Add 2 outputs to Decider Combinator

[vark111]

TL;DR

I would like to have Decider Combinators produce 2 outputs: one for True and one for False.

What?

The mechanics are simple: Have one output enabled if the condition is true, the other output enabled if the condition is false.

A picture's worth a thousand bits:

decider2.png (73.71 KiB) Viewed 1450 times

Why?

All too frequently we need to have an output condition determined by both states of a decider. Currently the only way to do this is to drop a second combinator with a boolean inverted condition. A much simpler approach is to use a single decider with a True condition output and a False condition output.

Not only will this reduce the number of deciders in a lot of factories, this could also potentially improve the experience for non-developer players who can easily grasp the concept of an if/else statement, but who might struggle with the concept of boolean inversion.

[Tinyboss]

Could you use a constant combinator to put the false value on the output, and include the negative of it in your decider's output, to cancel it out? Still an extra combinator, but less configuration at least.

Regardless, I like your idea and I've wished for it myself, when setting recipes on my asteroid crushers.

[zig1000]

+1
A static combinator isn't sufficient because you might want both outputs to be based on the input.
For example, a very simple case is 'pass on either the red signal or the green signal based on [condition]' - this currently requires at least 2 combinators afaik.

[macdjord]

+1

As a programmer, it is very weird to have an 'if' condition that doesn't allow you to define the 'else' branch.

[Aricitic]

vark111, I want to personally thank you for not making me create a new topic just to revive an old topic from 2020 to reply to a few people...

In "Else output for decider combinator" (viewtopic.php?f=6&t=64173&start=20) people were explaining how "just add another combinator (idiot)"... No, they didn't add "idiot" but you could sense it in their replies.

Here's why I began to get infuriated by the replies that were basically "old way is good, new way is bad. challange is good, easy is bad."

TLDR: The people opposed to adding this are in one of three camps: imposing their demand for what they believe is "'challenge' through complexity" on others; falsely believing that it would harm TPS; or both. Does anyone here believe that anyone, anyone has the right to impose their beliefs of what "challenge" should be on others? Allowing someone to decide to utilize a feature/function or not does not "impose" challenge, it leaves what the "challenge" is to the individual. And anyone who believes that adding the purely optional "else" output to combinators doesn't understand programming. Wube consists of people who are provenly excellent programmers. They can handle the barely added complexity.

Note on challenge

I'll "amend" one point in the above here: the only one who has the right to "impose" 'challenge' on a user is/are the ones making the game. And even that statement is technically false: a user always has the ability to "cheat" or "mod" the game to change it. The only obvious exception is online experiences (MMOs, multiplayer, etc).

Brace for a LOT of text

People, FFS, we're talking about an Engineer who is so genius that they are able to take a few meager resources after crash-landing an interstellar ship that's slightly larger than a modern shipping truck, and go from "Steam Age" to "Nuclear Age" to "Space Age" within a matter of months or years without any working electronic information sources.
No... No! It's beyond even that. We're talking about an Engineer who is so absolutely, absurdly genius that they are able to make a fully automated manufacturing plant - only slightly larger than a small, two-person, car - out of nine Iron Plates, five Iron Gears and three Electronic Circuits - and those "Electronic Circuits" are made out of one Iron Plate and three Copper Cable. Not only is that literally not how circuits work (Cathodray tubes were more complicated than that) but this is dramatically in excess of modern technology computer capabilities...

So, you're telling me that someone so genius isn't able to figure out how to make a small box that can return two separate conditional signals? A box, mind you, that is about as big as they are? When modern technology is able to produce something the size of "look at the tip of your pinky finger" that can return thousands, if not billions of signals more than that many times in a second?

---

Ok... Ok... I know what some of you are thinking. "Since when is Factorio a 'realism' game?"
Um, I'm not talking realism here. I could list so many things that shatter that expectation... 2D is at the top of my list (no one in their right mind would lay out transport belts along a single layer...).
No. It's about this nonsensical argument about "challenge."

Earendel, who made the Space Exploration mod, among many others, and even helped with the Space Age expansion (https://www.factorio.com/blog/post/fff-373 says it all...) has many great ideas. Yet they have one mindset that a LOT of people don't like: their idea of "challenge." Robot Attrition is almost a universally hated mod that has Reddit threads telling people how to lobotomize it and even a mod to effectively disable it. The very notion of "spaghetti" in Factorio is about the challenge of using belts and inserters (and trains) to transport things 'most efficiently'. The people who praise the "spaghetti" mindset claim that any "solution involving logistic bots trivializes the challenge."
...
Ok...

Now, let's take a step back and analyze this for a moment. Factorio is a game. The original/main developers of the game added logistic bots to the game. They gave the player a choice to utilize this feature... or not... without consequence. So, who is literally anyone else to take away the choice of how we, as players, take on a challenge? Who are "they" (not Earendel, specifically, but those demanding their idea of "challenge" be 'imposed' on the rest of us) to disable or force consequences on our ability to decide if we want to play one way versus another?
And... Think about this another way. At any point in human history did we, as a species, go "Eh, oh well, I can only do things this way and no other so I'll accept this challenge and live with it?"

Um, no. Throughout history, we've "spat in the face of" 'challenge' with "innovation" and "creativity" to make things easier for ourselves and others. That's where science and technology come from. That's where we come from.


So... I ask you, all of you, those for "greater challenge" and those for "more accessibility" and those for "more features" (and those I can't think of "words" for, sorry), do you really believe that the Engineer would completely and utterly disregard possible solutions just to make things difficult? Or do you think that the Engineer would consider every possible solution and choose which one to utilize? Do you think they would simply limit their genius by default, or decide when to make a game out of the complicated vs when to utilize the resources around them to come up with the "best" and "simplest" solution?

I know what "my" Engineer would do. Both.


Honestly, even if anyone wants to argue that a combinator is more of a mechanical device than a "computer" device (something I would find hard to provide real evidence for) there still exist purely mechanical (versus computer) devices that can conditionally output two (or more) different "signals." Three+, if you count "off" as a signal. Radio transmitters, video projectors (even as old as those first adding sound), just to name a few (and not make this page twice as long as everyone else's posts...)
-- Note: "mechanical" in the sense that it doesn't require a computational processor, not in the sense that it doesn't utilize "electricity," as the combinators DO require electricity... --

Final thoughts:

People, people. If you want to make extremely complex, sprawling landscapes of wires and connectors... that's your choice. We won't deny you that. You always have the option to simply not use a feature, but if a feature doesn't exist it denies the rest of us the ability to utilize it. Why? For what purpose?

Besides, before 2.0 to count the quantity of an item on a strip of transport belts, you had to link each and every belt with wire... Now, with 2.0, you have a two-click option to "Read entire belt."

Finally, someone attempted to argue that adding an "else" output option would be more TPS-intensive than two combinators. This is absurd. Adding a toggle to an operation only adds complexity to that operation IF that toggle is ON. If nothing is selected in the "Else" output it would function identically to the current model.
Additionally, within the Assembly language, there exists a single operational operator: jump. How this is spelled depends on the Assembly language used (depends on the CPU, etc), but it exists. Therefore, with a single operation, you can add an "else" statement in Assembly. ... Adding another Combinator? That duplicates the entire code of the first Combinator.
QED: a function in the most basic (human-readable) language known to computer processors, or duplicating the entire cost of an entity plus connections to and from it; which do you think is more expensive for the CPU to do?
--> There exists no circumstance where adding an "else" output would be "more costly" than adding additional Combinators... with the sole exception of "Bad Programmers" and I would like to think that by this point Wube have proven themselves to be anything but...

Ok... ONE LAST thought: in the referenced thread some people demanded an example, "in-game," where having one combinator provide an "else" output would be better than "simply adding another combinator." Ok... Space Platform: I want to tell an inserter to change from "Insert only Metalic Asteroid Chunk" to "insert any Asteroid Chunk" within only three tiles (one for the inserter and two for the combinator).
Why should I spend 205 extra iron and 60 extra copper cables (plus rocket space and materials for the rocket parts)? That's the cost of the extra Space Platform Foundation and Combinator...

[IsaacOscar]

I do wonder why the dev's choose what circuit network features to add.
For example, having multiple conditions on a decider combinator is clearly redundant and just adds more complexity, just like adding multiple outputs would.

So I think either they should go the route of forcing people to do things the hwrd way with multiple combinators, or make things easy by adding common operations (in particular, I would like memory combinators! even though I can just build my own by hand)

[Aricitic]

I do wonder why the dev's choose what circuit network features to add.
For example, having multiple conditions on a decider combinator is clearly redundant and just adds more complexity, just like adding multiple outputs would.

So I think either they should go the route of forcing people to do things the hwrd way with multiple combinators, or make things easy by adding common operations (in particular, I would like memory combinators! even though I can just build my own by hand)

^- This.

And, they could add it as a "un"-necessary technology... Something that isn't required to be researched to complete the game. There are plenty of technologies like this (I think advanced combinators are one).

'Sides. It's not like we're asking for them to make a "combinator" that allows us to code in Lua. THAT deserves a mod. Even I will agree with that sentiment.


I said this before,

but

with more words and probably written more poorly than the following:

This isn't F'ing "Dark Souls," people don't come to this game to have their soft parts kicked in repeatedly.

Yes, "a challenge" is good. No doubt about that, otherwise we'd all be playing "mindless" phone game-likes. But there are some things that can be considered "a challenge" when they are, in fact, a "contrivance" (definition 2: a device, especially in literary or artistic composition, which gives a sense of artificiality.) The argument that having the combinator(s) the way they are "adds simplicity" and "only a small amount of skill or thought is necessary to understand how to use them" is an artificial argument. One only "created" because the people who have understood them... well... understand them (and went through the process of doing so).

Yes, it requires skill. Yes, if you break it down to its fundamentals they can be understood "relatively" "easily," BUT that's not the point.
I again bring up my reference to human history. When have we ever, as a species, as a society, intentionally limited ourselves to one way of thinking, one set of methods, one ... etc... and it ended well for that group? (<- that being the important part, as there are any number of examples without it...)
Yes, there still exist tribes "in Africa, in South America, and elsewhere" that don't utilize most of the technology that has driven humans forward, and, yes, they are doing just fine for themselves... but... are they? Are they really? The term "first world problem" exists for a reason, and it isn't merely because it mocks the "problem" in question.

One of the original Star Trek movies involved time travel where the doctor (among others) disparaged the "current era's" primative methods; the doctor commenting on the "current era's" surgery as "barbaric". A "first world problem" only exists because 'so-called' "third world problems" are no longer (really) "problems" at all for that society. Is that NOT a GOOD thing?

/sigh
All the above "word soup" is meant to show that "limiting ourselves" without real reason is utterly idiotic. ... No, NO, I'm not calling people who choose to challenge themselves "idiotic," nor am I really calling those who challenge others idiotic...

Instead

I'm saying that to purposefully ignore known advancements completely and simply call it a "challenge" is the wrong way to look at what is being done.
One can absolutely choose not to utilize a method or technology to do a task, and that certainly can be considered a "challenge." But to do this one first has to acknowledge the method or technology to make the conscious decision to "not utilize" it. Unfortunately, that's not what is being done here.

The majority of the arguments against what is being requested in this thread, and others like it, is that we are simply wrong to even request the change - at_all. Period. These arguments take many forms, but all of them boil down to this basic principle.

And that

... simply, is wrong.
The change we request will never harm others. It simply can't harm others. Other users will not be forced to utilize our change any moreso than any other 2.0 change (take the multiple input conditionals that IsaacOscar mentions. ADDING more than one is optional. If you don't click the "add" button it is effectively the same as the old version - bar a pointer to an empty location. A "few bytes" in memory won't change anything on an 8 GB RAM and a 3 Ghz processor system; needless to say, it's laughable on a 16+ GB RAM and 4+ Ghz processor.) And the employees (fellows? I'm not sure what they refer to themselves internally as...) at Wube won't be harmed coding this in (moreso than any other 2.0 change); heck, they're less harmed (getting paid) than mod makers (not getting paid).

No. We aren't wrong for requesting this change. Wube has the right to ignore us; they always have and always will (regardless of how loud we may make ourselves). Others have the right to ignore us as well; even if the change is added to the base game they can simply not utilize the change. And I'm tired of reading responses that are simply ignorant of what they are talking about. If a programmer (especially from Wube) wants to step in and explain how this change would irrefutably, irrevocably harm the game, or an engineer wants to step in and explain how this change would be any more unrealistic than anything else in the game, I'm happy to listen. But, seriously, stop responding to these requests with "that would do 'harm' to my playstyle," or "I see no reason this would be useful."

If anyone wants examples, in-game or in reality, as to why this change is a good thing (or necessary even), and how it would be used/useful in-game or in reality, I can provide many, many examples of when only needing one device to do what two, six or a hundred current ones would be better than more.
No. I will not spam this thread with examples without being requested for examples. (FFS, just look above, do you really want more of that now? Has anyone even read to this point?)

Post Script: Special thanks to Sharparam for teaching me how to properly use the "Spoiler" tag to fully hide text so that my posts don't take up the same screen space as all others on a given page... (laughs at self) Additionally, does anyone know how to force a "line break" so that there are spaces between the end of "spoiler" boxes and the next paragraph?

[Tinyboss]

Additionally, does anyone know how to force a "line break" so that there are spaces between the end of "spoiler" boxes and the next paragraph?

Who would be interested in such a nitpicky thing? (Please tell me if you find out!!)

[LCStark]

Additionally, does anyone know how to force a "line break" so that there are spaces between the end of "spoiler" boxes and the next paragraph?

Place two empty lines between them:

Code: Select all

[spoiler=text]
text
[/spoiler]


text	

Results in:

text

text

text

[Aricitic]

Additionally, does anyone know how to force a "line break" so that there are spaces between the end of "spoiler" boxes and the next paragraph?

Who would be interested in such a nitpicky thing? (Please tell me if you find out!!)

See the text you quoted... Or the person who responded to me after you?

Additionally, does anyone know how to force a "line break" so that there are spaces between the end of "spoiler" boxes and the next paragraph?

Place two empty lines between them:

Code: Select all

[spoiler=text]
text
[/spoiler]


text	

Results in:

text

text

text

Thank you.
I thought I tried that, but, clearly not. Will do so in the future.

[vark111]

My general thoughts after reading some of the comments:

I don't consider this to be a "let's start blowing out the combinators to do all sorts of things" idea. While I would absolutely love the idea of a one-combinator Latch, I agree with the decision to not include it, and make us build those types of contraptions.

This request is for something more fundamental. How many programming languages have an "if" block and no "else" block? I'm not familiar with every programming language in existence, but all the major ones contain both. All this request is to ask Wube to complete your if structure, because right now its missing the else block.

[LCStark]

While I would absolutely love the idea of a one-combinator Latch, I agree with the decision to not include it, and make us build those types of contraptions.

This request is for something more fundamental. How many programming languages have an "if" block and no "else" block? I'm not familiar with every programming language in existence, but all the major ones contain both. All this request is to ask Wube to complete your if structure, because right now its missing the else block.

I agree with the latter part of your post. While it is not really needed and can be overcome quite easily, I feel like having the "else" condition in combinators would make them feel more complete, especially after the 2.0 update they got.

As for the one-combinator latch, it's already possible. I'd say do some more experiments, it's pretty satisfying when you come up with it yourself. But if you don't want to, you can take a look at this design posted on the forums:

url

118668

[vark111]

While it is not really needed and can be overcome quite easily, I feel like having the "else" condition in combinators would make them feel more complete, especially after the 2.0 update they got.

Agree 100%.

And with the extended boolean conditions and multiple outputs introduced in 2.0, I'd suspected that a one combinator latch might be possible. I will definitely spend time this weekend noodling the idea.

[macdjord]

While it is not really needed and can be overcome quite easily, I feel like having the "else" condition in combinators would make them feel more complete, especially after the 2.0 update they got.

Agree 100%.

And with the extended boolean conditions and multiple outputs introduced in 2.0, I'd suspected that a one combinator latch might be possible. I will definitely spend time this weekend noodling the idea.

One-combinator latches are certainly possible, at least for some use-cases. For example, when connecting backup power to a semi-solar-powered base, I now use a single decider combinator set as so: if ([Accumulator] < 5) OR ([Accumulator] < 10 AND [Power Switch] > 0), output [Power Switch] = 1. (Where [Accumulator] is an accumulator returning its current charge level, [Power Switch] is the signal to tell the power switch to hook in the backup power generator, and the decider combinator's output is wired into its input.) This results in the backup power turning on when I go below 5% charge and then staying on until we hit 10%.

[TurningGears]

This would help avoiding at least one additional combinator.
Especially now with setting recipes, you have a condition and want to output one recipe, but if the condition changes, another. Afaik this is currently not possible with only one combinator.

[fazol]

Great idea, it will make combinators more complete and not overcomplicated in my opinion

[Aricitic]

My general thoughts after reading some of the comments:

I don't consider this to be a "let's start blowing out the combinators to do all sorts of things" idea. While I would absolutely love the idea of a one-combinator Latch, I agree with the decision to not include it, and make us build those types of contraptions.

This request is for something more fundamental. How many programming languages have an "if" block and no "else" block? I'm not familiar with every programming language in existence, but all the major ones contain both. All this request is to ask Wube to complete your if structure, because right now its missing the else block.

*cough* While many of my previous posts (here and elsewhere) may not suggest it, I am neither arrogant nor stupid enough to attempt to assert that I do know "all" (currently existing) programming languages...

That said, ASSEMBLY (and, therefore, MACHINE LANGUAGE) contains an "else" statement within the "if" statement. And, for those unaware, Assembly is the most basic "human readable" programming language in existence (only slightly more "advanced" than "machine language" -- but is literally a 1:1 ratio of code to computer-readable... uh... coding).
Example for MIPS Assembly If-then-else:

note

(there exist as many "Assembly" 'languages' as there are different processors, as "Assembly" is - as previously stated - a 1:1 code:binary representation, and therefore any different processor "architecture" requires its own Assembly language)

: https://eng.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/ ... Statements
Heck, even the "smallest" language called "Brainf..." (self-censoring) (I would post a URL, but I'm fairly certain that it would be censored...) has the ability to do an "else" without programming an entirely new function (i.e. it's part of the "if-then" portion).

slight deep dive

Honestly, just for the heck of it, I decided to try and see if there existed a known and already described method to "mechanically" do an "if-then-else" ... circuit (as that's what it would be, honestly) ... While I try to provide links to my sources (should I find any, and admit I'm wrong if I don't...) I was unable to find any "official" (read: governmental, educational, or scientific) sources on the matter - mostly just other people asking the same/similar question... but, it boils down to the following: Obviously. Electronically these are done with Logic Gates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gate which are represented in-game through the "Arithmetic Combinator" (so, honestly, one could simply argue that other Combinators shouldn't exist in the first place if we can do "everything" using that one alone... Please don't...)
More interestingly I discovered that this is actually possible through purely physical means: https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... s-and-or-x; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Engine.
Realistically, if any Logical formula can be represented electronically (i.e. computer code) then it should also be represented mechanically (see above "analytical engine") but through VASTLY (and, ultimately, IRRATIONALLY) more complex/complicated means.

Therefore, even any argument of: "basic engineering can't do that" does not stand, as it would be entirely possible for a "gear system" to do an "if-then-else" statement.

AND I personally agree with vark111

's sentiment of "something more fundamental" but I am going to flip it around. YES, "else" statements are absolutely fundamental to programming, or even just Logic in general, and while it is certainly possible that the devs somehow simply missed it when adding-and-then-updating the code for the game (2.0) I get the feeling that they truly didn't.
Instead I get the feeling that it's more "fundamental" than that, and instead they are adding -artificially, I would argue- a level of difficulty to the game that most of us are reverse-arguing isn't necessary.

-->

Consider this

they provided logistics robots and Active Provider, Requester and Buffer chests, but now, not only is there an achievement to not use these (until completing the game if you don't have Space Age, or after researching your first tech with another planet's science pack if you do have Space Age) they've literally disabled them for some situations entirely (mainly space platforms).
Earendel, among others, felt that even using these was effectively "cheating" as they "trivialized" any challenge that they could be used for/with - and presented methods of (effectively) disabling them in most of their mods... this has been adopted in 2.0 (or Space Age).

---

I get the feeling that

the lack of an 'else' function for the Combinators is more of an intentional omission, than a mistake... and, if that's the case, we may never get it added... Unless the interface for these are moddable (and I get the feeling that they either aren't outright, or are incredibly hard to do so, given the number of "new" Combinators added by mods, and lack of "changed" Combinators -- but that's my sole evidence, so...) its entirely possible that the only way we will have "else" function is with "modded" content.
I hope I'm wrong. I do... but, we'll just have to wait and see.

P.S. Anyone know of a way to add a link to a "word" instead of simply forming a "hyperlink"? (i.e. clicking on a word redirects, instead of simply making a fully typed URL clickable?) I know it can be done in other forums, but I'm new to - or simply unfamiliar with - this one. Thank you.

[LCStark]

P.S. Anyone know of a way to add a link to a "word" instead of simply forming a "hyperlink"? (i.e. clicking on a word redirects, instead of simply making a fully typed URL clickable?) I know it can be done in other forums, but I'm new to - or simply unfamiliar with - this one. Thank you.

I assume you mean something like this? Instead of pasting address between the url tags do this:

Code: Select all

[url=https://forums.factorio.com/122303]this[/url]

Also, you might want to check if you've properly closed your spoiler tags, something seems off there.

[Aricitic]

P.S. Anyone know of a way to add a link to a "word" instead of simply forming a "hyperlink"? (i.e. clicking on a word redirects, instead of simply making a fully typed URL clickable?) I know it can be done in other forums, but I'm new to - or simply unfamiliar with - this one. Thank you.

I assume you mean something like this? Instead of pasting address between the url tags do this:

Code: Select all

[url=https://forums.factorio.com/122303]this[/url]

Also, you might want to check if you've properly closed your spoiler tags, something seems off there.

Exactly. So... Um, I hate to ask, but is there a location where I can simply look up this information? I'm feeling slightly dumb constantly asking at the end of my posts.

Also, yes, the tags were closed properly. I click the button that automatically adds it. The things you are seeing between the spoilers are there because no matter what I did I could not get space in between them.
You previously told (and showed) me how to add one, but every time I previewed it and no matter how many carriage returns I entered they would be directly below one another... Hence the "-->" and "---" to try and break it up formatting-wise at least a little... (It looks stupid, but is still 'slightly' better than a block of "spoilers"...)

[IsaacOscar]

P.S. Anyone know of a way to add a link to a "word" instead of simply forming a "hyperlink"? (i.e. clicking on a word redirects, instead of simply making a fully typed URL clickable?) I know it can be done in other forums, but I'm new to - or simply unfamiliar with - this one. Thank you.

I assume you mean something like this? Instead of pasting address between the url tags do this:

Code: Select all

[url=https://forums.factorio.com/122303]this[/url]

Also, you might want to check if you've properly closed your spoiler tags, something seems off there.

Exactly. So... Um, I hate to ask, but is there a location where I can simply look up this information? I'm feeling slightly dumb constantly asking at the end of my posts.

Also, yes, the tags were closed properly. I click the button that automatically adds it. The things you are seeing between the spoilers are there because no matter what I did I could not get space in between them.
You previously told (and showed) me how to add one, but every time I previewed it and no matter how many carriage returns I entered they would be directly below one another... Hence the "-->" and "---" to try and break it up formatting-wise at least a little... (It looks stupid, but is still 'slightly' better than a block of "spoilers"...)

The forum uses bbcode, see https://www.bbcode.org/how-to-use-bbcod ... -guide.php

There may be some modifications to it though.
If you have more questions, the appropriate place to ask is viewforum.php?f=55