Factorio Forums

I think the dev want to much for 0.15.

Better one week later and closer to perfect

daniel34 wrote:I bet that most Factorio players will start using the experimental 0.15.0 as soon as it's out instead of staying with the stable 0.14.22, except maybe those that extensively use mods. I just hope that these players will see it for what it is - an experimental version.

How about dual installations? Give the player the option to switch between stable and experimental. I know that you can easily use dual-install but most people won't bother with it. What I mean is to integrate a switcher option into the game gui itself. E.g. a button in the main menu that states "Experimental version" or "Stable version" and you can switch by clicking on it. When joining a multiplayer game, it will automatically launch the correct version. When loading a game it will ask (upgrade the map/change the engine) if the game versions don't match.

ske wrote:

daniel34 wrote:I bet that most Factorio players will start using the experimental 0.15.0 as soon as it's out instead of staying with the stable 0.14.22, except maybe those that extensively use mods. I just hope that these players will see it for what it is - an experimental version.

How about dual installations? Give the player the option to switch between stable and experimental. I know that you can easily use dual-install but most people won't bother with it. What I mean is to integrate a switcher option into the game gui itself. E.g. a button in the main menu that states "Experimental version" or "Stable version" and you can switch by clicking on it. When joining a multiplayer game, it will automatically launch the correct version. When loading a game it will ask (upgrade the map/change the engine) if the game versions don't match.

I'd like that, but I think if we start with that, it is reasonable to also add a mod configuration to it so it is easy to switch between different modpacks and vanilla.

MaexxDesign wrote:I think the dev want to much for 0.15.

This is a bit true tbh. They are playing the 7 days to die card. Keep adding and adding and adding and adding content and it gets pushed back more and more. But then again we also don't know the full story.

Their doing massive optimizations. let's say they been working on rewriting one single thing since the day they started update 15. They might be working on that one single optimization even till today. All their devs would not work on it would be left for one person only. We know these kinds of things happen since even in the FFF's they state well I had nothing to do so I started to do this while others kept working blah blah.

That being said I was happy to learn 1-2 years ago about FFF stating updates faster as a bigger team grew :p Instead they got slower again and the team just kept growing hehe.

I call it the 7 days to die syndrome

Kane wrote:

MaexxDesign wrote:I think the dev want to much for 0.15.

This is a bit true tbh. They are playing the 7 days to die card. Keep adding and adding and adding and adding content and it gets pushed back more and more...

Interesting. If you don't want new content being added and the optimizations aren't welcome either, what do you expect the update to be?

DukeAl wrote:don't want new content being added

What you don't want new content being added?

This what looks like when you half read something

Alot of whiners around ignoring that a FFF is just a portion of the work being done, and it mustnt be the most productive work, it probably only is the most noteworthy one.

aober93 wrote:Alot of whiners around ignoring that a FFF is just a portion of the work being done, and it mustnt be the most productive work, it probably only is the most noteworthy one.

FFF's are vital not just for us but for the developers to keep their spirits up. I'm sure it's enjoyable to share their work with people.

Are the nuclear plant graphics finished yet? I would love to see non-placeholder nuclear plants

I am very impressed how seriously and deeply you take this game. It's not a bunch of collision boxes, destroying and rebuilding everything at each game tick.

This is a gigantic big algorythm, smooth calculation, and elegant coding. You are true pro: don't hide the bugs, overwrited by a code patch, but redo the core coding when each weakness is disovered.

I am impressed.

good times


say, a thought I've been having since it was accounced that 0.15 will introduce 'eternal research'

There is currently an achievement for having researched everything. Will that achievement also be changed? Or will it become impossible to get? Will it be discontinued so you can't get it anymore?

webkilla wrote:good times


say, a thought I've been having since it was accounced that 0.15 will introduce 'eternal research'

There is currently an achievement for having researched everything. Will that achievement also be changed? Or will it become impossible to get? Will it be discontinued so you can't get it anymore?

I wondered that as well, and when I asked a dev they confirmed that the achievement just means "research each different thing in the game" not every level of everything. So they said you can still get it in 0.15.

Hi
Can you Optimize the "loop based train track" system?
Double sided trains sucks but is the only option to not lag the game out with a big train system.
You always said that you want the players to play any way they want to and not being forced to use one way for performance sake.

Also I have an idea to help this and also help loop based station behave more desirable in some situations
Can you add a checkbox option of "Dedicated Station line" to the train station screen that make the train tracks used only for trains that want to stop at the station so passing by trains will not use it? (the station will be like disconnected path for them)

so for example if you have a main line with an outpost station forking out and back in from it and you set the outpost station to "Dedicated Station line" you will get 2 benefits, one for game play and one for performance:

1. Trains that doesn't go to the outpost but only passing by will use the main line always and never use the outpost route instead and potentially jam your station/stacker.
2. The passing by train pathing script will be more efficient as it will only have 1 path to calculate in this example (the main line path) as the outpost train path is a "No path" for this train as the station have the "Dedicated Station line" setting on it and is not a valid path

Thank you

No no we don't use double trains for lag reasons but rather it's the proper way then silly loops! They should get a nerf to performance to help promote proper train usage

Kane wrote:No no we don't use double trains for lag reasons but rather it's the proper way then silly loops! They should get a nerf to performance to help promote proper train usage

Silly double sided trains
Loop FTW!

Single sided, double sided, a big train, a small one, loop-based or no loops makes no difference in the games performance. They're all the same.

I have no idea where people get these ideas from but they're all false.

Rseding91 wrote:Single sided, double sided, a big train, a small one, loop-based or no loops makes no difference in the games performance. They're all the same.

I have no idea where people get these ideas from but they're all false.

Here for example:
https://youtu.be/E7st8UawPBI?t=8m32s
Should I tell Xterminator that he is totally wrong and need to do a correction video?

ili wrote:

Rseding91 wrote:Single sided, double sided, a big train, a small one, loop-based or no loops makes no difference in the games performance. They're all the same.

I have no idea where people get these ideas from but they're all false.

Here for example:
https://youtu.be/E7st8UawPBI?t=8m32s
Should I tell Xterminator that he is totally wrong and need to do a correction video?

I will, and already have admitted I was wrong in that video about the trains. I had misunderstood some thing's some other people had discussed with me.
Loops are still bad, but not necessarily for lag or performance reasons. I do apologise for misleading anyone, it certainly wasn't my intention. The takeaway from the video I still stand behind though, to not use loops. Just not for the reason I said in the video.

Kane wrote:

MaexxDesign wrote:I think the dev want to much for 0.15.

This is a bit true tbh. They are playing the 7 days to die card. Keep adding and adding and adding and adding content and it gets pushed back more and more. But then again we also don't know the full story.

We do know the full story though.

Since we are going to be spending the next period polishing and fixing what we already have, you can look forward to some less interesting FFF posts in the coming days. Take the lack of exiting new topics to cover as a good omen that the whole team's effort is on getting everything ready for the release.

In other words, they're wrapping up. No "7 days to die syndrome"