Factorio Forums

MeduSalem wrote:Too bad that setting the Inserter Stack Size bonus with the Circuit Network signal isn't on the list... because that would have been one of my priorities actually.

Would be my top priority as well. So many sleek train loader and smart furnace designs suddenly becoming possible.....

My votes for bit operators and more decider operands have been implemented already.
Here's hoping the switchable beacon might become reality too.

Optera wrote:Would be my top priority as well. So many sleek train loader and smart furnace designs suddenly becoming possible.....

My votes for bit operators and more decider operands have been implemented already.
Here's hoping the switchable beacon might become reality too.

Yeah, train loader/unloading... smart furnaces... I miss especially the later. Though I XNight's approach to overcome the stack size problems is truly awesome... I wish it would be easier.

My votes were:

Assembler Set Recipes ... obviously.
More decider operands as well
Logic Combinator ... because sometimes they would be better and more straight forward than emulating the behaviour with deciders
Timer Combinator ... because emulating that behaviour sometimes turns awkward too

Though I'm looking forward to the train station features as well... because I would have voted on them too, but they won the popularity votes anyways. xD

A question though... is the switchable beacon really necessary? ... because it can be done with the powerswitch too. That said I hate the yellow blinking and it would be nice if one could turn them off without that...

For me being able to switch off beacons would be a quality of life enhancement.
Currently I switch off whole modules when not needed but it has some ugly side effects.
a) if one pole is replanted it very likely will short circuit the power switch
b) I need to run a separate power line to keep the lights on
c) inserters stop mid cycle which looks really ugly
With switchable beacons I could turn off resource input and switch the beacons off, which would be a much more graceful way to turn off a module.

I can't wait to see how the changes to train stops will break my Logistic Train Network mod

vanatteveldt wrote:Another idea: microchip: basically a mini-factory / modular armor type interface where you can add more combinators and that have a red+green input and a red+green output. Optionally make them have 'connectors' at the side where if you place two microchips side by side the red+green side output of A is automatically connected to the red+green side input of B and vice versa. This will make it a lot easier to organize / share / copy interesting contraptions without having your whole factory filled by combinators, while the input/output restrictions mean that more complex setups still require enough puzzling.

I saw a mod for buildings that you can enter and then place other buildings inside. The mod was for placing assembler inside so you could for example make a factory that takes iron plates and copper plates and produces electronic circuits in a single building. So factorio seems to already have the ability to do recursive constructs. So how about adding a breadboard or circuit board item that you can place. On the outside it would have circuit connections for input and output. Number of inputs and outputs could depend on size (level 1 research has 2x1 tiles, level 2 has larger boards with 2x2 tiles, ...). And then you enter them and can place combinators and wires inside.

A followup idea would be an assembler that takes a blueprint of such a circuit board and then builds them according to the blueprint. If you don't like the idea of entering the circuit board to design it then the assembler could take the blueprint of a normally build circuit and create a circuit board of it.

I started playing too late for the poll, but with respect to being able to set Assembler recipes, I would definitely like this as an endgame feature.

One suggestion that might make implementation / use easier: do LRU or "smallest quantity" cache ejection when needed to open up a buffer slot. You're going to have to sort the ejected materials out of the finished products belt/box anyway, so it doesn't matter if it happens automatically or is commanded somehow (and the former is simpler). Might be nice to have a "flush" recipe that just clears the buffers though.

siggboy wrote:The problem with that solution is that it only works from belts, and not from buffer chests. Which, among other things, makes it unsuitable for smart furnaces that are fed from robot chests.

Yes that's true. Hopefully the dev's will change their mind. I haven't visited this thread for a while and missed the current discussion on this topic. My unawareness and recent disappointment caused me to start this thread: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=39218
I already feel a little bad now for posting a separate complaints thread..

To sum it up: The general problem is, that there are quite a few things that make it impossible to control the flow of items in quantity and time which in turn makes all advanced control circuits problematic. What I would like is that changes like inserter stack size are checked (before implementing them) if they would break the ability to precisely control count-perfect (or tick-perfect) movement of items.

@hansinator: I don't think it is quite as bad as you sketch it. Some fine grained tuning is indeed impossible due to stack sizes and implementation details, but at least for things like variable numbers of ticks for some operations it would be the case IRL as well: everything has a tolerance, and nothing is perfect. And there's a number of useful things in the circuit network that are possible now: disable production lines for certain conditions, including if output is backed up, store items in buffer if input is backed up, move items only to a destination X tiles away if the supply is low and there are no items in transit, balanced loading etc. It could be a lot nicer with some additions, but it is certainly not a gimmick as it is right now.

For the problem of imprecise control over numbers of items, what about this simple solution: allow a second option when connecting chests to the circuit network to limit the contents and size of a chest to the supplied value, i.e. if you connect a chest to a constant combinator that emits 3 iron and 1 steel, the chest will only accept exactly that content. This allows you to move exactly N items from A to B by placing the chest inbetween, and allows for dynamic filtering.

One other improvement would be to make inserters a bit 'smarter' by having them grab at most the number of items that the destination will accept. Currently if there is room for 1 plate in a chest, an inserter will happily grab 12 plates, insert 1, and keep hovering over the chest with the remainder.

Alternatively, allow inserters to accept a filter+amount option, so if you wire 2 iron to the inserter it will only grab iron and only 2 at a time.

Where is the option to vote for inserter stack size?

aober93 wrote:Where is the option to vote for inserter stack size?

Twinsen mentioned in another thread that the inserter stack size stuff will probably be added with 0.15.

Just found that post.

siggboy wrote:

Optera wrote:

DaveMcW wrote:

vanatteveldt wrote:Stack / Filter Inserter: set item filter and stack size

There is a 1 constant combinator solution if you abuse integer overflow: viewtopic.php?f=193&t=35380

That's the best work around I've seen, but it's still only a work around only working when picking up from belts.

It's not new, it has been discussed many weeks ago already.

The problem with that solution is that it only works from belts, and not from buffer chests. Which, among other things, makes it unsuitable for smart furnaces that are fed from robot chests.

The solutions that I have seen being discussed before don't work with filter inserters. If you don't need filtering you don't even need a combinator, just a wire and a pole..

How about the ability to count the number of active/available robots in a logistic network?

I would love to be able to automate building more robots anytime the available robots hits zero

Hugedata wrote:How about the ability to count the number of active/available robots in a logistic network?

I would love to be able to automate building more robots anytime the available robots hits zero

This is already implemented. Just connect a roboport to your circuit network. You can select different signals outputting amount and available logistic or construction robots.

Greetings steinio

With the recent implementations of von Neumann probes, I think anything that allows blueprint placement (what e.g. Conman mod does https://mods.factorio.com/mods/justarandomgeek/conman) would qualify for consideration as well. Also, some more capability to read the map with circuit combinators would be useful, too.

I am so looking forward to contests of two different von Neumann probes in Factorio.

I would love to have a >>> operator for logical shift instead of arithmetic shift.

Any bitwise operation that touches the sign bit is very awkward to do without it.

DaveMcW wrote:I would love to have a >>> operator for logical shift instead of arithmetic shift.

Any bitwise operation that touches the sign bit is very awkward to do without it.

Alternately, the current arithmetic shift can be a yellow >> and a logical shift could be the blue >>, to preserve the arithmetic/bitwise coloring. << could then be either color.

mrvn wrote:

vanatteveldt wrote:Another idea: microchip: basically a mini-factory / modular armor type interface where you can add more combinators and that have a red+green input and a red+green output. Optionally make them have 'connectors' at the side where if you place two microchips side by side the red+green side output of A is automatically connected to the red+green side input of B and vice versa. This will make it a lot easier to organize / share / copy interesting contraptions without having your whole factory filled by combinators, while the input/output restrictions mean that more complex setups still require enough puzzling.

A followup idea would be an assembler that takes a blueprint of such a circuit board and then builds them according to the blueprint. If you don't like the idea of entering the circuit board to design it then the assembler could take the blueprint of a normally build circuit and create a circuit board of it.

The concept of an item circuitboard that would be built from a blueprint of a circuit network seems very cool. But in practice, how it would work? Let's say for instance I build a small circuit that takes in input signal A, B and C, and then return 2*A+B-min(A,B) (basic, but footprint of a dozen factorio circuit components).

How would the circuitboard know where are the "external" inputs, and where are the "external" outputs?

Claudius1729 wrote:

mrvn wrote:

vanatteveldt wrote:Another idea: microchip: basically a mini-factory / modular armor type interface where you can add more combinators and that have a red+green input and a red+green output. Optionally make them have 'connectors' at the side where if you place two microchips side by side the red+green side output of A is automatically connected to the red+green side input of B and vice versa. This will make it a lot easier to organize / share / copy interesting contraptions without having your whole factory filled by combinators, while the input/output restrictions mean that more complex setups still require enough puzzling.

A followup idea would be an assembler that takes a blueprint of such a circuit board and then builds them according to the blueprint. If you don't like the idea of entering the circuit board to design it then the assembler could take the blueprint of a normally build circuit and create a circuit board of it.

The concept of an item circuitboard that would be built from a blueprint of a circuit network seems very cool. But in practice, how it would work? Let's say for instance I build a small circuit that takes in input signal A, B and C, and then return 2*A+B-min(A,B) (basic, but footprint of a dozen factorio circuit components).

How would the circuitboard know where are the "external" inputs, and where are the "external" outputs?

Every combinator, which would include such user designed circuit boards, has 2 bus inputs and 2 bus outputs: red wire and green wire. Combinators are 1x2m large so that they have an input tile and output tile. Custom circuit boards would be just the same. At least 1x2m large with input and output tiles predefined. This takes care of connecting the outside world to the chip. But what about internally connecting the signals to the combinators?

I imagine in the blueprint you need to define some terminals where the input and output connects to. I would add a new combinator "terminal" that also has an input side and output side. But whatever signal you connect to the input side becomes the output of the chip and whatever is connected to the input of the chip becomes the output of the combinator. If the chip has more than one of them then every output is the same and the inputs are additive.