Factorio Forums

Factorio uses for everything quadrats. (The gun turrets are ar mistake, the are 1x2 ).
Simcity 4 for example made it a bit different, a diameter of 3 is quadratic, but 4 is looking so: And so on for 5 etc. the bigger the diameter, the more realistic circles are drawed.
On the other hand we are used to it and it makes calculations much easier (for programmers, for the program, for us, the players).
I just want to discuss that...

this will be source of pathfind issues and building overcomplication...

all objects shoud be as simple shape as possible.

There aren't that many buildings >3×3, with the only notable exception being solar panels. Assuming that they generate power proportional to the area they occupy, they would only be a bit more annoying to put down, with no real other consequences.

For assemblers/furnaces, a nonrectangular shape would be bad, because that means less space for inserters…

Currently steam engines are not perfectly rectangular. It makes them a prime targets for creepers, who love to get stuck in them, get mad and destroy stuff.
Most structures are kinda small. The only reasonable pseudo-circular shape I can imagine being useful is 4x4 without corners. Long assembly chains with only few resources (inserter -> smart inserter) would look similar to how they look now.

Currently only wires, weapons, creepers, player and logistic bots use euclidean ("circular") metric. Everything else uses squares and Chebyshev metric (total distance is sum of x and y distances). Circular buildings would look out of place.
For it to look "natural" we'd need 8-side rotations, which would be a cool feature but would require quite a bit of redesigning. 8-direction inserters (especially the long ones), belts, circular electric supply range etc. Good for an eventual long-term goal, though.

EDIT: Got wrong metric, correcting.

Uh. I don't meant buildings. Made wrong examples. sorry. I mean for example the radius of the radar and the delivery radius of poles. Did I forget something? When I think now over it, I meant only that, because - as C. said, wires, weapons, creepers, player and logistic already uses Euclidean metrics.
For buildings: well, I think an assembly which has one edge free (3x3, but only 8 fields used, one edge is empty) could be an interesting new element.

I never had that problem with steam engines. I recommend to built a wall around that, because creepers tend to destroy something, when they have no place to move.

maybe making them round will make a factory quite harder to make, but it is more realistic tho.
With it beeing round you would need to use more posts, or let some areas unpowered.

I prefer it as it is. Better for my OCD

Goddohando wrote:I prefer it as it is. Better for my OCD

That is my perception as well

Coolthulhu wrote:Everything else uses squares and taxicab metric (total distance is sum of x and y distances).

It's not Taxicab metric. It's the Chebyshev metric (Total distance is maximum of x and y distances).

Holy-Fire wrote:

Coolthulhu wrote:Everything else uses squares and taxicab metric (total distance is sum of x and y distances).

It's not Taxicab metric. It's the Chebyshev metric (Total distance is maximum of x and y distances).

OT: I believe mathematicians call these Manhatten and Maximum metrics/norms (or alternatively L_1 and L_infinity).

zlosynus wrote:

Holy-Fire wrote:

Coolthulhu wrote:Everything else uses squares and taxicab metric (total distance is sum of x and y distances).

It's not Taxicab metric. It's the Chebyshev metric (Total distance is maximum of x and y distances).

OT: I believe mathematicians call these Manhatten and Maximum metrics/norms (or alternatively L_1 and L_infinity).

Those are also valid names (and in fact are mentioned in the linked Wikipedia pages).

Octagonal range is quite fast as well. Then there is the distance with the quake square root which works by magic and is quite fast.

LoSboccacc wrote:Octagonal range is quite fast as well. Then there is the distance with the quake square root which works by magic and is quite fast.

There's a simple trick that makes circular range almost as fast - compare squared distances instead of roots.
Square roots are only needed when you need the precise magnitude of an effect, such as when shading pixels.

Coolthulhu wrote:

LoSboccacc wrote:Octagonal range is quite fast as well. Then there is the distance with the quake square root which works by magic and is quite fast.

There's a simple trick that makes circular range almost as fast - compare squared distances instead of roots.
Square roots are only needed when you need the precise magnitude of an effect, such as when shading pixels.

We do it, ofcourse, some of the distances are actually already stored as squared