Snap to grid should default to relative again

Post your ideas and suggestions how to improve the game.

Moderator: ickputzdirwech

AntiElitz
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 451
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2015 11:37 pm
Contact:

Snap to grid should default to relative again

Post by AntiElitz »

With the new interface, the absolute position is now the default for snap to grid.
Was this change intended? Relative snapping seems to be the much more common method to use it. Actually i don't think I personally used the absolute snapping ever while I use the relative one every few minutes. I'd recommend to change the default to relative again.
Last edited by AntiElitz on Thu Nov 26, 2020 12:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Xoriun
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 11:31 am
Contact:

Re: Snap to grid should default to relative again

Post by Xoriun »

+1

User avatar
valneq
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1157
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:43 am
Contact:

Re: Snap to grid should default to relative again

Post by valneq »

+10
if I could

seky16
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2020 4:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Snap to grid should default to relative again

Post by seky16 »

+1

thuejk
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:41 pm
Contact:

Re: Snap to grid should default to relative again

Post by thuejk »

Relative, please!

User avatar
NotRexButCaesar
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1124
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 12:47 am
Contact:

Re: Snap to grid should default to relative again

Post by NotRexButCaesar »

^5 (so 250k now)
—Crevez, chiens, si vous n'étes pas contents!

User avatar
SupplyDepoo
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 286
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2016 8:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Snap to grid should default to relative again

Post by SupplyDepoo »

I agree. Absolute snapping seems to be applicable to modular rail networks / city block megabase construction and not much else.

Relative snapping is useful for many things, maybe even more than non-snapping, which makes me thing that maybe relative snapping should be the default for all blueprints (including copy & paste)?

User avatar
brevven
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Snap to grid should default to relative again

Post by brevven »

+1

Myself, I use relative all the time.

I never use absolute. I can imagine it being useful for cityblocks, or substation grids, but it's very specialize compared to relative which is useful in so many places.

User avatar
steinio
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 2638
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 4:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Snap to grid should default to relative again

Post by steinio »

No. this would break my workflow.
Last edited by steinio on Mon Dec 07, 2020 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Transport Belt Repair Man

View unread Posts

foamy
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:14 am
Contact:

Re: Snap to grid should default to relative again

Post by foamy »

I find myself using relative snapping an awful lot more than absolute, yeah.

Ajedi32
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu May 07, 2020 9:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Snap to grid should default to relative again

Post by Ajedi32 »

SupplyDepoo wrote:
Thu Nov 26, 2020 11:46 pm
I agree. Absolute snapping seems to be applicable to modular rail networks / city block megabase construction and not much else.

Relative snapping is useful for many things, maybe even more than non-snapping, which makes me thing that maybe relative snapping should be the default for all blueprints (including copy & paste)?
This. Relative snapping should be the default configuration even over "no snapping". Can't think of very many situations where I want to place two copies of a blueprint 1-tile offset from each other.

User avatar
NotRexButCaesar
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1124
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 12:47 am
Contact:

Re: Snap to grid should default to relative again

Post by NotRexButCaesar »

steinio wrote:
Mon Dec 07, 2020 5:33 am
No. this would break my workflow.
Lol
Here is where it came from for anyone confused: https://xkcd.com/1172/
—Crevez, chiens, si vous n'étes pas contents!

User avatar
NotRexButCaesar
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1124
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 12:47 am
Contact:

Re: Snap to grid should default to relative again

Post by NotRexButCaesar »

At the risk of being redundant, *bump*
—Crevez, chiens, si vous n'étes pas contents!

User avatar
ssilk
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 12888
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Snap to grid should default to relative again

Post by ssilk »

Still no need for double postings, AmericanPatriot!
Cool suggestion: Eatable MOUSE-pointers.
Have you used the Advanced Search today?
Need help, question? FAQ - Wiki - Forum help
I still like small signatures...

User avatar
brevven
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Snap to grid should default to relative again

Post by brevven »

Alternate idea:

Instead of a checkbox followed by 2 options, Snap to grid could simply have 3 options:
- None
- Relative
- Absolute

It would default to "None". Then either Relative or Absolute is a single click, and the standard grid-less behavior requires zero clicks as it currently does.

Edited to clarify.
Last edited by brevven on Mon Jan 04, 2021 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

blazespinnaker
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 665
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Snap to grid should default to relative again

Post by blazespinnaker »

I'm curious as to why this was changed. I assume there must have been a reason?

+1 for relative. I can't think of a scenario where I'd use None. maybe blueprint as paintbrush?

Absolute is very useful, but only required in rare circumstances.
OptimaUPS Mod, pm for info.

User avatar
brevven
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Snap to grid should default to relative again

Post by brevven »

blazespinnaker wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:49 am
I can't think of a scenario where I'd use None.
In my suggestion "None" is the current default blueprint behavior: no grid at all. It's what you use when you copy-paste or just blueprint without clicking the current checkbox to use a grid.

My suggestion simply removes the checkbox and therefore removes the need for devs to choose between "Relative" and "Absolute" as a default grid option, as either would require one click instead of two.

Kyralessa
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 5:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Snap to grid should default to relative again

Post by Kyralessa »

brevven wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 9:51 am
My suggestion simply removes the checkbox and therefore removes the need for devs to choose between "Relative" and "Absolute" as a default grid option, as either would require one click instead of two.
So what you're saying is to take out a level? Something like this?

Currently

[x] Use grid

(*) Absolute
( ) Relative

Proposed

(*) No grid
( ) Grid, snap absolute
( ) Grid, snap relative

blazespinnaker
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 665
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Snap to grid should default to relative again

Post by blazespinnaker »

I think currently, he is saying that snap to grid is unchecked.

I can't think of a scenario that I've been happy that was true. I'm curious how folks use default none.

Snap to Grid - Relative should ideally be default, IMHO. Ajedi above also makes the same point.

Another proposal is to default to whatever the user's last decision was. I find this sort of thing useful though does make UX a bit more complicated. I really wish something like that existed for E / inventory / crafting and the window would go back to whatever state I left it when I dismissed it.
OptimaUPS Mod, pm for info.

User avatar
brevven
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Snap to grid should default to relative again

Post by brevven »

Kyralessa wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 11:20 am

So what you're saying is to take out a level? Something like this?

Currently

[x] Use grid

(*) Absolute
( ) Relative

Proposed

(*) No grid
( ) Grid, snap absolute
( ) Grid, snap relative
Exactly what I'm suggesting! Thank you for sketching it out like that, Kyralessa.

Post Reply

Return to “Ideas and Suggestions”