Rocket silo should have a 2x2 area exclusive for rocket parts, and the rest should be for inserting into the rocket

[Sworn]

TL;DR

Rocket silo should have a 2x2 area exclusive for rocket parts, and the rest should be for inserting into the rocket

What?

Having a segment specific only for rocket parts would allow one to insert blue circuit, low density structure and rocket fuel into the rocket with inserters

11-15-2024, 18-24-17.png (558.28 KiB) Viewed 881 times

In the picture above, one of the corners would have a visible segment for placing rocket parts, and everywhere else would just insert direct into its inventory

Why?

Because it is impossible today to do it with inserters.
One can make builds to insert items into rocket with inserters and logic circuit, but it is just impossible to insert if the item is part of the rocket part.

[Nemoricus]

This would break existing builds.

[Tinyboss]

Yes! It's just so unsatisfying that it's impossible to automate shipping those items between planets without bots! I use bots in my games anyway, and it still bothers me. I've proposed the same (but not in a dedicated suggestion thread, thanks for that!)

This would break existing builds.

Yeah, but in a very trivial way. Not like some subtle combinator or wait condition change that would make people do intricate redesigns. Just move the inserters on some of your silos.

They could also easily keep the legacy silo in game, but you can only build the new kind. Like they did with rails, only a million times simpler.

[Nemoricus]

Decidedly non trivial, since I have quite a few silos adjacent to each other.

[Sworn]

Decidedly non trivial, since I have quite a few silos adjacent to each other.

I would say its trivial as just cut and paste, done.
But it still a valid point right, has some consequences.

[Nemoricus]

It is not as simple as cut and paste. I would have to completely reroute belts, move beacons, add spaces between currently adjacent silos, and cross under rail lines with the proposed layout in the first post.

[Tinyboss]

It is not as simple as cut and paste. I would have to completely reroute belts, move beacons, add spaces between currently adjacent silos, and cross under rail lines with the proposed layout in the first post.

Okay, but doesn't the "legacy silo" idea work fine for your case?

[Nemoricus]

Frankly no, since this proposal also blocks using one side for all three parts with different inserters for each.

[Tinyboss]

Frankly no, since this proposal also blocks using one side for all three parts with different inserters for each.

How do you figure?? The silo is 9x9.

EDIT: I misunderstood your objection. Instead my response is either, "okay make it 3x3 then", or "well we can't do it at all now, so is that preferable?"

I also think these two responses were able to be anticipated easily, so it would have saved some time if you'd gone ahead and addressed them!

[Nemoricus]

This proposal is 2x2. That limits to two inserters per side.

[Tinyboss]

This proposal is 2x2. That limits to two inserters per side.

I understand. I edited my post.

[Nemoricus]

I also think these two responses were able to be anticipated easily, so it would have saved some time if you'd gone ahead and addressed them!

This proposal is not mine. This response seems better addressed to the original poster.

[Tinyboss]

This proposal is not mine. This response seems better addressed to the original poster.

No, I was talking to you. Your objections are not compelling, and it's like pulling teeth to get you to address my responses to them.

[Nemoricus]

No, I was talking to you. Your objections are not compelling, and it's like pulling teeth to get you to address my responses to them.

My objections are ones that could have easily been foreseen by the original poster and addressed in that post.

In any case, now that I am at a proper computer, let me elaborate on various problems I see with this proposal:

1. This breaks existing designs. This really does not need further elaboration, but for the sake of exhibits I will provide an image of my own current layout:

11-15-2024, 16-19-13.png (1.66 MiB) Viewed 683 times

This design cannot be built with a 2x2.

1a. It also cannot be built with a 3x3 area. More broadly, any proposal where a fixed subarea of the rocket silo can be used to insert components for construction will break designs that use more of a rocket silo's side than allowed by that area. If you restrict it to, say, 4x4, any design that uses five tiles on any given side will no longer work.

1b. Keeping a legacy rocket silo would address this, but would still break blueprints. This is the sort of change that is acceptable when done across a major version like going from 1.1 to 2.0, but is less pleasant when done within a major version. Since Space Age did not launch into experimental, making changes of this sort would entail pulling the rug from under players. That isn't a great situation to put them in.

1c. Maintaining two different versions of rocket silo behavior based on when the silo was constructed would add to the work the developers have to do. I don't know how much work that would be, but it's still a factor to consider.

2. In order for an idea like this to work, the area where it is valid to insert rocket parts for construction rockets needs to be clearly communicated to the player. This would entail both UI changes and model changes. I am not a developer, so I do not know how much work that would involve, but I think it would have to involve making at least four new models for the rocket silo to allow it to be rotated. Otherwise you would be confining players to work with a specific corner of the silo to construct the rocket.

3. No other building in the game has different behavior when items are inserted in specific tiles. Granted, the rocket silo isn't like other buildings to begin with, but it would add to the complexity of learning how to use a rocket silo.

4. Since 2.0 also uses rocket silos but does not use platforms, should it use the same behavior where only specific tiles are a valid location to insert rocket parts?

[Sworn]

Lol, heat everywhere.

Well, main goal is to be able to use inserters to load rocket when the item is part of the rocket parts.
The 2x2, came from nowhere, just like an example.

There would be multiple ways to go over it, like a 3x3, maybe even a cut in the middle, so half / half, bottom / up, or maybe only corners.

As longe one is able to do the most basic thing we were always able to do, which is insert with inserters and control with logic.

Maybe someone have a more interesting idea to accomplish that.
Rocket silo now is the only entity that don't allow you to use inserter, but at the same time it does. So that is not a good state to be in anyways.
You usually have one blueprint for your train loaders, and re-use it for every station, it is not dependent on the item it is loading.
Rockets silo now have this weird 3 items limitations, which make them the exception, that make the game less consistent.
Trains are loaded from the cargo, while the engine loads only fuel, well they are separated "things" in the world, rocket silo is one big square.
So, in my head, splitting it into different section would be the easiest way, while not been too intrusive.

But I guess we won't have a change free solution, at least I can't see one myself.

[Nemoricus]

I'm not sure how well this would work out, but changing the behavior so that a silo working to fill a processing unit/low density structure/rocket fuel order can accept insertion of those items seems like it would be better than limiting the area that's valid for insertion?

[Romayne]

I'm throwing the following into the mix because I don't entirely feel like the main post has a solid idea, but I want the end product nevertheless.

There needs to be a way to control the decision of whether inserters insert PUs/LDS/Rocket Fuel for parts or for transport, no doubt -- And I think there's a few ways to go about it I'd like to spit out real quick:

1. Subsection of rocket is for parts ONLY!!!
- Breaks existing builds
- Provides logistical challenge beyond supplying parts
- Largely inconsequential with the right surface area dedicated to rocket parts due to the sheer size of a silo
- Enforces a tighter throughput limitation as part of the silo is now unable to insert into the cargo bay (trivial, most of the latency is the ~30s per rocket anyways.)

2. Filter setting on inserters 'Insert rocket parts as cargo'
- Overspecialized and will be unnecessary to look at besides cases where an inserter faces inwards to a silo
- Keeps same flexibility as current system with ability to keep things backwards-compatible with default option 'Insert as rocket part'
- May have performance cost??? Not a developer, so idk.

3. Filter rocket cargo item types, rocket part filters allow insertion into cargo bay too
- Requires adding entire feature to filter item types WITHIN a silo for this ONE use case
- Is where users would most expect it to be in their times of need (shipping rocket parts)
- Most direct and to the point, potentially enables other unforseen uses

Etc.

[Tinyboss]

One more: Bring back rocket parts. Then we have the same problem with them that we have now with blue circuits, LDS, and rocket fuel. But at least rocket parts won't be used for anything else, so it won't be nearly as irritating.

[Nemoricus]

One more: Bring back rocket parts. Then we have the same problem with them that we have now with blue circuits, LDS, and rocket fuel. But at least rocket parts won't be used for anything else, so it won't be nearly as irritating.

Rocket parts never existed as an item outside of rocket silos, so I think the suggestion here would be to make them a distinct item that can be loaded into silos? The only thing there is that if rocket parts aren't made in silos, it would gut the utility of quality silos.

[Tinyboss]

Rocket parts never existed as an item outside of rocket silos, so I think the suggestion here would be to make them a distinct item that can be loaded into silos?

Ahh, right. I think I was doing a weird mixup with them and RCUs (which didn't serve the function either that I have in mind here). You're exactly right about what I was trying to suggest.

The only thing there is that if rocket parts aren't made in silos, it would gut the utility of quality silos.

That's a valid point. If the quality bonus was changed to a faster launch sequence animation, though, I'd be happy with the trade!