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
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.