Electric network cable connections saved in the blueprint

Ideas, that are too old (too much things changed) or won't be implemented cause of some reasons or if there are obvious better suggestions.

Moderator: ickputzdirwech

User avatar
Twisted_Code
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2015 1:15 am
Contact:

Re: Electric network cable connections saved in the blueprint

Post by Twisted_Code »

<NO_NAME> wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:00 pm
Rseding91 wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 7:55 pm
This isn't going to happen. It simply doesn't work as anyone imagines it would. If a blueprint saved the connections when it was created when you built it, it would literally never connect to your existing network(s) because it was not connected to any of them when it was created.
The idea is that only connections between entities that are on the blueprint are saved. It is still allowed to automatically connect the blueprinted power poles to any entity that existed before the blueprint was placed.

Although, the behavior you described would also be useful, at the condition it would be optional. It would be great for blueprints that are meant as interfaces linking separated electric networks.
For example I have a blueprint that turns off the power for mining drills when there is a shortage in the network and every time I place it, I have to manually remove all the incorrect wires that connect it haphazardly with random other things.
I agree that both behaviors could be useful under certain circumstances, though I'm not sure how you would distinguish between them when placing other than using "shift".
In any case, I think the current behavior is subpar at best and buggy at worst (I believe someone earlier in the thread had a really good example where they would end up with a tangled mess whenever they built their furnace lines). I get why the behavior rseding described was undesirable, but I'm having trouble understanding why it happened that way and why it couldn't be reworked. Why can't pre-existing entities be treated differently from items within the blueprint? The "only connect if explicitly marked in the blueprint" rule (or, as I would implement it, "only connect to other entities marked as this subnet within the blueprint") should only apply between entities within the blueprint, right?
I apologize if I am critically misunderstanding the issue here, but can you really blame me? In theory, at least, it seems almost trivial... you know?
How to report bugs effectively (archived version)because everyone should know this.
The game's tech tree, a visual reference guide.

kryojenik
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Electric network cable connections saved in the blueprint

Post by kryojenik »

I don't know if this is over simplifying, but it seems like the distinction would have to do with the relationship of the pole to the blueprint.


The connection state between all poles contained in the blueprint are remembered. If the print is laid down in an isolated area with no other poles around, the internal connections will be exactly as the were when the print was taken.

The connection state between pole in the print and poles outside the print follow current, auto-connecting rules. Poles that are specifically set up to be an isolated grid, or simply communication poles with no power within a print should not get connected to the power grid because they can.

Consider this construct. Here, a steam power source is only desired if the accumulator charge is low. This is common to save fuel resources and depend on solar when you can and accomplished by using a power switch. The BP saves the sate of connection to the power switch, but bridges across it when laying down as a blueprint. It defeats the entire purpose of the switch in the first place.

The original setup that was taken as a blueprint
Image

Placing it back down as a blueprint
Image



kryo

Yoyobuae
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 499
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Electric network cable connections saved in the blueprint

Post by Yoyobuae »

kryojenik wrote:
Fri Sep 04, 2020 7:12 pm
Consider this construct. Here, a steam power source is only desired if the accumulator charge is low. This is common to save fuel resources and depend on solar when you can and accomplished by using a power switch. The BP saves the sate of connection to the power switch, but bridges across it when laying down as a blueprint. It defeats the entire purpose of the switch in the first place.
If you replace the Big Power Poles by Small Power Poles in that setup then the bridging behavior would be prevented. If you want to use medium power poles then just make sure to have 4 tile spacing between the power pole and power switch.

kryojenik
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Electric network cable connections saved in the blueprint

Post by kryojenik »

Yoyobuae wrote:
Fri Sep 04, 2020 8:11 pm
kryojenik wrote:
Fri Sep 04, 2020 7:12 pm
Consider this construct. Here, a steam power source is only desired if the accumulator charge is low. This is common to save fuel resources and depend on solar when you can and accomplished by using a power switch. The BP saves the sate of connection to the power switch, but bridges across it when laying down as a blueprint. It defeats the entire purpose of the switch in the first place.
If you replace the Big Power Poles by Small Power Poles in that setup then the bridging behavior would be prevented. If you want to use medium power poles then just make sure to have 4 tile spacing between the power pole and power switch.
Yes, this particular construct can be adjusted to get around the poor UX design, but that isn't the point. There are multiple properties to consider, effective power supply area, distance connected.. If the next hop was 30 tiles away, the need for big pole is evident. Using small poles for the entire distance to get around poor UX is not a solution. Consider you're dealing with substations for the large foot print, to now add distance with small poles in between isn't feasible.. It would have to be within small pole range of the substation and then several more for the complete distance eliminating the utility of the substation in the first place.

Wearing a swim suit is not a solution to a leaky roof.

Yoyobuae
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 499
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Electric network cable connections saved in the blueprint

Post by Yoyobuae »

Yeah, it can be inconvenient. But it's also fair to point there are ways around the problem. Sometimes you just gotta work with what you are given.

I would like to see these setups you guys are making that need to fit power switches under such tight layout constraints.

User avatar
ssilk
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 12244
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Electric network cable connections saved in the blueprint

Post by ssilk »

kryojenik wrote:
Fri Sep 04, 2020 8:38 pm
Yes, this particular construct can be adjusted to get around the poor UX design, but that isn't the point. There are multiple properties to consider, effective power supply area, distance connected.. If the next hop was 30 tiles away, the need for big pole is evident. Using small poles for the entire distance to get around poor UX is not a solution. Consider you're dealing with substations for the large foot print, to now add distance with small poles in between isn't feasible.. It would have to be within small pole range of the substation and then several more for the complete distance eliminating the utility of the substation in the first place.

Wearing a swim suit is not a solution to a leaky roof.
As a big user/fan of such constructions I can say there are always ways around that problem, if you have enough space around your construction. In that case you describe, I build a big pole as near as possible and then use small poles to connect the remaining distance.

So the point is, that you have enough distance between the inner and the outer electric circuit that you can always use large poles.

I also have been going over to test my blueprints, before I use it. First I copy the blueprint I want to create. Then I use a destructor, that destructs all poles. And then I paste that copy over it. Poles are destructed and rebuild. If that works, it is nearly sure to use the bp without problems.

PS: It's a mess. My idea of colored bp (see link) would be a solution of this.
Cool suggestion: Eatable MOUSE-pointers.
Have you used the Advanced Search today?
Need help, question? FAQ - Wiki - Forum help
I still like small signatures...

kryojenik
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Electric network cable connections saved in the blueprint

Post by kryojenik »

ssilk wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 8:30 am
kryojenik wrote:
Fri Sep 04, 2020 8:38 pm
Yes, this particular construct can be adjusted to get around the poor UX design, but that isn't the point. There are multiple properties to consider, effective power supply area, distance connected.. If the next hop was 30 tiles away, the need for big pole is evident. Using small poles for the entire distance to get around poor UX is not a solution. Consider you're dealing with substations for the large foot print, to now add distance with small poles in between isn't feasible.. It would have to be within small pole range of the substation and then several more for the complete distance eliminating the utility of the substation in the first place.

Wearing a swim suit is not a solution to a leaky roof.
As a big user/fan of such constructions I can say there are always ways around that problem, if you have enough space around your construction. In that case you describe, I build a big pole as near as possible and then use small poles to connect the remaining distance.

So the point is, that you have enough distance between the inner and the outer electric circuit that you can always use large poles.

I also have been going over to test my blueprints, before I use it. First I copy the blueprint I want to create. Then I use a destructor, that destructs all poles. And then I paste that copy over it. Poles are destructed and rebuild. If that works, it is nearly sure to use the bp without problems.

PS: It's a mess. My idea of colored bp (see link) would be a solution of this.

One of the joys I get out of this game (different bent for each person) is making dense, constructs with little wasted space. So, the "use more space" thing works, but is orthogonal to my objective. It doesn't make the game Literally Unplayable though. My particular use case (at the moment) is this...

Image


I was playing a Bob's run and planned out a nuclear plant... I wanted the control structure(fuel inserters, pumps, combinators for logic, roboports) not to depend on the plants power in case it failed, pre-startup, etc... All the medium poles in this picture are for the control structures. The are powered by solar, with an accumulator. The big poles and substations are the primary power distribution from the plant. In this case the medium poles MUST not connect to the bases main power grid or that lonely accumulator will be immediately drained and the power plant will not be able to start back up. But one of the medium poles MUST also be in proximity to a turbine to leach power from it when generating so as not to ONLY depend on the solar panels.

Here I want to keep the medium poles from connection to any thing but what I tell them too... The large poles can connect to any other poles they want.

Sure, I could move the big poles that connect the two halves of the plant way out to avoid the auto connection, but again, part of the puzzle for me is not creating empty space to be unusable. If I want to now use that space in the void between the power plant and the big poles, I need other poles there to provide power, then risk the connections again.

The idea of the color coded poles seems like it could work. I didn't fully digest it yet. But I personally would rather that be a property of the pole and not require another tile to place a lamp. Then you have to move something farther away, maybe fit in another pole in, then another light, etc...

User avatar
ickputzdirwech
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 638
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:16 am
Contact:

Re: Electric network cable connections saved in the blueprint

Post by ickputzdirwech »

Just in case you don’t know. There seams to go something on regarding this topic. See the wiki
Mods: Shortcuts for 1.1, ick's Sea Block, ick's vanilla tweaks
Tools: Atom language pack
Text quickly seems cold and unfriendly. Be careful how you write and interpret what others have written.
- A reminder for me and all who read what I write

Post Reply

Return to “Outdated/Not implemented”