A correct solution would be to use the implicit adding +1 from the constant combinator and directly loop back the decider combinator.
In addition, the inserter can evaluate its activation condition itself, so you only need 1 constant combinator and 1 decider combinator.
To develop and debug circuit buildings, it helps tremendously using the map editor in a sandbox. Map editor includes a "single step" feature where you can advance the time tick by tick, so you can inspect every single tick of a circuit behavior. How you create a map editor lab environment without any mods, see for example here: viewtopic.php?p=548574#p548574
The whole thing will only start, if you use the constant combinator with a value of 1 on some signal.
In this case, your counter will count 1, 3, 5, 7, and so on, and will miss the 120, because it will start with 1 and increment by 2. The increment by 2 is coming from the constant combinator (1) and in addition from the arithmetic combinator where you also add 1.
It might be you overlooked the fact that all values from all sources on the same wire are added. In this case, the constant combinator constantly adds 1 to the counter and the +1 combinator also adds 1. So you're counting all odd values.
A correct solution would be to use the implicit adding +1 from the constant combinator and directly loop back the decider combinator.
In addition, the inserter can evaluate its activation condition itself, so you only need 1 constant combinator and 1 decider combinator.
- Screenshot 2022-10-07 165626.jpg (24.66 KiB) Viewed 1170 times
To develop and debug circuit buildings, it helps tremendously using the map editor in a sandbox. Map editor includes a "single step" feature where you can advance the time tick by tick, so you can inspect every single tick of a circuit behavior. How you create a map editor lab environment without any mods, see for example here: viewtopic.php?p=548574#p548574