Friday Facts #382 - Logistic groups

[Dead2]

A few thoughts I have had the past few days:

- No bots? That is a shame. I was really looking forward to seeing bots navigate space with its need to burn to speed up and then midway they would need to counter-burn (potentially after rotating 180 degrees) to slow down etc. I think this would fit in really well honestly, and I think it would be fine if the platform itself came with a fixed number of bots and there was no way to expand that, and no need to worry about coverage since the platform itself is providing its own coverage. Space is tricky though, so the bots would probably be a lot slower than what we are used to. That would be fine for construction. If it came with logistics bots as well, they would be too few and too slow to satisfy anything but the occasional delivery of items.
Currently it seems a little strange this awesome platform can extend itself and sprout buildings and belts, but is somehow still unable to route and deliver items between buildings.

- Only one launch-pad per planet? The first thing I was thinking is I wanted one automatic and one for manual feeding. Perhaps this could be solved with research? The first launch-pad could be manual, then later research gives automatic mode(possibly needs to upgrade to tier 2 launch-pad as well). And possibly further expensive research could give an extra launch-pad. That research could potentially be made infinite, so you could dedicate valuable research towards unlocking additional launch-pads.

- Weight is a difficult thing to implement in the game at this point. And limiting space in the rocket too. An idea could be that more weight increases the rocket fuel requirements, and high loads reduces fuel efficiency as well. Possibly up to some max capacity of the fuel tanks (potential for higher tier rockets as well).
Another idea here would be to have a tiny percentage chance of a launch failure, with that percentage increasing with higher loads and/or exceeding safe fuel requirements. A crash could be devastating of course, but if the wreckage (some distance away from the base) could be mined then perhaps hard-to-obtain resources could be recovered so it is not a complete bust for the player.
These ideas don't solve anything with regard to weight, but are meant as thought experiments.

Also: I REALLY wish you would release some of the QOL improvements that are unrelated to space before 2.0, waiting a year for this stuff is painful.. Perhaps a 1.9 beta series for pre-purchasers? TAKE MY MONEY!

[Hanakocz]

If the landing pad is limited to 1 per planet, is that also per team or each team (force) can have their own landing pad?

[FuryoftheStars]

- No bots? That is a shame. I was really looking forward to seeing bots navigate space with its need to burn to speed up and then midway they would need to counter-burn (potentially after rotating 180 degrees) to slow down etc.

Well, considering current bots use propellers, they'd either have to change or come up with a new bot to go in addition to the existing. But using a new bot isn't exactly ideal as there would be no reason why it couldn't be used in atmosphere, thus supplanting the original. You'd still need some type of charging station for them, and for thruster powered bots, most likely some type of fuel.

I think this would fit in really well honestly, and I think it would be fine if the platform itself came with a fixed number of bots and there was no way to expand that, and no need to worry about coverage since the platform itself is providing its own coverage. Space is tricky though, so the bots would probably be a lot slower than what we are used to. That would be fine for construction. If it came with logistics bots as well, they would be too few and too slow to satisfy anything but the occasional delivery of items.

You kind of shoot down your own suggestion, here. Limited bot count makes logistic fairly unworth having, so why bother having construction when the platform can build itself? Another reason I assume they decided against bots is because allowing them requires logi chests, and they decided against having any chests so that you can't buffer.

Currently it seems a little strange this awesome platform can extend itself and sprout buildings and belts, but is somehow still unable to route and deliver items between buildings.

Why? Everything you build on the platform is technically a part of the platform, so the belts you build can be seen as you simply dictating to the platform as to where it directs all of the resources, the inserters being the platform delivering and taking goods, etc.

- Weight is a difficult thing to implement in the game at this point. And limiting space in the rocket too. An idea could be that more weight increases the rocket fuel requirements, and high loads reduces fuel efficiency as well. Possibly up to some max capacity of the fuel tanks (potential for higher tier rockets as well).

This would require dynamic recipes, wouldn't it?

Another idea here would be to have a tiny percentage chance of a launch failure, with that percentage increasing with higher loads and/or exceeding safe fuel requirements. A crash could be devastating of course, but if the wreckage (some distance away from the base) could be mined then perhaps hard-to-obtain resources could be recovered so it is not a complete bust for the player.

"percentage chance [for a] crash"... nope, no thank you!

------------------------------------------------

If the landing pad is limited to 1 per planet, is that also per team or each team (force) can have their own landing pad?

It would have to be per team (force), otherwise the first player faction to a new planet could lock the other one out from receiving goods.

[Khagan]

- Only one launch-pad per planet?

No, only one landing pad. As many launch pads (rocket silos) as you like.

[Tohim]

Wait a second, do landing pads have cargo bay extensions? Aren't those cargo bay extensions limited to Space Platform Hubs?

[...]

I don't think those cargo bays are mentioned with a landing pad at any point, or did I miss something?

I was just about to suggest making the landing pads extendable to prevent throughput limitation. But how do you know this to already be true?

Because it says it in the same paragraph as it mentions the 1 per planet limit:

Overall logistics

The last non-explained piece of the puzzle is the way items are transported from orbit back to the surface.

This is done with the cargo landing pad, which is a special building that can be extended with cargo bays like the space platform hub, and more importantly, you can have only one per planet!

But also, as someone else mentioned and I've had the chance to reread to confirm, they do support logistic bots pulling directly from them, too, so....

The landing pad has logistic requests, which are satisfied by platforms in orbit. Inserters can pull items from it directly, and it also works as a provider chest when in a logistic network on the surface.

Ohhh, I see now. But, to elaborate on my original suggestion, I wonder if the landing pad extensions will only extend the pad's inventory, or will they also add new landing hatches? Or will the only landing hatch not be throughput limited?

[FuryoftheStars]

Ohhh, I see now. But, to elaborate on my original suggestion, I wonder if the landing pad extensions will only extend the pad's inventory, or will they also add new landing hatches? Or will the only landing hatch not be throughput limited?

Logistic chests have never been throughput limited, so I doubt they will with this (in regards to bots), especially seems it'll be the only one.

[Koub]

Can a given item (say, yellow belts) be in more than one logistics group?

If so, what happens when two different logistics groups are active and have conflicting requirements for numbers?

I think the answer to the first question is yes :

laser turrets in two groups

2023-11-01 09_26_48-Clipboard.jpg (144.73 KiB) Viewed 1779 times

Now for the second question, I would expect the aggregated request to be either the sum, or the max. Preferably the sum, that would be my first expectation, as if I select two groups with the same item, I probably want to be able to build both "things I want to build" with the content of my selected requested groups.

[adam_bise]

Will item weight only be considered in rockets?

What about trains, vehicles, player inventory, etc.. ?

[Shelter_]

one cargo landing pad not a good idea, how about one pad must far away another pad over thousand meter

[XT-248]

Well, considering current bots use propellers, they'd either have to change or come up with a new bot to go in addition to the existing. But using a new bot isn't exactly ideal as there would be no reason why it couldn't be used in atmosphere, thus supplanting the original. You'd still need some type of charging station for them, and for thruster powered bots, most likely some type of fuel.

Look at what the engine on the space platform consumes.

Ice + chemical plant = fuel + oxidizer = engine fuel.

Problem solved at least from an abstraction point of view.

[misterboss4]

Maybe instead of the platform building itself, as that is a bit odd, have little spidertrons on the platform. That would also help make it feel more factorio-esque, and make a lot more sense. We should also have to make them, so maybe 5 or 10 would have to be sent up to construct the space platform.

[Fevix]

I would like these logistic groups to be extended to train schedules as well. Once you have a large enough train network, naturally you'll have your fleet of iron trains, and maybe you do something that requires you to change the iron fleet's scheduling.

[FuryoftheStars]

Well, considering current bots use propellers, they'd either have to change or come up with a new bot to go in addition to the existing. But using a new bot isn't exactly ideal as there would be no reason why it couldn't be used in atmosphere, thus supplanting the original. You'd still need some type of charging station for them, and for thruster powered bots, most likely some type of fuel.

Look at what the engine on the space platform consumes.

Ice + chemical plant = fuel + oxidizer = engine fuel.

Problem solved at least from an abstraction point of view.

And look at how the engines are constantly consuming all of it and shutting off in cycles because there's not enough of it. You're gonna want to save every ounce of it you can for those poor engines so your trip goes a little faster.

Really, though, having (space) fuel powered bots doesn't really add anything new to the game. It's just an electricity substitute, one which is unreliable to produce or have in quantity, so you'll be constantly running out.

[mrudat]

If we're going to have an unpack/build animation for things in space, I wonder if we could use the same on-planet?

It would be a flat nerf to building construction speed (which is now effectively instant)... but it would look significantly more awesome.


I've got to wonder if it would be fun and/or feasible to add low delta-V transfer orbits in addition to what appears to be (near) constant thrust between planets.


Ooh, are we going to get a drop-pod animation for incoming cargo?

Logically, we should supply some fuel, ablative armour or perhaps a parachute for cargo going downstairs.

Alternatively, the landing platform would need to have some way of catching incoming objects.


So... platforms act like an expensive, funny-looking train, or perhaps a car, given that there aren't platform stations that you can use for automation.

How would you go about automating cargo transfer via platform? Would you automate cargo transfer via platform?

I believe that we will have planet-specific science packs, and you need all of the types of science pack required for the research in question to be present in a lab to be able to science things.

If you can science things with only locally-made science packs or science packs made on a platform, then you don't need to shift large volumes of stuff between planets.

On the other hand if research requires planet-specific science packs from more than one planet, you would want to set up regular supply runs between plants, mostly likely carrying little more than science packs.

[XT-248]

And look at how the engines are constantly consuming all of it and shutting off in cycles because there's not enough of it. You're gonna want to save every ounce of it you can for those poor engines so your trip goes a little faster.

Really, though, having (space) fuel powered bots doesn't really add anything new to the game. It's just an electricity substitute, one which is unreliable to produce or have in quantity, so you'll be constantly running out.

I feel like this is a slippery slope: moving the goalposts.


The person you replied to was giving WUBE constructive criticism on the space platform construction's animation (what we have seen so far of a work-in-progress, that is).

I agree it looks too "magic-y" and doesn't fit the theme of a Factorio Engineer who just launched a rocket and suddenly discovered how to make grey-goo/nanite technology work. "Just because."


To make Space Construction Drones work, with a heavy dose of abstraction necessary for gameplay and fun, in space a Factorio engineer would need a small portable source of energy (Fusion Reactor or solar/battery), a source of fuel for air-less engine (Icy -> Fuel), a frame built for space operation (a new drone frame without atmosphere fan), and finally a home base aka Roboport (Space Platform Hub looks perfectly suitable with the large doors to launch space construction drone).

Everything to make a space construction drone exists in some form in Factorio 1.0 and makes more sense than leapfrog epochs ahead to "magic-y" grey-goo/nanite technology.


Logistic bots are a mixed bag here, and I agree that it is weird that the Space Platform can "move" a new Space Platform into position but is otherwise incapable of moving items logistic-wise.

I get what WUBE is trying to do with "puzzle" gameplay on space platforms and even then with the existence of space-based logistic bots. They would be incapable of picking or dropping off items without logistic chests (one of the banned/blocked items from being used on space platforms).

I am OKAY with not having logistic bots in space to avoid interfering with WUBE's vision of a limited space and puzzle gameplay with space platforms.


The rest can be tweaked to be not too tedious, balanced, and fun. Anything not implemented or mentioned here can be abstracted so as not to impact the in-game experience.

[FuryoftheStars]

And look at how the engines are constantly consuming all of it and shutting off in cycles because there's not enough of it. You're gonna want to save every ounce of it you can for those poor engines so your trip goes a little faster.

Really, though, having (space) fuel powered bots doesn't really add anything new to the game. It's just an electricity substitute, one which is unreliable to produce or have in quantity, so you'll be constantly running out.

I feel like this is a slippery slope: moving the goalposts.


The person you replied to was giving WUBE constructive criticism on the space platform construction's animation (what we have seen so far of a work-in-progress, that is).

I agree it looks too "magic-y" and doesn't fit the theme of a Factorio Engineer who just launched a rocket and suddenly discovered how to make grey-goo/nanite technology work. "Just because."


To make Space Construction Drones work, with a heavy dose of abstraction necessary for gameplay and fun, in space a Factorio engineer would need a small portable source of energy (Fusion Reactor or solar/battery), a source of fuel for air-less engine (Icy -> Fuel), a frame built for space operation (a new drone frame without atmosphere fan), and finally a home base aka Roboport (Space Platform Hub looks perfectly suitable with the large doors to launch space construction drone).

Everything to make a space construction drone exists in some form in Factorio 1.0 and makes more sense than leapfrog epochs ahead to "magic-y" grey-goo/nanite technology.


Logistic bots are a mixed bag here, and I agree that it is weird that the Space Platform can "move" a new Space Platform into position but is otherwise incapable of moving items logistic-wise.

I get what WUBE is trying to do with "puzzle" gameplay on space platforms and even then with the existence of space-based logistic bots. They would be incapable of picking or dropping off items without logistic chests (one of the banned/blocked items from being used on space platforms).

I am OKAY with not having logistic bots in space to avoid interfering with WUBE's vision of a limited space and puzzle gameplay with space platforms.


The rest can be tweaked to be not too tedious, balanced, and fun. Anything not implemented or mentioned here can be abstracted so as not to impact the in-game experience.

I'm not moving anything and I'm well aware of what they were criticizing and thus why they were suggesting the bot alternatives.

The behind the scenes reasoning, as the devs stated, are because they wanted to increase the logistics puzzle complexity (encourage spaghetti) and they didn't want the player the ability to buffer resources at the machines (so no chests, which includes all logistic chests). With this in mind, this means that logistic bots are immediately out the window, leaving only construction. So what then? Do they throw realism out the window for construction bots, likely getting more complaints & questions and causing confusion on why logistic bots can't be used? Or do they take the time in creating a new bot style for only construction bots, really? Do they make them run on fuel, causing other complexity issues, or do they throw that realism out the window, too (for even more complaints)? Do they make these new style bots in addition to the original (now having one bot style that's planet side only and another that logically could be either unless they arbitrarily restrict them to space only to keep the original's relevant) or replace? With having bots in space in general, they'd also have the increased complexity of having the bots change their flight patterns and (realistically... if they don't throw that out the window, too) consuming more fuel/electricity when the platform moves (and what happens when they hit the low fuel/power point and fly slowly while the platform is still speeding along?). (There may be other considerations with bots that I haven't even thought of, yet.)

Or... do they come up with a bot-less construction method (using the already improved remote tools for planets) where they attempt to add some animation elements so things aren't just appearing out of thin air? I imagine they didn't want to just put bots as they are in space, but neither did they want to take the time to rework bots simply so we could have plausible looking construction bots in space. Thus, we have what they've given us. Is it the best way/looking? I don't know and I have no arguments on those points. But I understand the reasoning of not using bots and that's what I'm attempting to explain.

And the platform routing of goods itself I've attempted to give an explanation for that feels legit. Realistically and from a gameplay perspective, the platform needs a way of being told where to route the resources (otherwise there's no puzzle), and simply setting up logistic queues (like schedules) has no challenge to it, so that's what you can look at the belts and inserters as: it's you designing the "inner workings" of the platform on where and what resources it directs around. They're not inside of the platform for gameplay reasons: visibility and puzzle (if you could route the belts under the machines, then there's no challenge).

[pleegwat]

Rocket-powered bots would use only a slight amount of fuel on a platform, but significantly (even punitively) more under gravity and/or atmosphere. On the other hand, they would fuel up way faster than electric bots would, but quadcopter (or airplane) bots powered by petroleum gas would get the same benefit. I don't know if Wube would want to go into that complexity though.

[FuryoftheStars]

Rocket-powered bots would use only a slight amount of fuel on a platform, but significantly (even punitively) more under gravity and/or atmosphere. On the other hand, they would fuel up way faster than electric bots would, but quadcopter (or airplane) bots powered by petroleum gas would get the same benefit. I don't know if Wube would want to go into that complexity though.

They'd also have to use more fuel in space when the platform is moving.

This is a lot of added complexity for having one half of the bot system available in space.

[Qon]

...

+1
Yeah I'm not complaining about lack of realism when it improves gameplay, for the reasons stated here.

And there's precedence. Burner inserters don't require electronic circuits. Why? Because they need to be low tech, cheap, easy to craft before green chips are available. No inserter requires steam engine, and boiler (burner inserters are magic) or engine units or electric engines (motors).

I do want more "realism" when it improves gameplay though. Like having multiple landing platforms (with some safety distance, or after research or something). Or having space platform need thrust for acceleration instead of speed. But I don't really know how the platform gameplay will turn out so maybe this is the "best" way.

They'd also have to use more fuel in space when the platform is moving.

-1

Wrong. Velocity doesn't require fuel.
They can land if they want to accelerate with the platform.

[mmmPI]

They'd also have to use more fuel in space when the platform is moving.

-1

Wrong. Velocity doesn't require fuel.
They can land if they want to accelerate with the platform.

But if one wants bots to move relative to the platform in case they carry item or repair packs from one side to another they will have to change their velocity to either go a little bit faster than the platform when trying to go to the front, or a little bit slower, if they want to move toward the back of the platform which would require energy. Though at this point one can admit the platform emit some kind of tractor beam to levitate the drones and is the source of energy. It's the most documented way of alien abducting people !

I think logistic bot would remove the puzzle part of the space platform, and the constructions ones would remove the "asteroid fields are dangerous to navigate" feeling. But i wonder how the reparation function, if you need to send repair pack in orbit and they are used somehow, or if you need to deconstruct some platforms that were not well equiped enough for a travel through many asteroids debris, or run the risk of sending one that is not full health, if there is some auto-repair with repair pack maybe it's slow enough so that a platform still need to be protected against debris or you need to stop and repair maybe ?