Factorio Forums

You can, I believe, Via shift right click, then left click, copy settings from one object to another. This lets you rapidly set up a crafting area, or a rediculous number of smart inserters for that steam engine workaround.

I would like that to apply to adding modules. If you right click on something accepting modules, it copies what modules are applied, and on pasting, tries to put the same set of modules is.

I am getting kind of tired of manually putting one production and one efficiency module in, or one of each for mining.

Also, If blueprints can save that data as well similarly, that would be equally appreciated.

Yes

If modules could be included in entity settings and work both with copy/paste and blueprints, then construction would become very convenient and easy in the late game.

As the title says, make copy-paste also copy modules between buildings much like wire is applied when you copy-paste smart objects that had wires connected.

I think this needs to be solved quite differently, cause I found, that it is not always a good idea to copy that and keep it the whole game.

The modules make much sense with the automation. I made for example some assembly, which I use the assemblies with productivity modules, when I was low on raw-item X. If not I used that assemblies with speed modules. Fully automated. Quite cool.

What I'm thinking about is to automate the module-switching: If low use this modules configuration, else that.

Yes, "module-configuration" is the right word! I want something like that: Definition of some module config for every entitiy (assembly, miner, furncance, beacon...) by a useful name. More or less as the energy saving-configuration of a notebook.

Some example configs will come with the game:

"Cheap, efficient" means for example: Assembly 3 - efficiency1, efficiency1, speed1, speed1 ; Furnace 3: efficency1, speed1 ....
"Ultimate costly, pure productivity" means for example: Assembly 3 - producivity3, producivity3, producivity3, producivity3 ; Furnace 3: producivity3, producivity3 ....

And with the new automation I can switch these configurations. The construction bots will come and switch the modules. How cool is that?

ssilk wrote:Words

What?

What RSeding means is that if you have several assemblers all supposed to make the same thing, make the entity state copy and pasting draw modules out of your character's inventory to match the module setup in the 'master' assembler.

What I meant was, that this is "by default for assemblies etc." is not the best idea, cause I want, no, need to change the module setup separated.

I suggested ... Oh. the first paragraph of my answer is missing....

Ok, I suggested some special copy operation (for example shift-control), to copy the module setup for an entity - as suggested by Rseding.

Besides that:
- instead of handling up to 4 modules by hand, some kind of "module-switcher" and described the general function and why copying that is easier,than the exact module setup.
- module-switcher "defaults"
- automateable module switching
- modules can be placed/replaced by the construction bots

I think the OP means when you use blueprints. if the building you "copy" from when you make a bluepring has modules in it, then when you "paste" the blueprint, construction robots should automatically put modules in it, rather than leaving it empty. I mean, it copies EVERYTHING else, from green/red wires, to requester chest items and quantities. from smart inserter filters to the thing you're making in a building. just no modules.


or is there actually a "copy" and "paste" mode seperate of blueprints now?

Shift R-click and Shift L-click have been around for awhile now...
My first impression was that was being referenced. Though I believe that that uses the same method to copy settings as blueprints do, so it would affect both.
Both cases seem like good ideas in the current framework.

@ssilk: That seems rather unrelated to the idea being suggested, and is it's own, separate idea. Probably something to reexamine/suggest when we get the planned extended logic from the devs that would make such an idea possible.

Well, forget this complicated idea with module presets, go back to OP,

The settings of an assembly describes what it produces. The modules describe how. Simplified. Other words: The first is what you want, the second influences, how it is made.

I don't see, why the second should be always copied. Makes not always sense and can be quite annoying. I want that special copy as extra function and the default should be - like yet - without modules.

For Blueprints:
Of course it doesn't make sense all the time. But most of the times it makes sense! And for the former case: just make blueprints without any modules or different blueprints for every module setup.

For Copy/Paste:

What if shift LMB/RMB copy/pastes settings and eg. strg LMB/RMB copy/pastes modules? Strg+shift LMB/RMB then copy/pastes both? In that way everybody is happy!

El-Lobo wrote:For Blueprints:
Of course it doesn't make sense all the time. But most of the times it makes sense! And for the former case: just make blueprints without any modules or different blueprints for every module setup.

Indeed. If you don't want it copied, then you shouldn't have copied it.
Even now, there's no way to make a blueprint of an active assembler without getting the active recipe, and the same goes for requester chests. Modules would only be a natural extension of this.
And again, Copy-Paste of settings is identical to how blueprinted settings work, so still a natural extension.

If you copy more than you wanted right now, you'd expect to go and edit the settings. I really don't think that editing the modules would be any more of a burden.
The only thing I could really see as being useful, would be a way to copy just the module settings, to make rapid deployment of chips faster for existing structures, but even that's of dubious value, since a homogeneous set of factory modules will be far from the most efficient deployment.

Hmmm. I think a relevant question for this is: What do we await, when it is copied.

We would await, that the module config is after we copy it exactly the same as the orig. (ok, that is my opinion)
But that cannot be the case, if we don't have the modules. The module config depends on, if you have the needed modules.
And that means: It makes only sense to copy it, if you have the modules, or if the modules can be filled by the construction bots.
And that mean: The function depends on some strange non-linearity.
And that means: It cannot be copied as we would await it, it needs to be an extra function.

Or, just copy it, and if it doesn't work for pasting, then paste as much as it can, and toss up an error about the problem.
Exactly what happens with logic wires.

That's not, what I would await; you cannot compare that directly with circuits, cause it is is not that obvious (yet).

Just want to add: This suggestions would make much more sense, if a module could be refurbished.

Simple recipe: a blue/red/green module + a circuit => a module in another color.

With that you don't need a set of every type of module. A change module-configuration will make the robots removing the modules. They are refurbished to the new type and placed back to the assembly/beacon etc.

That necro tho.
Anyway, this is something I recently found myself doing when I was expanding my advanced circuit production by 64 assemblers (yeah, big place).
It took so long to fit all the modules in... if only I could've done it when I was copy/pasting the recipe

Not quite sure what ssilk is saying in most of this post but in regards to refurbishing modules that sounds like a mod idea.

As for the OP I'd like to see module deconstruction functionality added to copy-paste:

Example:
Assembler A (Four Productivity 3 modules)
Assembler B (Two Efficiency 2 modules)

Actions
1. Shift+Right Click Assembler A
2. Shift+Left Click Assembler B

Result
1. The two Efficiency 2 modules in Assembler B are flagged for deconstruction
2. Four Productivity 3 modules are ghosted in Assembler B

viewtopic.php?f=97&t=48801

How similar is this? I cant figure out what is being talked about here since the argument seems to be based on two people not talking about the same suggestion.

Ranakastrasz wrote:viewtopic.php?f=97&t=48801

How similar is this? I cant figure out what is being talked about here since the argument seems to be based on two people not talking about the same suggestion.

That's going on my Factorio to do list haha

Slayn25 wrote:

Ranakastrasz wrote:viewtopic.php?f=97&t=48801

How similar is this? I cant figure out what is being talked about here since the argument seems to be based on two people not talking about the same suggestion.

That's going on my Factorio to do list haha

Still not a good answer....