we surround the problem, step by step.Jap2.0 wrote:or send trains to multiple simultaneously.
This is exactly what i described in my example...
Greetings, Ronny
we surround the problem, step by step.Jap2.0 wrote:or send trains to multiple simultaneously.
The only ways I can think of to do this currently are to have seprately named stations, have trains on completely seperate sections of rail so that they could not path to the other station (which would have the same consequences and probably even more difficulty than renaming them), or forcing the second train to repath after the first train reaches the station, which would require at least a slight (although probably not overly proablematic, unless you're going megabase size) delay, and the repathing would cause a delay that could be even larger than waiting for the first train to arrive before sending the second train.rldml wrote:we surround the problem, step by step.Jap2.0 wrote:or send trains to multiple simultaneously.
This is exactly what i described in my example...
Greetings, Ronny
So, you agree with me, that there is no good solution possible for this scenario in vanilla (especially if there are more than two "StationB")? Only bad working workarounds, where you have to do stuff permantly with your hands or you loose the efficiency bonus of using trains in general?Jap2.0 wrote: The only ways I can think of to do this currently are to have seprately named stations, have trains on completely seperate sections of rail so that they could not path to the other station (which would have the same consequences and probably even more difficulty than renaming them), or forcing the second train to repath after the first train reaches the station, which would require at least a slight (although probably not overly proablematic, unless you're going megabase size) delay, and the repathing would cause a delay that could be even larger than waiting for the first train to arrive before sending the second train.
The way I do it, each mining outpost has its own mini-stacker (4 or 6 bays). If the bays are all full (count the number of red lights in the stacker) then the mining outpost's station is disabled. With 48+ trains on the network, trains departing their depot then automatically don't go to a mining outpost if its queue is full but go to the next nearest instead. Mining outposts also deactivate themselves when they have less than a trainload of ore in stock, so any train in an outpost-stacker will automatically skip to the next outpost if the stocks were drained while it was waiting.rldml wrote:So, you agree with me, that there is no good solution possible for this scenario in vanilla (especially if there are more than two "StationB")? Only bad working workarounds, where you have to do stuff permantly with your hands or you loose the efficiency bonus of using trains in general?Jap2.0 wrote: The only ways I can think of to do this currently are to have seprately named stations, have trains on completely seperate sections of rail so that they could not path to the other station (which would have the same consequences and probably even more difficulty than renaming them), or forcing the second train to repath after the first train reaches the station, which would require at least a slight (although probably not overly proablematic, unless you're going megabase size) delay, and the repathing would cause a delay that could be even larger than waiting for the first train to arrive before sending the second train.
Would you agree, that this is the opposite of "automate everything"?
That is the reason we need something to fill this gap, even if is used only by 1% of the community
I understand the problem, but with the current scheduling involved, this will never work. The game will, once a train wants to go to the next station find the lowest cost path to that station, and the train will keep to this path unless a recalculation is forced by an interuption in the path. If the station is disabled by the time the train gets there it'll then repath to the next nearest station with that name online. On huge rail nets that can send trains all over the place, which is problematic. The only way to force a train to go to a specific station is to disable all other stations with the same name. That can be done (along with reactivating the station right before the train is there) but requires an uninterrupted circuit signal across the entire rail network. Good luck keeping biters away from the power poles...rldml wrote:I want, that a train get his next target based on circuit network conditions instead of a hard coded scheduling.Jap2.0 wrote:To clarify: you want one train to go to each available station, which will be turned off after the train is there and are arbitrarily turned on again?
Or to stay in my example: I want a way to tell a train, it has to target the 1000 tiles "StationB", even when there is another "StationB", which is possibly nearer.
Yes, a 3D version of Factorio would be nice, like FortressCraft, just higher quality.olafthecat wrote:Besides, if they want more money, they could just make 3d version.
I would love that.
I just want to add the hint, that some stuff is nearly unmoddable (or only with performance penalties) but easy to implement within the source code of the game. In my terms it's mandatory for a "you have to pay for it"-DLC, that the content is not easy moddable like a better axe, a faster assembly or something else. Instead it should implement additional core features and more possibilities for modders.bobucles wrote:Unfortunately the nature of DLC places it in direct competition with the modding community who do it for FREE.
No need to set the bar quite that low ...Tekky wrote:Yes, a 3D version of Factorio would be nice, like FortressCraft, just higher quality.
There are many possibilities. In addition to your idea about separate layers for example:SirLANsalot wrote:What would a DLC even look like for Factorio? The game itself is nearly perfect, there is very little they could add without doing something un-necessary.
Klonan wrote:So far the income from all the merchandise we have sold is an order of magnitude lower than even a single week of selling the game,Aeternus wrote:Factorio might benefit from some merchandise instead. T-shirts are a nice start, but a Factorio toolbox/bag of hard hat come to mind as well. The game itself, even with the price hike, has a fair price I feel for the content it provides.
Not to mention it has far higher costs (Costs for the goods, administrative workload/labour etc.)
Merchandise will just frankly not work to supplement the company revenue in any significant way