Train car length changes depending on orientation?

[imajor]

I'm aware of that, and that is why I'm not suggesting that. I'm just saying it is bad logic, so it should change. Wagons should have the same size in both directions, like everything else.

[kinnom]

maybe something for 1.0.0

[voyta]

I had almost the same experience in my last game, when I was trying to use a blueprint for creating outpost train stations. I agree with others, and think this should change. Not only because it makes it impossible to create rotatable blueprint for train stations, but also because it is not logical. If you follow this logic, buildings should also have different sizes when rotated, as gHoST INFERNO already mentioned. This is really annoying.

This would require to change the grid to rectangles which would require basically all graphics to be recreated.

you don't have to make everything fit the rectangles, just the items that connect to neighbouring tile... other items would have slightly more space around them. 6:7 is not that big of difference.

anyhoo, yup that would be huge drain of effort I'd rather see spent on other appealing content

[hitzu]

I'm aware of that, and that is why I'm not suggesting that. I'm just saying it is bad logic, so it should change. Wagons should have the same size in both directions, like everything else.

First: If you rotate in your mind the "everything else", like a roboport, trying to look behind it, you'll notice that it have an unused empty space, that is obscured by the height of this structure. If you look even more careful, you'll notice that assemblers and conveyor belts are actually rectangular.

Second: |Wagons should have the same size in both directions| — this is impossible in the factorio world unless you want to physically stretch and shrink wagons while rotating them. Like this https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... 37#p109337

[Peter34]

At this point it's far easier just to tell newbies about that in tips&tricks. And move on, there is shitton of other work to be done elsewhere (god I will miss space platform).

The problem is the huge burden of the shitton of other contra-intuitive things that veteran players also have to teach to newbies. If the train length was the only one, or one of a very few, then it would be OK. But it isn't, so it isn't.

[imajor]

At this point it's far easier just to tell newbies about that in tips&tricks. And move on, there is shitton of other work to be done elsewhere (god I will miss space platform).

The problem is the huge burden of the shitton of other contra-intuitive things that veteran players also have to teach to newbies. If the train length was the only one, or one of a very few, then it would be OK. But it isn't, so it isn't.

It is not the same thing. For other contra-intuitive things you can get used to, but in this case this actually affect how efficiently you can play the game. BTW I don't think there would be that much contra-intuitive things in the game.

To the devs: did you try simply hacking the graphic of the wagons? Like just nonproportionally scale the wagon when it is rendered vertically? I know it would look stupid, but I would rather watch a stupid looking wagon than not being able to rotate these blueprints.

[imajor]

I'm aware of that, and that is why I'm not suggesting that. I'm just saying it is bad logic, so it should change. Wagons should have the same size in both directions, like everything else.

First: If you rotate in your mind the "everything else", like a roboport, trying to look behind it, you'll notice that it have an unused empty space, that is obscured by the height of this structure. If you look even more careful, you'll notice that assemblers and conveyor belts are actually rectangular.

Second: |Wagons should have the same size in both directions| — this is impossible in the factorio world unless you want to physically stretch and shrink wagons while rotating them. Like this https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... 37#p109337

I don't think it is a good idea to refer to graphic when we want to validate something like this wagon thing. I always thought of the graphic as some additional layer on top of the game logic. So I feel that bad when the graphic affects the game logic. What if at some point the graphic engine would be replaced above the game engine? Like if 3d rendering istead of the current 2d? How would wagons behave then?

[hitzu]

What if at some point the graphic engine would be replaced above the game engine? Like if 3d rendering istead of the current 2d? How would wagons behave then?

Then the game tiles will be the actual squares.
The problem lies in the fact that the camera is tilted to the flat ground at the 45 degree angle. In the real world and the 3D engine world the square tile viewed at this angle would appear a little bit squished vertically, just like wagons (and the other stuff) are. But in Factorio the world consists of tiles that at this very angle appear square => they are not squares => the lenght (height) and the width are not equal => the wagon is shorter vertically only because the vertical dimension of the tiles is larger than the horizontal one, just like the inch is larger than the cantimeter.

So if you put Factorio in 3D engine then the world would shrink in the North-South direction, wagons would look like they are now but the rails would not, the unused hidden space behind turrets and robopots would dissappear and perhaps assemblers wouldn't fit the 3x3 base anymore. Rocket silos too.

[Ranakastrasz]

Yep. So perspective proportions are all massively off, and a total graphical revamp would be required to fix this the "proper" way.
That said, It is still a really bad thing that graphics are interfering with gameplay. Gameplay should still always take priority.

[hitzu]

Yep. So perspective proportions are all massively off, and a total graphical revamp would be required to fix this the "proper" way.
That said, It is still a really bad thing that graphics are interfering with gameplay. Gameplay should still always take priority.

The issue isn't big enough to worth the graphics overhaul. That's it.

The best solution in my mind would be some intermediate entity for train stations which capacity does not depend on the rotation. The possible advantage would be that it could be placed on diagonal rails.

[imajor]

But in Factorio the world consists of tiles that at this very angle appear square => they are not squares => the lenght (height) and the width are not equal

This is new to me, where did you get this? If they are square then why electric wires have different distances horizontally and vertically? What about roboport and radar range? Are you saying that the car have different max speed if you go horizontally than vertically?

[hitzu]

This is new to me, where did you get this?

From the geometry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axonometric_projection

Basically Factorio uses the similar trick, but without the perspective contractions, because there is no perspective in Factorio, but the principle is the same.

Are you saying that the car have different max speed if you go horizontally than vertically?

AFAIK the character's speed depends on the orientation. I didn't tested it for cars and trains. I could be wrong though.

[imajor]

From the geometry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axonometric_projection

You are referring to graphic here, I'm talking about the game logic. Like when the game (or a mod) calculates the distance between two spots, do you think that in the calculation the orientation matters? (horizontal or vertical)

AFAIK the character's speed depends on the orientation. I didn't tested it for cars and trains. I could be wrong though.

I didn't hear this before. Do you remember where did you hear this? I was trying to test it now, but I'm afraid my timing wasn't perfect so I can't say for sure if the walking speed is the same. Maybe others would know.

[hitzu]

You are referring to graphic here, I'm talking about the game logic. Like when the game (or a mod) calculates the distance between two spots, do you think that in the calculation the orientation matters? (horizontal or vertical)

I talked about graphic.
For the wires the orientation isn't relevant cause they are stable objects, but if the moving is involved then it could affect the gameplay. Since the camera is "tilted" all the moving entities should travel a little bit slower in N-S direction than in E-W. IDK whether it is implemented or not, but it is not very hard to test.

Make two independent logistic networks of single roboports and put 1 robot into each roboport. Place two pairs of requester and active provider chests into each network so that the distances between the pairs are equal but one configuration is horizontal and one is vertical. Put 100 ores in provider chests and connect requesters to the lamps that turns on if there is 100 ore inside. Then turn electricity on and wait. If the speed is equal then lamps would turn on simultaniously.
You can test trains the same way.

Unfortunately I cannot play the game at the moment to make the tests by myself.

[ssilk]

(this thread gets now a bit strange)

I can tell you the result without playing: It is the same. It must be so, cause the speed of the robots is in tiles per tick. Not tiles per tick horizontal and/or vertical. Don't mix that there is invisible physical representation of the world working in the background, which doesn't know about graphical properties.

And that is also the problem: The issue we are talking here is, that the train is (AFAIK) the only thing in Factorio, which has quirked together the graphics (with it's different aspect-ratio, because you look with 45 degrees, everything is sqrt(2) shorter in vertical direction than in horizontal) with the physical dimensions of the wagons. (*)

That doesn't change the speed of the train, nor anything else (only the length of the train and their wagons). Yes: last wagon is in curves slower/faster if you would be able to measure it. But cause the train is one object this will never change the behavior of the train in general. In other words: No the train (or bots or belts etc.) have the same speed, if you drive it vertical or horizontal. And that is with everything else (about) the same.


(*) as already explained: it can be explained so, that the train was the first object created by Albert.

[Tev]

At this point it's far easier just to tell newbies about that in tips&tricks. And move on, there is shitton of other work to be done elsewhere (god I will miss space platform).

The problem is the huge burden of the shitton of other contra-intuitive things that veteran players also have to teach to newbies. If the train length was the only one, or one of a very few, then it would be OK. But it isn't, so it isn't.

Oh poor veteran players having to explain stuff to newbies . . . I get that it might be uncomfortable for new players to have to learn about quirks of the game in tips&tricks / wiki / by themselves, but arguing about veterans' "burden" just doesn't make any rational sense.

It is not the same thing. For other contra-intuitive things you can get used to, but in this case this actually affect how efficiently you can play the game. BTW I don't think there would be that much contra-intuitive things in the game.

To the devs: did you try simply hacking the graphic of the wagons? Like just nonproportionally scale the wagon when it is rendered vertically? I know it would look stupid, but I would rather watch a stupid looking wagon than not being able to rotate these blueprints.

Saying it affects your effectivity is a tad overblown. Not being able turn your blueprints sideways (you can rotate them by 180 degress) can be trivially planned around. And as I said it brings some advantages. I'd really like to see situation in which problem isn't much more in crappy logistics architecture.

[imajor]

Not being able turn your blueprints sideways (you can rotate them by 180 degress) can be trivially planned around

Please enlighten me.

[Ranakastrasz]

Not being able turn your blueprints sideways (you can rotate them by 180 degress) can be trivially planned around

Please enlighten me.

Meaning that you have to build a different blueprint for the second direction, or simply accept that the game doesn't support that mechanic. Its easy if you know about it already, but newbs will never know this due to it being uniquely counterintuive. It is not trivial however. Trivial would be just supporting rotation in the first place. But that would be as though this problem never existed, and in that case, it wouldn't even be called trivial, such that it wouldn't even be acknowledged as any different from any other blueprint.

[imajor]

During my last game I had a pretty complex mining outpost blueprint which also contained a train station. It took me quite a lot of time to build and finetune that blueprint, so creating another one for the other direction wasn't really an option. I ended up just using that blueprint horizontally, but in some cases it lead to some roundabouts for the trains. Not a big deal though.

Unfortunately I didn't know about the wagons different length when I started designing the blueprint. If I knew about that, probably I could have come up with a plan which would more or less worked in both directions. But I wouldn't call that trivial planning.

[hitzu]

Yes: last wagon is in curves slower/faster if you would be able to measure it.

With rail signals connected to the circuit network it would be possible with one-tick accuracy.

That doesn't change the speed of the train, nor anything else (only the length of the train and their wagons). Yes: last wagon is in curves slower/faster if you would be able to measure it. But cause the train is one object this will never change the behavior of the train in general. In other words: No the train (or bots or belts etc.) have the same speed, if you drive it vertical or horizontal.

But what if we make a long train with two locos on both ends?
The train goes horizontal with maximum speed and then turns vertical. The head loco keeps its speed (tiles/sec) and becomes a little bit shorter (measured in tiles) as well as every wagon behind. So the rear loco should go faster than its max speed to overcome the lenght reduction. Right?
But why the head loco can keep the speed the same but the rear one must go faster? Why not vice versa?