Factorio Forums

Like the powerpoles and the undergrounds now for roboport logistic distance.

Automaticaly the max distance for roboports

This would be really useful! I've had to use blueprints to place them properly (along with big power poles in tracks) just to tear them down again because I was only using them for deconstruction.

+1

In many cases you want roboports to be right next to eachother. If this was implemented you would have to stop and click a lot more to place roboports in a line than you do right now to place roboport with a perfect distance between them. Because of that i think this feature would be more tedious than usefull.

keyboardhack wrote:In many cases you want roboports to be right next to eachother.

Personally, I normally place roboports far away from each other.

In any case, one behavior should be normal and the other one should require a modifier key.
Right now it's unnecessarily difficult to place roboports the max distance apart.

This one has high game-play value, cause it uses a mechanism that already exists.

For the problem with the tight roboports: I think we need a mini-charging station in the game; would make the factory much more beautiful.

EDIT:
It should be possible to do this with ghosts, too. But for that case we need an issue to be fixed: If a roboport is ghost-built in a forrest, the trees need to be deconstructed first, but this is not always possible, cause parts of the to be deconstructed forest are outside of the construction-zone of the former roboport.
I think a fix should be, that any (to be) constructed entity at the border of a roboport construction-zone will be included into the construction-zone. And/or that the deconstruction-zone is two or three tiles larger, than the construction-zone.

If you hold left click while placing power poles, it places the poles at the optimal distance to ensure minimal resource usage and maximum range.

Would it be possible to get similar functionality for RoboPorts, so when placing large numbers of roboports (For example, to connect logistics networks) the process can be sped up significantly by automatically connecting the logistics network.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

[Koub] Merged into older topic with same suggestion.

Also related : viewtopic.php?f=6&t=28985

Laying rows of power poles, underground belts and underground pipes is easy and fast with the click drag system, could this also be added to Roboports so they too also align up area wise? I have no idea on how easy it would be to implement.. Would be a nice addition though, for example when laying the repair system for defences.

+1.
Never thought of this as an idea for implementation, but now you've got me.

I'd like to expand this a little bit further:
Same goes for radar, too. But as radar stations rather need to to be build just inside the correct chunk, instead of the exact position needed by roboports, it might be more complicated to realize that, too (like power poles, that auto-place themselves according to free/used space while dragged along). I'd mostly like to see an visual overlay (= ghost?) where the next max-distant entity would/could/should be placed, so I'd been given a visual info to consider new placements. I'm aware that for radar's, theese ghosts would be out of zoom range, so some thought must be applied here.

I have to admit, that I would barely use this feature. I once was very used to having blueprints with power poles and custom concrete floorprints for roboports and radar to expand their coverage and I am still finding this convenient enough. At the moment I tend to have separated roboport areas and would just use the radar-ghosts as a alternative for using a blueprint or manual counting of chunks. That would not justify the work of an implementation, but I believe that there's a larger group of players who would benefit from a feature like this one.

Use blueprints for that. Too many factors that influence the “right” place of a roboport.

ssilk wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 17, 2016 10:19 pm

This one has high game-play value, cause it uses a mechanism that already exists.

ssilk wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 5:44 am

Use blueprints for that. Too many factors that influence the “right” place of a roboport.

Sometimes I change my mind. In this case I’m taken back and forth. Yes useful, placing if distance to the previous roboport reached and logistics still connected. No not useful, because in opposite to power poles you normally haven’t so many in your inventory that this is really needed/useful, and you still need to cable them with power, which then could not be automated. And in that case where you really need it blueprints are much better.

I think this is the perfect thing for a mod. Take for example the outpost planer mod. https://mods.factorio.com/mod/OutpostPlanner

Another module in that style (roboport planer), which places roboports in an area most effective and also cables it. That would be much more useful. I think.

I'm not completely sure about the click, drag and run to build roboports idea. That is handled pretty well with a blueprint that also includes the necessary power, etc.

But in the same vein, when blueprints aren't the best alternative, I WOULD love to be able to see where a ghost-roboport's logistics network edge will be when placing multiple ghosts. There have been so many times that I've had to mouse over the prior ghost and then count squares from some decorative to get the ghosts to line up for when the bots get around to expanding the network themselves - and leaves a large margin for error.

ssilk wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 17, 2016 10:19 pm

For the problem with the tight roboports: I think we need a mini-charging station in the game; would make the factory much more beautiful.

I would to see Roboports changed in this way. Bobs Logistics shows how Robot networks can be designed to make use of multiple entities and I think this would make logistics a much more interesting stage of the game if roboports were split up into charging pads, antennae, and robot chests.

plepper1 wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 5:16 pm

. There have been so many times that I've had to mouse over the prior ghost and then count squares from some decorative to get the ghosts to line up for when the bots get around to expanding the network themselves - and leaves a large margin for error.

I use blueprints exactly instead of that counting. Two roboports connected by poles as blueprint. Then I need to cover the last roboport with the blueprint to set the next. Only disadvantage to this method is that you need to delete poles on corners (because it places then two poles for one roboport because of the rotation of the blueprint).

I do use a blueprint to lay down the majority of my roboports - complete with power lines.

plepper1 wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 5:16 pm

when blueprints aren't the best alternative,

ssilk wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 01, 2020 6:24 am

plepper1 wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 5:16 pm

. There have been so many times that I've had to mouse over the prior ghost and then count squares from some decorative to get the ghosts to line up for when the bots get around to expanding the network themselves - and leaves a large margin for error.

I use blueprints exactly instead of that counting. Two roboports connected by poles as blueprint. Then I need to cover the last roboport with the blueprint to set the next. Only disadvantage to this method is that you need to delete poles on corners (because it places then two poles for one roboport because of the rotation of the blueprint).

ssilk wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 5:44 am

Too many factors that influence the “right” place of a roboport.

Exactly. I don't want to have to make a blueprint for every conceivable combination of two roboports (inline vs diagonal vs offset by x squares, etc - the edge cases)
Let alone the times that you do NOT want them to intersect. (ie: overlapping repair coverage between unrelated networks without accidentally merging the networks.)

Blueprinting is useless early game, due to the speed of the bots, it's actually slower to use BP's until you get worker robot speed researched X times. I get that using a BP would mark the places, but again doing that would be even slower. So for me there is no solution here.

I want to also point out that this isn't about a grid of roboports (click drag functionality doesn't work on power poles anyway (edit: In a grid) When the range between the poles is less than maximum distance) It's about a line of roboports - specifically for defences - as I just want to get things done as fast as possible and move on to the next thing. For me being able to drag out robo's would add a nice speed boost to the early game - where it is needed most.