Factorio Forums

This is not a critical but annoying bug.
I'm playing with a blueprint grid (4x4 big electric poles). If I place small or medium poles in between, the big poles do not connect. First I have to remove it and replace on of them, then it gets connected.

Build order with no connection Build order with connection Even, if you remove the small power poles, the big poles do not connect. You have to connect them manually. Edit, just found this in the WIKI:

A newly-placed electric pole will be automatically connected to nearby poles according to the following rules:

- It will be connected to other available poles, starting with the closest one.
- It won't be connected to 2 poles connected to each other (it won't form a 3 pole triangle).
- It will not be connected to more than 5 other poles.

So, I guess the last rule is causing this problem.
It could be really simple solution, if big electric poles always prioritize connection to other big electric poles (or maybe every pole size tries to connect to the same size first, if available).

pitgrap wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2019 10:51 amIt could be really simple solution, if big electric poles always prioritize connection to other big electric poles (or maybe every pole size tries to connect to the same size first, if available).

I don't think I understand how this is supposed to work.

Looking at your first screenshot, you place the unmarked big electric poles, and then the poles marked 1 and 2. Everything proceeds exactly as it has in the past. (Correct? Or are you expecting observe a behavior change here too?) Now you place the medium pole marked 3. What would you like to have happen?
The current rules say pole 3 connects first to the closest pole that has at most four connections (connect to pole 1), and then to all other poles in range that do not create a triangle. (Although 2 is in range, that would create a triangle, so it doesn't connect.)

What rules would you use instead when placing pole 3?
What rules would you use when placing pole 3 if it's moved slightly so pole 2 is no longer in range?

feels like "Not a bug" but may be "wont fix"

In first case, when placing 2 small poles (2. and 3.), they attached to big electric pole (1.) and depleted its connections. Second big pole could not connect because only big pole in range is fully connected.

In second case, big pole connected succesfully because there were only 3 connections already, then second small pole connected to first small pole beacuse it was only pole in range with available connections

Possible fixes (if treated as bug):
- deep network fix by reconnecting - may have high performance impact as connections may need to be fixed recursivly
- change connection order to "first same type" - this would not solve mixed cases with building order: "1.big, 2. medium, 3.small, 4. second big" as small pole could connect to big pole instead of medium

btw: not reconnecting poles on deconstruction is intended behavior as it could connect networks that were separated manually: poles connect only 1/when building (not when fast-replacing from small to medium even if medium pole has poles it could connect), 2/ manual with copper wire

Thanks for the report however that's not a bug: electric poles only connect to a max of 5 other poles and in your example it is maxed out.

Thank you for the replies. I agree that this is not a bug, since it works as the rules described in the wiki, but it still breaks my grids.

The real example is a grid of big poles with medium poles next to a wall with laser turrets. If I want to expand my base with the grid blueprint, the new big poles are build by the robots outside the wall, but they are not connected automatically caused by the rules.

Maybe we can call this a feature request to avoid my problem.

Big electric poles are used for long range connections and mostly not to connect to an assembly machine. So it would be nice, to enhance this to rule to allow the big electric poles to connect to the nearest big pole. Or maybe like "It will be connected to other available poles, starting with the closest one of the same type." Or maybe changing the third rule to "It will not be connected to more than 6 other poles."

I'm curious the benefit to stopping checking after 5 (or 6, or any number).

Poles have a limited range and we don't place them often. Is there a performance hit for checking all poles in range, and does that hit affect gameplay?

Or does it frequently (or ever, even) cause connections the player obviously wouldn't want? I can't think of any worse situations than what was described here, but I've not run testing on it so am not near to saying they don't exist.