Factorio Forums

Mr. Tact wrote:

Moosfet wrote:Seriously, I thought it was a new feature, or at least a resolution of an old annoyance, as I always do star topology connecting every item to a pole rather than to each other.

Inquiring minds want to know -- what are you doing when you do this?

Moosfet wrote:I'm rather surprised to find anyone does it any other way.

siggboy wrote:

Moosfet wrote:I'm rather surprised to find anyone does it any other way.

You'll probably also be rather surprised how inconvenient your approach is when you start building actually complicated circuits (that do more than just adding "light oil" + "heavy oil" and trigger a pump).

Moosfet wrote: I always connect stuff to a nearby pole rather than merely to another nearby object on the same circuit network. I'm rather surprised to find anyone does it any other way.

Moosfet wrote:So it isn't just a matter of personal preference, or a matter of both chain topology and star topology having their uses, it's just that I'm a noob?.

Moosfet wrote:

siggboy wrote:

Moosfet wrote:I'm rather surprised to find anyone does it any other way.

You'll probably also be rather surprised how inconvenient your approach is when you start building actually complicated circuits (that do more than just adding "light oil" + "heavy oil" and trigger a pump).

So it isn't just a matter of personal preference, or a matter of both chain topology and star topology having their uses, it's just that I'm a noob?

Well, FWIW, I have built "actually complicated circuits:"

an actually complicated circuit.jpg

Now, granted that isn't Factorio, but it does demonstrate that I'm not a total noob when it comes to building complex circuits with only two colors of wire.

Moosfet wrote:

Mr. Tact wrote:

Moosfet wrote:Seriously, I thought it was a new feature, or at least a resolution of an old annoyance, as I always do star topology connecting every item to a pole rather than to each other.

Inquiring minds want to know -- what are you doing when you do this?

Everything. Stuff needs to connect to the network, the network is on poles, so I connect all of the stuff to the poles. Aside from when two things merely need to connect to each other, or when I specifically need a signal to not connect to the network that's on the nearby poles (like in the case of intermediate signals), I always connect stuff to a nearby pole rather than merely to another nearby object on the same circuit network. I'm rather surprised to find anyone does it any other way.

MrGrim wrote:This became an issue because everybody is just copying Madzuri's smart loader nowadays.

siggboy wrote:

MrGrim wrote:This became an issue because everybody is just copying Madzuri's smart loader nowadays.

provet wrote:In the future im sure I could've found a use for star wiring.. I'd love to see it as a shift+click or ctrl or another key that would work only while placing wires and therefore not intervene with normal keys used for the same thing. 0.14 maybe? I'm sure that a combination of the two placing options would ensure that the fastest wiring solution always were possible..

struct *a = "the first entity clicked on when attaching a wire";
struct *b = "the second entity clicked on when attaching a wire";
connect(a, b);
if (type(a) != POLE || type(b) == POLE) a = b;

provet wrote:0.14 maybe?

siggboy wrote:You certainly sounded like a noob. Why? Because first you say "I always do it this way" and you even said "I'm surprised another way is even considered". So you basically assume that you have found "the best way" and all the others are obviously misguided.

siggboy wrote: In which world would you rather live:

Moosfet wrote:

provet wrote:In the future im sure I could've found a use for star wiring.. I'd love to see it as a shift+click or ctrl or another key that would work only while placing wires and therefore not intervene with normal keys used for the same thing. 0.14 maybe? I'm sure that a combination of the two placing options would ensure that the fastest wiring solution always were possible..

Yes, I agree that having both options would be ideal and lead to the fastest wiring.

It's a pity no one seems to have noticed my suggestion for a building mechanism that would allow both options to co-exist simultaneously. Perhaps my suggestion wouldn't work for everyone, but if not, I'd like to hear why in order to try to refine it. It works for every purpose I'm aware of at the moment:

1. Running a wire along several poles.
2. Chaining multiple chests/inserters together in a line.
3. Connecting multiple chests/inserters directly to a single pole.

...and it does so without requiring the use of a modifier key. I'd like to see both options available without a modifier key if it's at all possible. This game already has so many modifier keys doing stuff that I keep hitting the wrong one half the time, and it's just a lame to use a modifier key if one isn't actually required to have both options.

Basically it would work like it does now, in that it wants to chain things together, but poles become "sticky" in that once you attach the wire to a pole, it remains stuck to that pole until you click on another pole. So if you want to chain things together, you first chain all of the non-pole entities together before finally connecting them to a pole to carry the signal elsewhere, but if you want star topology, you start by clicking on the pole, then click on all of the things you want connected to that pole, then click on other poles to carry the signal elsewhere.

...and the logic is dead simple:

Code: Select all

struct *a = "the first entity clicked on when attaching a wire";
struct *b = "the second entity clicked on when attaching a wire";
connect(a, b);
if (type(a) != POLE || type(b) == POLE) a = b;

So, would everyone be OK with this solution?

provet wrote:0.14 maybe?

No way. The change was as simple as removing a line of code much like that "a = b" but which probably involved some structures and pointers and junk, and then the fix was just putting that line back in. If all we need is a conditional in front of it like what I propose then what we're asking for is virtually no work as far as proposed features go.

siggboy wrote:You certainly sounded like a noob. Why? Because first you say "I always do it this way" and you even said "I'm surprised another way is even considered". So you basically assume that you have found "the best way" and all the others are obviously misguided.

No part of "I'm rather surprised to find anyone does it any other way" says "everyone is wrong to do it any other way." It had just never occurred to me to connect things like that and so I was surprised to see anyone was doing it.

MrGrim wrote:

siggboy wrote: In which world would you rather live:

I see you, and I raise this!

brunzenstein wrote:

MrGrim wrote:

siggboy wrote: In which world would you rather live:

I see you, and I raise this!

Combinators setting please!?

siggboy wrote:You can greatly reduce the amount of adders by doing "EACH + 0 => Iron Ore", that way you can add Ore, Nugget, Gravel and Dirt in a single combinator instead of two.