Rocket silo logistic is just broken

[Sworn]

so the space is a surface, while the station is a "train" in that surface.
I see how it is , that is a workaround for sure

[Sopel]

A few pain points that I discovered:

1. It's not possible to set a circuit condition on a request. I have a platform that makes prometheum science and I need it to work in 2 stages - first load a large amount of biter eggs for 30 minutes of time I have to produce it in transit, after that the chunks are buffered and will be used when stopped on nauvis, in which case I don't want to request all those biter eggs but only enough to keep the production going. Unrolling the buffer can take like 3 minutes, so it's 3 minutes lost of spoil time on biter eggs that are unused here.

2. It's not possible to keep a certain amount of items from getting requested by a planet. I have a calcite collector ship and I need to keep some calcite for the fuel, but it's either all calcite available for request or none. The "maximum" setting in the request does not work because it forcibly dumps all excess, circumventing requests.

3. Automatic build requests always import at least the full rocket capacity, which makes them useless in the early game, and annoying in the late game. It should attempt to pack the silos with a mix of items as best as it can.

[Tinyboss]

There does not appear to be any means whatsoever of launching a rocket with more than one item type, except manually in the silo UI by clicking the "deliver" button.

a "launch rocket" signal would work, now to which platform should it be sent?

Currently for auto requests, if multiple platforms are requesting the same thing, it must decide somehow--first maybe? It could work the same for a manually-loaded rocket. If two or more platforms are requesting everything on the rocket, just pick one to send it to, using the same method.

Would that work?

[Sworn]

Currently for auto requests, if multiple platforms are requesting the same thing, it must decide somehow--first maybe? It could work the same for a manually-loaded rocket. If two or more platforms are requesting everything on the rocket, just pick one to send it to, using the same method.

Would that work?

No idea if that would work, but in my head, if we are sending rockets trough logic circuit, then the platform won't be requesting anything.
But that comes with the pain that we can't talk to the platform.

Well, thinking more, station A is set to request lets 1k belts, station B is set to request 1k substation.
Currently in the game, it decies somehow which one to send first, fifo maybe, but it does know which one is request which item...

Now, if we had this on logic circuit, would have the station requesting, and rocket silo set to not automatically send.
Then one reads it from the rocket silo with logic and do something with the request, and at some point, want to trigger the launch rocket signal. Which would sent do the first platform that request belts.

That wouldn't just work, as we might just sent the wrong item to the platform.

Having multiple platforms requesting different items would just group all requests into one big messy signal.
I think we must target a platform with surface id, assuming we had a box to input it from signal, that it would reads the requests from that surface, and send the rocket to that surface.

I imagine that when we open the rocket silo UI, it does count how many stations are on that planet and mask their ids behind each "launch" button.
Similarly, if those are exposed for mods, we should be able to mod it to show as a logic signal, right?
Rocket silo would have similarly to roboport, ship count, that would return how many ships are waiting there, and then a number box for its id, like train id.

From that we could make a circuit that loops trough the station and send the items. I think we don't even need the station id, a simple index would work, like fifo, first to arrive, second to arrive, third to arrive.

[Tinyboss]

Having multiple platforms requesting different items would just group all requests into one big messy signal.

Ahhhh, you're absolutely right, that's what I was not thinking of. Yeah my suggestion won't work, for that reason. We wouldn't know how to not mix requests from different platforms into the same rocket cargo.

[JonGalt]

My issues with rocket silo logistics could be solved with a few simple changes.

• Be able to read silo contents AND silo orbital requests simultaneously as separate signals so I can perform my own logic to load rockets with exactly what I want.

• Have a circuit controlled launch option so I can launch whenever I want.

• Have separate areas on the rocket silo for loading rocket cargo and rocket parts so rocket fuel, blue chips and LDS can he handled/loaded as cargo same as all other parts.

[mmmPI]

My issues with rocket silo logistics could be solved with a few simple changes.

• Have a circuit controlled launch option so I can launch whenever I want.

And how would you know to which rocket you send things ?

[mrvn]

The silo gets stuck when a platform requests something but has no space. The silo then loads the items into a rocket and never launches. This then blocks any other platform from requesting stuff.

[bluegreen1024]

My issues with rocket silo logistics could be solved with a few simple changes.

• Have a circuit controlled launch option so I can launch whenever I want.

And how would you know to which rocket you send things ?

One way would be to give each space platform a unique (nonzero) ID, and when a rocket silo receives the "Launch" signal, it checks the value of that signal against the ID's of every platform in orbit. If one of them matches, it launches to that platform, and otherwise it does not launch. This is plausible, because trains already have a unique ID, and train stops can read that ID as a signal. Space platforms are already similar to trains in many ways, so I think it makes sense.

[Sworn]

from what the map editor exposes, it seems to be a string id, just like of other surfaces have a string id, but yea, that would be nice.

Surface id from what bullipartty mentioned. Each platform has its own surface

[mmmPI]

One way would be to give each space platform a unique (nonzero) ID, and when a rocket silo receives the "Launch" signal, it checks the value of that signal against the ID's of every platform in orbit. If one of them matches, it launches to that platform, and otherwise it does not launch. This is plausible, because trains already have a unique ID, and train stops can read that ID as a signal. Space platforms are already similar to trains in many ways, so I think it makes sense.

Yeah this was discussed in other topic with more serious suggestion, for the same reason no-one hardly build anything relying on train IDs i think this is a bad idea.

Any destroyed platform losing ID and no possbility to manually input it, or risk having it being non-unique, breaking blueprints where people put the ID manually.

I was merely pointing out that when people say "it can be fixed with a simple change" , they often do not realize the shortcomings of their proposition, and when they attempt to complete it , it becomes a very long text with a complex system, with many edges cases and exceptions that was written with the aim of "proposing a simple fix" to something that was not broken in the first place. And it look like more of the problem than the solution to me.

[mrvn]

One way would be to give each space platform a unique (nonzero) ID, and when a rocket silo receives the "Launch" signal, it checks the value of that signal against the ID's of every platform in orbit. If one of them matches, it launches to that platform, and otherwise it does not launch. This is plausible, because trains already have a unique ID, and train stops can read that ID as a signal. Space platforms are already similar to trains in many ways, so I think it makes sense.

Yeah this was discussed in other topic with more serious suggestion, for the same reason no-one hardly build anything relying on train IDs i think this is a bad idea.

Any destroyed platform losing ID and no possbility to manually input it, or risk having it being non-unique, breaking blueprints where people put the ID manually.

I was merely pointing out that when people say "it can be fixed with a simple change" , they often do not realize the shortcomings of their proposition, and when they attempt to complete it , it becomes a very long text with a complex system, with many edges cases and exceptions that was written with the aim of "proposing a simple fix" to something that was not broken in the first place. And it look like more of the problem than the solution to me.

Do we even need circuit control there?

It's not like the game will have a million spaceships. It would be enough to have a building that can be configured to send items to a specific hub, selectable from a dropdown menu listing the names of existing hubs just like you can select train stops. If more is needed then mods can translate some ID signal to the hubs name just like the mods that do that for train stops.

[bluegreen1024]

...

Yeah this was discussed in other topic with more serious suggestion, for the same reason no-one hardly build anything relying on train IDs i think this is a bad idea.

Any destroyed platform losing ID and no possbility to manually input it, or risk having it being non-unique, breaking blueprints where people put the ID manually.

I was merely pointing out that when people say "it can be fixed with a simple change" , they often do not realize the shortcomings of their proposition, and when they attempt to complete it , it becomes a very long text with a complex system, with many edges cases and exceptions that was written with the aim of "proposing a simple fix" to something that was not broken in the first place. And it look like more of the problem than the solution to me.

I probably misspoke when I talked of "giving" platforms unique IDs. As others pointed out, they probably already have them, so it is more a question of just exposing them in a form that the circuit network can parse.

"Broken" is somewhat subjective here, and I agree that the current system is functional for many common use cases, but it still lacks the flexibility and precision even of vanilla train systems (let alone modded systems like LTN or Cybersyn). Since many players already exploit the vanilla train + circuit network system in all sorts of creative ways to automate things, I don't think we can say the the rocket + platform logistics system is functional for all the uses that players want. In other words, the devs put a very flexible train logistics system into the game and have continued to improve upon it with the 2.0 release, so it is not unreasonable that some players naturally expect a similar amount of capability from the new rocket + platform logistic system.

I created a pair of specific suggestions viewtopic.php?f=6&t=121782 and viewtopic.php?f=6&t=121797, which, implemented together, would allow at least as much automation capability as trains and circuit networks have already, and they would not change the default behavior of rockets. In particular, they would solve the issue you pointed out that manually inputting IDs can break in some situations, by simply letting the player read an ID and transmit whatever that value happens to be to the entities that need it. If it changes, that change is propagated without manual intervention. And again, this would be completely opt-in for players that want it, so it adds no complexity for players that don't need it. Moreover even implementing just the first suggestion about circuit-controlled rocket launch and exposing surface IDs would allow modders to fill in the rest (probably) and create systems of whatever complexity they desire.

And in any case there is always the alternative option to just give platforms+rockets parity with trains+stations (which would imply using names as targets which don't need to be unique, just like trains can target multiple stations with the same name already).

[bluegreen1024]

[quote=mrvn post_id=640965 time=1731867180 user_id=28160
Do we even need circuit control there?

It's not like the game will have a million spaceships. It would be enough to have a building that can be configured to send items to a specific hub, selectable from a dropdown menu listing the names of existing hubs just like you can select train stops. If more is needed then mods can translate some ID signal to the hubs name just like the mods that do that for train stops.
[/quote]

Arguably we don't need circuit control anywhere, which is why I think it should be added as an opt-in feature, just like it is for many other machines in Factorio. But having circuit control in the ways that myself and others have described would allow more dynamic automation without having to resort to modding (which may or may not even be possible for space platforms the way it is for trains).

Different people notice different specific points of frustration to differing degrees, which is why there are a constantly growing number of slightly different threads about Space Age logistics frustrations. A general-purpose solution that makes all rocket and platform behavior controllable by the circuit network would allow players, rather than devs or modders, to create the logistic behavior that they specifically want.

For modding, it seems like it would still require an api feature on the devs' part to make sure those ID signals exist and can be parsed, and to allow the relevant entities (i.e. rocket silos) to have their behavior changed by mods.

But I agree that your suggestion above would also be an improvement over the current system.

[mmmPI]

Do we even need circuit control there?

It's not like the game will have a million spaceships. It would be enough to have a building that can be configured to send items to a specific hub, selectable from a dropdown menu listing the names of existing hubs just like you can select train stops. If more is needed then mods can translate some ID signal to the hubs name just like the mods that do that for train stops.

No, none of any of what's discussed here is needed imo. I feel the same for this new proposition which doesn't make sense as a proposition to add more control with the circuits network over the rocket launch to me.

I'm sorry but this goes to confirm what i was already thinking that players propose "solutions" that creates more problems that they solve. Splitting the different suggestions that are required to be implemented together for the system to work in different thread doesn't make it not a very long text for me.

You need to add some new ways of transmitting signal data in specific channel, and also ways to transmit signal over surfaces , and addding ID's to platform ,and a system so that this ID is propagated when player changes it. All this for "more flexibility", which is vague notion, if it's just because some player got frustrated and didn't realize they couldn't insert rocket fuel, low density and blue circuit like the other things it is not really a benefit imo. The other use cases i fail to understand as important, they just seem very niche example of someone willing a system not made for something to do that thing regardless.

Still no clue how this would work with blueprints, imagine i download many of them, i have 50 ship blueprint, and they all have the same ID on the blueprint. When should the error message pop ? when is the platform receving its ID ? at creation ? it's random if you don't choose to opt-in ? Platform do not keep their ID on blueprint like trains ? Except train station keeps their name, and what you propose is a system of ID for things that are usually refered to by name.

You can't place combinator on train, but you can on platform, so you could have a blueprint of a platform that react to its own ID and be broken upon copy paste because its expected ID is already used and changing it would break the combinators of the blueprint not yet pasted so no able to receive yet the effect of the system you mentionned that would transmit the ID.

[Sworn]

Nah,

you can't place combinator on trains

, but you can control them with combinators, which is a true statement from anything on Factorio, but now it is an exception from the rocket silo alone, and also rocket silo alone is the exception of not allowing direct insertion with inserters.

But to be honest, this is going sideways from the main topic, "Rocket silo logistic is just broken", it works fine, it is not aligned with the other game mechanics, it does not support combinators as well as one would expect, but it does work.

I'm pretty sure devs didn't want to have a unique mechanic for the rocket if wasn't for a good reason that probably blocked them from make it working like anything else in the game, but who am I to say, only devs would know the reason or if it was really just a change of design.

[mmmPI]

Nah,

you can't place combinator on trains

, but you can control them with combinators, which is a true statement from anything on Factorio, but now it is an exception from the rocket silo alone, and also rocket silo alone is the exception of not allowing direct insertion with inserters.

But to be honest, this is going sideways from the main topic, "Rocket silo logistic is just broken", it works fine, it is not aligned with the other game mechanics, it does not support combinators as well as one would expect, but it does work.

I'm pretty sure devs didn't want to have a unique mechanic for the rocket if wasn't for a good reason that probably blocked them from make it working like anything else in the game, but who am I to say, only devs would know the reason or if it was really just a change of design.

It was already explained in details by the devs that they made a system which doesn't require all the circuitry from SE to work.

Saying that you can't use direct insertion on the silo to me is just ridiculous, because you can, it's just 3 exception that are very easy to understand and make perfect sense as it was explained by devs and in this thread , you probably want to emphasize on your frustration without realizing that it's actually a "bad" design to allow inserter to always put rocket parts, because it would force on every players complicated circuitry to make sure only the rocket parts are loaded and no more of those 3 items as cargo.

Also stll no use case, just some vague statement that "uhh the silo is inconsistent with the other things". Which makes little sense to me, the Silo is a unique building with unique mechanic associated.

I do agree though with "the rocket silo logisitic works fine". There was some bugs earlier, but at the moment it seem that it works fine and it's only people making suggestion who pretend wrongly that things are broken.

[Sworn]

Also stll no use case, just some vague statement that "uhh the silo is inconsistent with the other things". Which makes little sense to me, the Silo is a unique building with unique mechanic associated.

Regardless of the silo been "unique", it is just a bad design in any game where absolutely everything works in a certain way, and all of the sudden, that one thing doesn't.

vague statement that "uhh the silo is inconsistent with the other things"

The entire game works in one way, and this working in another way is not vague to me at all, is very specific.

Also, except that those 3 exception items are used everywhere, which make them quite important.

I'm not saying I don't understand the reasons why, it doesn't remove the fact that it still bad for players. Have to choose between bad and another bad, doesn't make it good because one is less bad than the other, it is still bad, and that is precisely why people should join and try to figure out a good option, if any, so we don't have to stick with the less bad option forever, that simple.

[mmmPI]

Regardless of the silo been "unique", it is just a bad design in any game where absolutely everything works in a certain way, and all of the sudden, that one thing doesn't.

That's the meaning of the word "unique" => "isn't like the other things", it's not bad design to have thing that are unique it creates variety. Now this is exactly what i called a "vague rant" with no use case, this is improductive to me.

I'm not saying I don't understand the reasons why, it doesn't remove the fact that it still bad for players.

Your opinion isn't a fact.

I don't think it's "bad for players" ,i think most of them are fine with not having to deal with the complex circuitry on SE, or are able to use the current system without suggesting a totally dfferent one that would be worse to alledgedly fix the first one that isn't broken.

that is precisely why people should join and try to figure out a good option, if any, so we don't have to stick with the less bad option forever, that simple.

I think current options are good, and it's not easy to find better, when people suggest things, it's usually not the case and they don't often realize, it can be a lot of confirmation biais where people are congratulating themselves for their similar ideas even though they do not result in a consistent system.

I'm sorry to be the one pointing at the inconsistencies but they are factual, i picked example of edge cases for why the ID system wouldn't work well with blueprint, and why it's not a simple change, and gave my opinion that i think it would result in a bloated system for very little benefit.

[mrvn]

Also stll no use case, just some vague statement that "uhh the silo is inconsistent with the other things". Which makes little sense to me, the Silo is a unique building with unique mechanic associated.

Regardless of the silo been "unique", it is just a bad design in any game where absolutely everything works in a certain way, and all of the sudden, that one thing doesn't.

vague statement that "uhh the silo is inconsistent with the other things"

The entire game works in one way, and this working in another way is not vague to me at all, is very specific.

Also, except that those 3 exception items are used everywhere, which make them quite important.

I'm not saying I don't understand the reasons why, it doesn't remove the fact that it still bad for players. Have to choose between bad and another bad, doesn't make it good because one is less bad than the other, it is still bad, and that is precisely why people should join and try to figure out a good option, if any, so we don't have to stick with the less bad option forever, that simple.

One simple way around that would be to move the rocket part recipe to assemblers, create rocket parts and those you insert into the silo. That you can't send rocket parts with a rocket makes as much sense as not being able to send a rocket silo itself. With the rocket parts only being used by the rocket there wouldn't be such a big drawback from not being able to send them. The items now blocked are just too common to make sense.