[0.12]Ideas, suggestions & discussion

[FuryoftheStars]

Hi Choumiko, not sure how often you check this thread, but was wondering if you could add a setting to toggle the FARL equipment and subsequent equipment grids on/off? While I know some people wanted the equipment so they could use it in any train, to me it makes the dedicated FARL loco pointless with it. I'd rather play without it and have the toggle to switch off the portions I'm not using.

Thanks!

[Choumiko]

Hi Choumiko, not sure how often you check this thread, but was wondering if you could add a setting to toggle the FARL equipment and subsequent equipment grids on/off? While I know some people wanted the equipment so they could use it in any train, to me it makes the dedicated FARL loco pointless with it. I'd rather play without it and have the toggle to switch off the portions I'm not using.

Thanks!

I added the option in the mod settings.

[Eylrid]

Is there any way to get FARL to work on a grid? I have a gridded rail network with signals and poles every half chunk, on the half chunk, but I can't seem to get FARL to align with it.

[Krusnik]

Would love to see Maintenance mode with option to remove all player placed entities in the size of current BP's.

Otherwise can't stress how grateful I am for this. Amazing mod =)

[waduk]

Not sure if Choumiko still read forum or mod portal, anyway this is my suggestion :


I think we all do this; when it comes to laying intersection, T-Junction or whatever rail layout we have, we place the blueprint manually.
Usually, (in most player blueprint book that i seen/play), they included the electric pole in the layout.
Like this :



Now, the problem was, instead of prioritizing laying the correct signal distance, FARL trying to prioritize connecting the electric pole instead.

And this lead to a problem.
The first signal that FARL lay down is always **shorter** than in the setting.


In my case, it should place it at 35 tiles (17 in FARL setting), but in practice the 1st signal after the pole will always be at 33 tiles.
Way too short for my train.
It's because FARL prioritize connecting the pole than prioritizing signal distance.

So i always do the work twice, deconstruct the wrong signal, deconstruct the electric pole
(that were lay down by FARL and the one that placed by Blueprint), reverse FARL, and do it again.

There will be unconnected pole as a result,
(due distance between pole is way too big).
Actually i don't mind if FARL failed to connect to nearby pole

From gameplay perspective, it's very easy to check whether the electric connection is broken or not.
But when it comes to signal distance, there's no convenient way in vanilla, unless we hold signal/train stop, hover over the rail.

And i only notice this because i use Rail Tools mod, very easy to check signal distance.

Now, i've been using FARL for years, and for years i'm baffled why i can't make symmetric layout.
(let's say if i start on east, then connecting from the west),
The rail signal distance will always be wrong (not lining up), although theoretically it should lined-up.

Turn out, it's because what i mention earlier (the first FARL signal after the junction pole blueprint will always be shorter)

In short, i hope FARL can change the behaviour, instead of prioritizing connecting electric pole, it should prioritizing placing the correct signal distance.
I mean that's what FARL is all about, laying signal automatically.
We can always run while holding electric pole, it will automatically place the next pole,
Or even hold a rail and run, it will be placed instantly.

But signal auto distance ?
Only FARL and some mod can do that, we can't do that in vanilla.
Furthermore, and i only repeat myself here. while it's very easy to check a broken electric line or rail, there's no easy way to check signal distance.
FARL should take care of that, signal distance should be number 1 priority.

[Choumiko]

Not sure if Choumiko still read forum or mod portal

He does

I might have an idea of what's wrong, i'll look into it during the weekend.

FARL is going to get a complete rewrite some time during July. The current code is just bad bad bad. And after my longer absence i barely understand what is going on anymore.

[mexmer]

Not sure if Choumiko still read forum or mod portal

He does

I might have an idea of what's wrong, i'll look into it during the weekend.

FARL is going to get a complete rewrite some time during July. The current code is just bad bad bad. And after my longer absence i barely understand what is going on anymore.

That’s always reassuring, when author doesn’t understand own code

Well, i know that a lot, i’m working on project, that has part of codebase from 1992, although i started working on it in 2001, still sometimes i rewrite my own code, because i have no slightest idea, what that thing means ..... yay for c90.

[waduk]

Wow, a complete rewrite ?
OK, time to plug another suggestion.

Regarding laying blueprint.
I literally use FARL for every tileable blueprint, other player placing tileable solar BP with roboport ?
Nah, doing it with FARL is much faster , plus the farther the layout goes, a bot based build will be slower due traveling distance between chest provider and destination.
FARL didn't have that issue, aside from building very long train dedicated to pack all those solar.

That being said, i always build my rail network in grid style, it's easier for me to manage, less confusing.
It's basically a series of repeatable pattern of 4 way intersection that were placed after certain distance.
But regarding placing intersection, it always comes down to manual placing, bot based
FARL can't put intersection or any rail layout because the use of chain signal as an anchor, am i correct ?

So, i hope you can make an option to placing an intersection (or any rail layout BP; stacker, etc)
It would be best if it can do that automatically after certain signal distance.

This is a very difficult request, since FARL is laying down track at the same time, it will obliterate the newly built intersection in front of it.
Or how can FARL know this layout is a normal track, then the other stored layout is intersection with tons of signal or poles; arguably it will make FARL confused.

So, what i'm proposed is just a simple hotkey, if i press a button, FARL will build the secondary blueprint in front of it.
In practice i will pause laying track, press a hotkey, the blueprint is built, then resume laying track after i cross the intersection.

There's also the basic problem that i mention earlier that FARL relying on pole than a signal, it would be difficult to lining up.
But how about this approach ?
Instead of general stored layout, there are two kinds of category stored layout.

1. The normal track (unchanging,the current one), where people can store any kind of multiple lanes configuration, or even use it to lay solar panel, use wooden box to mark an are to destroy entity on maintenance mode. In short, unchanged at all.
2. The "intersection" layout category (or whatever you called it), where people can store intersection / junction /stacker, etc. FARL see this as normal blueprint.

Unlike the 1st stored layout, if FARL were load with 2nd category, and if it was enabled, FARL will built that blueprint after "certain distance".
That "certain distance" is multiplier of the distance between rail signal

When FARL built that BP, it will not use the same rule like in previous stored layout.
(It will disregarding the pole,
And lining the track and the blueprint by detecting most bottom left / upper left chain signal it can find in the blueprint.

Now, how about the repeatable intersection placing after certain distances ?
How about in the blueprint, a player must mark an exit point that FARL must travel by connecting the signal to a wooden pole ?
Is it even possible FARL can figure out where to travel if it find that signal+wooden pole entity ?,
After that being layout, FARL will travel to exit point, and resume laying down rail by using the 1st category that were loaded.

OK, easier to said than being done, i'm not a coder in any way.
After all it's just a suggestion

Lastly Choumiko, can you do something about the signal distance setting ? Instead number of track, how about putting a signal distance.
I'm an old player, so i know exactly what number i must punch, but i think it would be confusing for new user.
I mean in the setting it said "distance between rail signal", but in practice it's a number of rail between signal.

Would be better if there are other input, for player that prefer counting rail track they can input the number of rail.
But for those who prefer signal distance, there's another input box.

And as a bonus, for those who truly lazy can just put number of engine + wagon.
i believe the formula is (7 x (number of train+cargo))-1 = minimum tiles.
Who am i kidding, of course you will know this formula,..

Anyway, inputting either of those box will dynamically changed other input box.
It would be more intuitive that way.

Thank you, hope you don't mind with this wall of text, it's been awhile since i play factorio (I skipped playing 0.16).
Nice to know you still around and keep developing this great mod.

[Choumiko]

Wow, a complete rewrite ?
OK, time to plug another suggestion.

It's the only way. When i took over the old version (back in 0.12/0.13) i knew nothing about Lua or Factorio modding. Since then i like to believe my experience/skill has increased. Also the API and the game evolved quite a bit and FARL never took advantage of new API stuff.

Regarding laying blueprint.

The blueprints and layouts are gonna change, i'd like to support the current way and the modular/grid style. Not sure how it's going to work yet.

And as a bonus, for those who truly lazy can just put number of engine + wagon.

That is going to be the default way and https://mods.factorio.com/mod/RailTools should already have most of the code i need

Thank you, hope you don't mind with this wall of text, it's been awhile since i play factorio (I skipped playing 0.16).
Nice to know you still around and keep developing this great mod.

I haven't played a real map since 0.15
My original reply was much longer, but then i fatfingered the F5 key..

[Choumiko]

That’s always reassuring, when author doesn’t understand own code

Well, i know that a lot, i’m working on project, that has part of codebase from 1992, although i started working on it in 2001, still sometimes i rewrite my own code, because i have no slightest idea, what that thing means ..... yay for c90.

Well, i still have the excuse that i am no professional and for FARL even that it's the mod where i learned Lua and Factorio modding
I'm actually kind of excited about the rewrite, should be interesting to compare the two versions

[boran_blok]

Eh as a developer I always say, you havent improved if you cant look back at your own code from a year ago and say "WTF was I thinking"

[slippycheeze]

G'day. I've looked at FARL recently to see about automating some rail for me.

Sadly (or gladly) for me I use the Realistic Electric Trains mod, and there is a logical conflict between it and FARL.

In that mod, if you are not familiar, train power is supplied by overhead lines, which can also have integrated normal or chain signals. They are, I believe, actually signals at heart, but don't take my word for that.

Those line poles, placed every 16 tiles or less, also carry power and can feed it back out to other equipment. They replace the need for other power poles, though they cost a bit more as they are rather closer to medium poles in cost.

Anyway, turns out that poses a logical conflict with FARL, as I don't want to lay any extra power supply in my blueprint. FARL doesn't seem to like that, though, and doesn't seem to want to accept a blueprint that only uses those entities for power.

At least, I couldn't make them play nice. I'm kind of hoping for someone to tell me how this was super simple and I'm just an idiot, here, because then I can use FARL and be happy

They also come in "with or without" signals, as noted. I don't really want to signals every 16 tiles, but I would like to use the integrated signals. (Mostly, at least, and in the context of FARL, exclusively)

Didn't seem to be able to get FARL to see them as signals, though, once I added some extra power poles to the blueprints.

I looked at the source, and I think this is a property of FARL having a relatively hard-coded list of what is a signal, email power pole, etc.

I guess my request would be to make it possible to use RET based blueprints, though I dont much care how it happened. Because I write software by trade, I can't not make implementation suggestions or something, so in no particular order:

• I'm fine laying out the poles in the blueprint, if FARL is willing to ignore the lack of "power" and signal items.
• I'm happy to talk to the mod author (or write, I guess) so etching that registered those entities with FARL so it could treat them as power, signals, etc.
• the mod is nice, and I both it and FARL, so just direct support for it would be fine too.

Again, if I missed something, I'll be very glad to hear it. Getting this working well is high on my wish list right now.

[Choumiko]

With FARLs current code it's almost impossible to make it work with Realistic Electric Trains (i tried it a few weeks back and eventually had to give up, because it got really ugly..)
But I'm gonna start rewriting FARL from scratch soon and more flexibility is something i will definitely keep in mind.

[slippycheeze]

With FARLs current code it's almost impossible to make it work with Realistic Electric Trains (i tried it a few weeks back and eventually had to give up, because it got really ugly..)
But I'm gonna start rewriting FARL from scratch soon and more flexibility is something i will definitely keep in mind.

I'm sympathetic: I looked through the code of both to figure out which side I should post this wish too. Any simple placeholder item would be fine, FWIW. It'd be nice to have a full integration, but if rewrite-version-one just let me throw a wooden box down and used that to sync, it'd meet my needs.

Thank you, by the way. I don't think I said that, and I should have. FARL is pretty amazing on the outside, regardless of the innards. (and nobody likes to know how the sausage is made