Hotkey to replace existing structures with blueprint

Post your ideas and suggestions how to improve the game.

Moderator: ickputzdirwech

blazespinnaker
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 495
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Hotkey to replace existing structures with blueprint

Post by blazespinnaker »

I'm sure there is a good reason! However, it'd be nice to know it wasn't just overlooked and some acknowledgement that is a clearly highly desirable feature that is very much consistent with the games capabilities.
OptimaUPS Mod, pm for info.

bend.n
Manual Inserter
Manual Inserter
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2021 2:17 am
Contact:

Re: Hotkey to replace existing structures with blueprint

Post by bend.n »

+1

NewTech
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 10:17 pm
Contact:

Switch for replacement blueprint

Post by NewTech »

[ Used Google Translate ]

The game lacks one simple, but very necessary thing when working with blueprints. This is the ability to place a blueprint on top of any existing objects with forced rebuilding of mismatched buildings.

Explanation:
Due to the fact that an automatic translator can poorly convey my idea, I will write down the points what should happen according to my proposal:

Each cell on the map and blueprint, respectively, is checked sequentially.
1 - If the contents of the cell do not match, then the contents of the cell on the map are marked for deconstruction and a ghost from the blueprint is placed in this place. If this cell is empty in the blueprint, then only deconstruction is performed.
2 - If the content is the same, but there are different parameters (for example, the belt is turned in the other direction), then the parameters are inserted from the blueprint.
3 - If the content matches completely, then we do nothing.

This can be implemented as adding a checkbox to the blueprint settings.


This function will be very useful in cases where there are large blueprint, and you just need to update them with a slightly modified version of them.

* Since now you have to either demolish everything and rebuild everything in automatic mode.
* Or spend a lot of time to rebuild this part in almost manual mode.

And the proposed innovation will allow you to rebuild only what is different from the current blueprint.

NewTech
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 10:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Hotkey to replace existing structures with blueprint

Post by NewTech »

+1

Boppiej
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Switch for replacement blueprint

Post by Boppiej »

NewTech wrote:
Fri Jul 16, 2021 8:47 pm
[ Used Google Translate ]

The game lacks one simple, but very necessary thing when working with blueprints. This is the ability to place a blueprint on top of any existing objects with forced rebuilding of mismatched buildings.

Explanation:
Due to the fact that an automatic translator can poorly convey my idea, I will write down the points what should happen according to my proposal:

Each cell on the map and blueprint, respectively, is checked sequentially.
1 - If the contents of the cell do not match, then the contents of the cell on the map are marked for deconstruction and a ghost from the blueprint is placed in this place. If this cell is empty in the blueprint, then only deconstruction is performed.
2 - If the content is the same, but there are different parameters (for example, the belt is turned in the other direction), then the parameters are inserted from the blueprint.
3 - If the content matches completely, then we do nothing.

This can be implemented as adding a checkbox to the blueprint settings.


This function will be very useful in cases where there are large blueprint, and you just need to update them with a slightly modified version of them.

* Since now you have to either demolish everything and rebuild everything in automatic mode.
* Or spend a lot of time to rebuild this part in almost manual mode.

And the proposed innovation will allow you to rebuild only what is different from the current blueprint.
+1, suggested this before :)

Pzixel
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue May 26, 2020 8:14 pm
Contact:

Better forced blueprint placing

Post by Pzixel »

Why?
Current blueprint system only allows two state: place it if blueprint doesn't affect anything or "best effort" blueprint with shift+click when it tried to put entities it can.

But there are lots of cases when it just doesn't work. Assume we have a 4-line main bus part and we want to put a balancer there. This is how it currently supposed to be done:

Image

  • select an area you want to replace
  • select some area for deconstruction. Wait a lot of time for bots collection all the items etc
  • place your blueprint
  • glue it together with vicinity (not required step if you're an eagle eye, but unfortunately I fail to do so in most cases).
I believe it's known because there are some kind of "allowed" replacement like 2 parallel belts may be replaced with a splitter, but it doesn't look like a well done part, more like a temporary fix which people is kinda ok with since it solves most of their problems. It also doesn't work well for blueprints because it's deconstruction and construction unlike instant player's replacement. Beside, current "best effort" system sometimes messes up with splitters, undergrounds and other things so you may end up with mixed content on belts you didn't intend to have.
How?
I see two (three actually) options here: the first one if relatively cheap and the other one is a bit better from UX perspective.

The first option is enhance "best effort" system by enforcing placement. Which means even if placement contradicts with other entities they should be deleted. It's how it works now for trees, so this is the worst and cheapiest way to do so, but to make it better it also would be profitable to detect when entities are mutated. For example, if we're placing a curved belt which is supposed to be a both-sides (it's a safe assumption for most full blueprints) and we place it near the straight segment we can end up with >-||<- belt which will only utilize 1 size and mess up items. In this case this belt on the right from our vicinity should be marked for deconstruction. Of course this system won't be ideal but it would be a huge step forward better experience. It also may be enabled on thigns like ctrl+shift+click to highlight that it's really forced action that may delete some surroundings. It doesn't fix the issue with deconstruct-build pattern though.

The second option is similar to the first one, but it also enhance the updated planner. For example, if you plan to replace yellow belts with red ones you can mark them for update and they will be working just fine until they got replaced. On the other hand if we try to replace belts with splitters it will be deconstruct-build pattern, which leads to unnecessary resource transportation, belt stoppage and extra loops for replacement. And it may be quite painful because if you select items for upgrade and you don't have items you intend to upgrade them into they will be just marked for it until they appear in storage. But if you replace belt with splitter and for any case you don't have a spare one in boxes - then sorry, this lines (or even two) won't budge until you have one. I think it may be enhanced this way so you can update items (specifically belts but I suppose it may be relaxed for more items) instead of demolish-build them back.

The third option is as useful standalone as an addition to the first or the second one. I think there should be an optimization that if you deconstruct an item and then put it back again it should remove deconstruction. So, you have a belt, you mark it for deconstruction. Then you place a blueprint which has just the same belt in the same place. Final result should be this belt stops being marked for deconstruction and the rest of blueprint appears where it should. It would somewhat fix the problem so you can just manually mark for deconstruction and while bots are on the fly put a blueprint back so deconstruction is cancelled and only things that don't allow match blueprint will continue to be marked.


I hope you find it somewhat relevant and interesting.

P.S. No more blog posts since #366 . I hope kovarex is ok, I absoluely love this guy, this game and his impact on it. I hope he's ok and we'll see more of game internals. Not sure if it's apporpriate to post this ps but I'd like to show my support, because it looked to me he had some tough time.

P.P.S. Apparently spoilers do not work on images or I'm not this good to figure out how one makes so

mrvn
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 5077
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:10 am
Contact:

Re: Better forced blueprint placing

Post by mrvn »

I often wish blueprinting an entity over a deconstruction would cancel.

But what if you blueprint an electrical furnace setup over a steel furnace setup. This will deconstruct the coal belt and put the output belt in it's place. With your suggestion of not deconstructing the belt you would then have coal on your iron plate belt.

Leaving items on belts in place is dangerous and would probably produce more problems than the little time saved clearing the belts.

But it cold work for rails or assemblers with the same recipe.

Pzixel
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue May 26, 2020 8:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Better forced blueprint placing

Post by Pzixel »

Well there could be some "safety rules" like for fluids or what applies when player is placing items over other items (e.g. splitters on belts are allowed, splitters on underground aren't)

User avatar
ssilk
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 12406
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Hotkey to replace existing structures with blueprint

Post by ssilk »

Merged with existing topic.
Cool suggestion: Eatable MOUSE-pointers.
Have you used the Advanced Search today?
Need help, question? FAQ - Wiki - Forum help
I still like small signatures...

mrvn
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 5077
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:10 am
Contact:

Re: Better forced blueprint placing

Post by mrvn »

Pzixel wrote:
Sun Nov 07, 2021 1:12 am
Well there could be some "safety rules" like for fluids or what applies when player is placing items over other items (e.g. splitters on belts are allowed, splitters on underground aren't)
Transport belts can remain but must be cleared of items.

Unless the next transport belt(s) in line that isn't deconstructed has the same items on it (both before and after placement, the next belt can change).

Skjolbir
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2020 2:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Hotkey to replace existing structures with blueprint

Post by Skjolbir »

+1
Actually very surprised this isn't already a thing with how polished the game is.
Is this a dev choice, or simply overlooked?
I would settle for a mod.

Soul-Burn
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2021 9:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Hotkey to replace existing structures with blueprint

Post by Soul-Burn »

What I want is a blueprint mode that places blueprint ghosts as if I went manually and placed all those ghosts one-by-one.

Currently, ghost mode (shift-click) is a very powerful tool, allowing for upgrades, downgrades, changing direction, replacing belts with undergrounds or splitters, replacing rail signals, and more.

The rationale is simple:
If we can shift-click/ghost all these changes one-by-one, a blueprint paste should be able to "ghost click" this for us.

However, pasting a blueprint works in a different logic than manual ghost placing: Failing in normal mode if not exact, or placing non-overlapping items in shift-mode.

Where would this help?
  • Upgrading buildings. Examples: AM2 to AM3. Inserter to fast inserter. Belt to fast belt.
  • Rotating buildings. Example: Rotating belts like the latest QoL of rotating belts with ghosts.
  • Replacing belt with inserter/underground. Example: Injecting balancers onto belt sections.
  • Replacing rail signal with chain signal. Example: For upgrading straight rails to intersections.

Post Reply

Return to “Ideas and Suggestions”