Factorio Forums

Allow changing entity settings (e.g. circuit network conditions, constant combinators, assembler recipes and similar) from radar remote view.

Currently you can build with blueprints / ghosts remotely but you can't change the setting of an existing entity. I understand the reason for not letting us change actual objects (e.g. change a belt direction) - because we are not actually there.

But I think something simple like electronic instructions in circuits or a recipe should be changeable. It would be really damn useful.

I fully agree with this request. I had it multiple times whereas I built something, be it assemblers or filter-inserters far away, only to get the need to go there anyway, because I had to set the recipies manually. This could need some change.

It works this way by design. You're meant to go there if you want to do more than blueprint/deconstruct.

The same reason you can't open/change machines at any distance in the normal view.

if you want to do this remotely there is a work around, copy it to where you are, fiddle and copy back, I did a world where I was locked inside a box made for learning and planning some interesting things. Now just need to know how to keep station names the same with BPs

Rseding91 wrote:It works this way by design. You're meant to go there if you want to do more than blueprint/deconstruct.

The same reason you can't open/change machines at any distance in the normal view.

Fair enough. Thanks for the answer. Maybe a remote control device would be cool for changing constant combinators, but I suppose that is more of a mod-type thing

Rseding91 wrote:It works this way by design. You're meant to go there if you want to do more than blueprint/deconstruct.

The same reason you can't open/change machines at any distance in the normal view.

However you currently can tear down the entire thing, and replace it with the one combinator changed. Given that the radar view exists now, and what it allows you to do, I think you should be allowed to change something remotely. Taking the train across half the map and back to fix a single inserter is not the best use of playertime.

If construction bots can remotely deconstruct and construct machines, and you can deconstruct and reconstruct a machine to set its default settings, maybe construction bots should remotely carry out any changes you make in the radar remote view.

(I know this would be a PAIN to code, but it logically makes sense.)

TL;DR

When in map view (clicking on the minimap and moving around independent of character), I believe it would be beneficial to be able to configure buildings (e.g. assemblers, splitters, combinators, etc...).

What ?

When in map view be able to configure buildings. Currently the player is not able to access the configuration of the various buildings from map view. Once in map view the player is not able to left click on an assembler and have the configuration window displayed.

Go to Map View Attempt to click on a building. In this case a decider combinator. Nothing will happen. I believe the behavior should be the same or similar to when click on a building next to you. In this case a decider combinator. The configuration window opens.

Why ?

After, 1 vanilla playthrough, 1 krastorio 2 playthrough, and currently on a space exploration playthrough, the lack of ability to natively configure buildings from a distance is a major lack of capability that I feel limits the flow of expanding the factory.

I understand if the initial phase of the game wants to limit the player to the character, but once the factory is passed the initial starter base, the lack of ability to natively configure buildings from a distance is a major hindrance.

I can currently get the desired behavior by building the building next to my character accessing the configuration, changing the configuration to what I need, cut/copy the building, and then pasting it where I want it elsewhere on the map. Why bring this up? Why suggest this feature if you can do what you want anyway? Because if I can do it anyway, the limitation on the gameplay to force me to be the "character" isn't really there, and now it's just a tedious process to configure buildings far away.

This capability is already in the game for Train Stops. I can select a Train Stop from the other side of a map in map view, change the Train Stops circuit/logistic networks and how the stop interacts with trains. I believe having the capability to configure other buildings as well would be a major improvement in gameplay.

moved to similar suggestion


The good question here is: why do you have the need to change the setting of your buildings? I hear only, that it is needed. But why do you need to change the recipes or what exactly do you want to change then? Because I don’t have so much need for that.

You can argue “but changes from planet to planet: I need to fly to that planet first…”, but that doesn’t answer why you need to change it.

I point also to the fact, that this seems to implement a lot of not so logical changes: if the player is able to access the configuration of a building, then why is he not able to just build anything? It’s just “one more thing”. You reduce the game-target here: automation.

You build it so, that it will work automatically now and as far as possible in the future.

See also other arguments from above, especially from dev.


Similar suggestions:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=57028 Allow adjustment of constant combinators from the map screen
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=99560 Change recipe from map view?

Ok, you want to change the module configuration, that is really useful. But there is a mod for that.
https://mods.factorio.com/mod/ModuleInserterER

There are a lot similar suggestions, which aim much more in the direction to access combinators, especially constant combinators. Which is in my opinion the same quality or very similar to access train stops/trains.

Enhancements to that direction are wireless signals, just some of many:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=47429 global circuit network
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=49317 Radio Links for signals transmission

First, thank you for taking the time for a well thought out constructive response, I genuinely appreciate the feedback.

As to your questions and points, I will do my best to organize my responses.

1. "Why do you have the need to change the setting of your buildings?"
   
   I believe the best response to this is to ask the same question but add near and far and the answer is the same.
   "Why do you have the need to change the setting of your buildings (near)?"
   "Why do you have the need to change the setting of your buildings (far)?"
   Because the buildings setting needs to be changed.
   [br][/br]
2. "Because I don't have so much a need for that."
   
   You don't ever need to change the configuration of a building? I don't understand, are your buildings somehow in the correct configuration when you place them?
   [br][/br]
3. "that doesn't answer why you need to change it."
   
   Because the buildings setting needs to be changed, the current setting is not the setting that it needs to be.
   [br][/br]
4. "then why is he not able to just build anything?"
   
   I don't understand, your point seems to be conflating the player building options with being able to select build options from a building. I'm not understanding the relevancy.
   [br][/br]
5. "you build it so, that it will work automatically now and as far as possible in the future."
   
   I have a tendency to build blueprints for a general purpose and then change the configuration as I need. My blueprints are organized as 1 input 1 output assemblers, 2 input 1 output assemblers, 3 input 1 output assembler, 2 input 2 output assembler, 1 input 1 output smelter, etc.... I suppose I could make a blueprint specifically towards a particular recipe, but that seems redundant when the layout of the buildings are the same between each recipe and the only difference is the configurations. However, I don't believe it should matter whether I configure the buildings or blueprint near or far from the character.
   [br][/br]
6. "It works this way by design. You're meant to go there if you want to do more than blueprint/deconstruct."
   
   Ok, why do train stations not adhere to this?
   why does copy and paste work from a distance?
   why are blueprints special?
   [br][/br]

Thank you for the links to mods, they don't really solve my issue, I already have a global circuit network throughout my base using vanilla green/red wires. But the mods are neat.

My two cents: it feels incredibly dumb every time I place an assembler next to my character, set the recipe, request modules, insert modules, cut it, switch to map, deconstruct the misconfigured assembler, and paste the new one.

Even if it's locked behind a technology gate, the satnav view in Space Exploration is a much more natural way to interact with automated construction.

jdmaster wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 4:00 am "Why do you have the need to change the setting of your buildings (near)?"
"Why do you have the need to change the setting of your buildings (far)?"
Because the buildings setting needs to be changed.

But this doesn’t answer the question. why do you need to change the setting at all?
And it ignores that near is much more near than far.

I have a tendency to build blueprints for a general purpose and then change the configuration as I need. My blueprints are organized as 1 input 1 output assemblers, 2 input 1 output assemblers, 3 input 1 output assembler, 2 input 2 output assembler, 1 input 1 output smelter, etc.... I suppose I could make a blueprint specifically towards a particular recipe, but that seems redundant when the layout of the buildings are the same between each recipe and the only difference is the configurations. However, I don't believe it should matter whether I configure the buildings or blueprint near or far from the character.

Ah, ok, THAT answers the question for the WHY. Because I have a completely different strategy. I build nearly everything from scratch. Because it is an astonishing creative process. Well, it looks most times very equal, and is a bit tedious, but sometimes I find a new solution.

But that answers me also, that it would be no solution to enable a player access from map-view, because as robot256 explained, because there is a workaround and this workaround is ugly.

In my opinion the “right way” to go would be to enable more features for blueprinting. E.g. “replace recipe for all assemblies before printing with …”. Kind of blueprint-macros, or blueprint-placeholder / replacement.
I keep it vague. Because that would be a new suggestion.

Ok, why do train stations not adhere to this?
why does copy and paste work from a distance?
why are blueprints special?

Trains schedule can be operated from far, so the stops.
Copy/paste is a blueprint.
Because blueprints can get very big, you cannot explain that a blueprint with 1000x1000 can only be placed within a range of 50. And there is an extra mode for building blueprints on that map.
But that are just my rush thoughts on that, because I think it makes not much sense to discuss the why of that things.

robot256 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 5:29 am My two cents: it feels incredibly dumb every time I place an assembler next to my character, set the recipe, request modules, insert modules, cut it, switch to map, deconstruct the misconfigured assembler, and paste the new one.

I also think that all kinds of combinators should be switchable from far. Also modules.

But recipes? Then you need - for logical reasons - also to change filter settings, chest requests etc. no, I think that’s nottheway to go.

Even if it's locked behind a technology gate, the satnav view in Space Exploration is a much more natural way to interact with automated construction.

Exactly this: Factorio can be modded for that. If you play such a mod, the mod developer is responsible for enabling this. But it should not be in vanilla.

I confident that there are already mods that can do that.

Issue with enabling reconfiguration of assemblers from afar: what to do with any inputs or outputs in it.

A) Magically transport them the far distance to your inventory? That makes less logical sense and then brings up the question of why you can’t grab items from chests from afar.

B) Let them just be destroyed? *waits for screaming and people grabbing torches and pitchforks*

I can certainly see viewing the assembler config from afar (can come in handy for diagnosing issues), but changing the config has potential issues afaics.

In my case, I frequently am at an outpost and discover a particular item is not being delivered by my construction train. I can place ghosts to add it to my main mall, but setting the recipe and associated circuits is cumbersome (and impossible if I do not have the items in my inventory for a local blueprint).

For jdmaster's case, how about a compromise (maybe suggested already)? Much like we have recently seen the introduction of belt rotation orders, which are created when pasting over belts with a different orientation, make pasting assemblers over one another order robots to change the recipe and modules. This would be a shorthand for deconstruct-and-replace, but the assembler itself would not need to be replaced. The robots would have to collect the unused contents same as when they deconstruct.

I like the idea of robots getting the orders to change recipes and combinator settings. For assembler recipes, this would allow the robots to pull any excess input/output ingredients in the case of a running assembler before changing the recipe.

Edit: Many hours later, I realize I misspelled "combinator" ("cominator" )

Yes, exactly. The only reason this topic arises is that in a game about "automating everything", when you have reached the pinnacle of technology, it feels discontinuous that you cannot automate a few very specific things.

I like both the ideas of changing a distant buildings settings with allowing robots to collect unused items, and expanding blueprint options to allow recipe changes.

The robot idea especially feels very inline with other robot construction functionality.

robot256 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 2:30 pm Yes, exactly. The only reason this topic arises is that in a game about "automating everything", when you have reached the pinnacle of technology, it feels discontinuous that you cannot automate a few very specific things.

Agreed.

But I think it would be too simple — much too simple — to just continue as if I would be standing near the assembly. I mean, look at industrial processes: there is a time, where the system is build up. That needs people working directly at the place where this is build. I cannot imagine a technique, which allows to build a technical process from sitting at home, because there will always be security reasons, that speak against doing this so. Now and in far, far future.

Well, we don’t need to care about that in Factorio, but what I mean is, that the process from building/changing things from far away should be different (and maybe a bit more clumsy), than from near.

jdmaster wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 3:18 am The robot idea especially feels very inline with other robot construction functionality.

I also think robots should play a role in it. I somehow like the idea of “cleaning up” before the recipe can change. All input items(inserters, pipes etc.) needs to be flushed somehow. Easiest by removing and rebuilding them. As stated above.

Hm. This idea needs much more refinement, but I think this is the right direction.

You can do a lot of things form map view, but you can't change settings of buildings and you can't build circuit networks from map view at all.
The current work around, building and configuring them locally to copy and paste it over already build entities feels kind of clunky and awkward.

Suggestion: allow building/deconstruction of circuit wires from map view and allow opening up combinators from map view. Also I would like a quick tip on connected entities about the signals like at poles.