siggboy wrote:You make it sound worse than it is, but the devs need to be very careful that they don't walk into the wrong direction here.
There is already room for cleanup. Red/green wires should not exist as a thing, they should pop out of the combinators on demand. Iron stick is ridiculous. Half of the "combat" tab is useless. We do not need three different boxes, one box with 50 slots would be enough.
Stuff like that. Needs cleaning up.
Well it wasn't my intention to make it sound worse than it is, sorry if I did. I just wanted to point out that there are some areas still needing improvement even if they have been improved like 5 times already, and also some unnecessary redundancy.
But well that list of things where I think there is reduncancy or where I had some ideas how they could be improved upon spans probably 50-60% of the items found in the crafting menu, but that's where most people would say I'm crazy because it's like saying "change or remove half of the game when the finish line is almost in sight"
just to slipstream features into more "universal"
ones, which is not really going to happen anyways.
Just to take the route further down a little bit even it's not really part of the thread topic... Infrastructure stuff like 7 different Inserters (while their stats only differ in minor ways), 4 different Logistic-Chests, 3 Regular Chests, 3 Types of Furnaces, 3 Assemblers at different speeds, a set of Belts/UnderGround/Splitters for 3 different Belt Speeds... Most of them I would have slipstreamed into one single item and if you want a faster version then use Modules, because let's not forget we have an entire array of Modules that change behaviour too. I also suggested having a Module that tells a machine if it is supposed to run on Fuel or Elecricity, which would have merged several Burner/Electric items into one, and also opened the possibility to run your entire factory (including assemblers etc) on coal if you want to. But whenever I suggested that some of it could be slipstreamed it always seemed like some people went all haywire, even the suggestions were meant for their good too.
I also agree with the Iron Stick as "Intermediate Product"
(which would imply using it in a lot of recipes, but how many items do actually use it? 3? Axes, Lamps and Rail?)... and about the Combat tab... urgh I don't even want to look at it because that's the most overloaded tab of them all and it keeps on growing and growing and yet it still boils down to using the same 4-5 items out of the entire tab since the rest is only valid for a short period of time (often not even long enough to justify going for it in the first place) during a playthrough after which it can be dumped and never looked upon again. Some of it could be dealt with the major combat rebalance the devs have been postponing for quite some time already.
Overall that's not really meant negatively... the game is still in development... so it's normal that a lot of stuff just grows organically and may or may not lose the purpose or could be replaced with a more "universal"
solution instead of having a lot of ad-hoc ones.
siggboy wrote:Well, I can only voice my own opinion, I do not know what others want.
I would already be happy if the "blackbox" did use the same combinators that we have right now, just in a clean visual (schematic) layout, with autorouting for the wires, automatic layouting if you want it, the ability to single-step/simulate, some test inputs/outputs, etc. And modability, so that all the missing stuff could be modded in.
THEN we can think about what kind of "combinator" we actually want in such an environment. What you're asking for is for Twinsen to invent an amazing visual programming language that will make everybody happy (not going to happen), as if that was in any way easy. All I want is a sane environment to develop in, with no unnecessary quirks, such as "zero" not being a value, or not having a "not equals" operator.
The combinators that we have are not THAT bad, a few changes would greatly improve the usability already, there's no need to throw it all away and design something new from scratch.
Well I didn't ask anyone to implement an amazing visual programming language or anything alike, because in my opinion that would go far beyond the scope of Factorio anyways since Factorio is about building a Factory and not really about software programming or electrical engineering where such things may have their place.
It's just that recently people are often talking about a blackbox item, but whenever it's mentioned they are mostly pretty vague about what they actually would like to see if such a feature would be really a thing.
Probably we can agree on the fact that if it's just banning whatever contraption one would place in the map into a sub menu without some additional "tools for convenience"
(like the autorouting or step-by-step-testing you mention for example) then it wouldn't really be any better than not having it.
aeros1 wrote:Not really once you have bluprints of blocks. And yes I overaxagerrated, but assemblers of all kinds are even now not most high on demand production. Now you short out for all conditional stuff you don't need huge quantities of. (Pipes, special belts, special kind of ammo, inserters, rails. In fact you don't need killer numbers of most things except (science, ammo, rocket parts) those likely to have own production line. Than there could be added long cycle for belts rails, pass signals, solar batteries and accumulators, robots. And really high cycle ones for all stuff you need little off. And indeed I ovexarated, but still it is more compact and polution friendly way. Like idea sounds fun and curious to play around yet somehow against main concept of game, that's why I am all for to make it possible and negative for it being present in main game.
I think with blueprints of blocks nothing really matters anymore. Not even if you have to build dedicated setups for each single item in the game. Just blueprint it and be done with it, especially if you are using a Robot-based factory anyways.
aeros1 wrote:Nope just A*B would work great. If copper doesn't exist then 0*B=0 If iron doesn't exist than A*0=0 if both well 0*0=0 and A*B>0 for both. and it is reason for them to exist. I wish wiring would be allowed to be more clear like low ground based wiring under correct angles with thick enough wires to see, and severul visual busses per square to track(3 to 5). I just don't see reason as no reason for new belt types. IF you want compact game things why not use programator. Small ingame lua script programer that controls everything possible with circuit and logistic network. Much smaller setup. Not saying most likely you turn on and off machinery already, and such machinery has it's own decider which you may use in the end for free. Plus this way I am not limited to some proper logic and may create my own math rules if it would be required. Let's say this idea doesn't bring new and impacting as let's say logic train stops.
Like I replied to siggboy already... BlakeMW pointed out why the arithmetic methods of A*B, A+B etc are problematic in some cases:
BlakeMW wrote:There's a big limitation of * = AND, + = OR
Taking how "or" works in most programming languages, if you say:
a or b
Then if a is truthy you get the value of a, if b is truthy you get the value of b
The distinction between A * B and A AND B, would be that when you use A AND B you can get the unmodified value of A or B for the output, when using * you get the multiplied value out and you have to renormalize the value to get the original value, for example you'd have to take the value of A*B then divide it by B to get A, or have previously normalized B to 0/1.
So AND/OR can actually work in subtly different ways than arithmetic operations. I would actually favor having AND/OR as decider combinator options and working like in scripting languages (i.e. more pragmatic than strictly boolean)
Because of the way Factorio implements it currently you have to do extra work either before or after the comparison to renormalize/get back the values you want to continue working with. Sorry that it wasn't that clear that I meant this kind of behaviour in my own post.