[2.0.20] Parameterized blueprint formula ignored

[doktorstick]

I have a simple blueprint that enables the the inserter if the chest has less than a rocket capacity, and the chest has a request of 40 * stack size. When pasting the blueprint, I select "mines" at the blueprint prompt. Both the inserter and the request size are set to 100. The expected outcome is that the inserter is 100 and the chest request is 4000.

11-21-2024, 09-44-24.png (204.04 KiB) Viewed 165 times

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

Copy blueprint

[LCStark]

It's because you've set both values to 1 in the blueprint you prepared, and same values get folded to be the same parameter. If you hover over the first "1" in your blueprint you can see that it considers that one to be present in both places, so the rocket cargo size gets used for both the request and the inserter condition.

parameter.png (83.06 KiB) Viewed 138 times

When preparing your blueprint, give them both different starting values, like 1 for the inserter and 2 for the request.

[doktorstick]

It's because you've set both values to 1 in the blueprint you prepared, and same values get folded to be the same parameter. If you hover over the first "1" in your blueprint you can see that it considers that one to be present in both places, so the rocket cargo size gets used for both the request and the inserter condition.

When preparing your blueprint, give them both different starting values, like 1 for the inserter and 2 for the request.

TL;DR - parameterization is finicky and needs some UI lovin', but the formula wasn't ignored in the "clean" path

Ahhhh. Is this tribal or experimental knowledge? Are they supposed to act as another form of unreferenceable identifier? I've been baselining the values in the blueprints I've been making If this is the case, that explains why sometimes when legitimate values are the same when I copy a subfactory to make it a parameter, it's all wonkijawed and broken looking.

I just popped in to check and this blueprint is scuffed. I changed the third line's value to 40 and saved the blueprint, pasted it, and same result. Examining the blueprint shows that the modification effed it up. It's like because the special value-as-identifier was all tangled inside its internal logic since they were both 1's.

broke.png (275.98 KiB) Viewed 117 times

When I created the contraption from scratch, ensure that all values were set differently, then blueprinted it and parameterized it, it worked.

[LCStark]

TL;DR - parameterization is finicky and needs some UI lovin', but the formula wasn't ignored in the "clean" path

Ahhhh. Is this tribal or experimental knowledge? Are they supposed to act as another form of unreferenceable identifier? I've been baselining the values in the blueprints I've been making If this is the case, that explains why sometimes when legitimate values are the same when I copy and subfactory to make it a parameter, it's all wonkijawed and broken looking.

Yeah, it kinda is. I definitely agree it needs UI/UX improvements, especially since the folding issue has been marked as a "Won't fix". You might want to check this topic: 117000, and especially this reply viewtopic.php?p=626811#p626811.