Friday Facts #123 - Better circuit network (Part 2)

[SWSe]

This doesn't seem like a bad idea, but I still don't really like it. That's partially because I'm not sure I completely understand how it's going to be like when it's done.

The problem that I see is these huge 1x1 blocks just make no sense at all. You have all these cool machines, but for simple tasks of comparing values and whatnot, you need computers 1000% the size of what we use today. Sensors aren't that big, and mobile phones are capable of everything necessary for that. I already thought combinators weren't fitting into the world very well.

What's even worse, I can't really think of how this would enhance gameplay. I'd gladly take the absence of logical explanations if it's for cool additions, but this doesn't seem to give you new awesome possibilities, but only uneccessarily limits your options. This adds complexity that might be more tedious than fun.

I could imagine something like others already proposed: Basically not building a special entity next to something, but rather enhancing any existing building (like modules do) or to build these new connectors ON TOP of the existing thing.
So you basically have a normal chest, you select the connectors that you have in your inventory, and build it on the same spot as the chest. Its graphic is then updated with some kind of device that can be easily recogniced, but doesn't take too much space (so it's somewhere on the edge of the chest, in this example).
-> The problem with the GUI can be solved by adding a Network button that appears on the interface of any entity that you've enhanced with a connector, so it's always working the same way. The network can then be managed in an own window, and you can switch back to the normal gui, like it's always been the case with trains.

Or just allow all these entities to be connected to the network without any special added buildings. Just add that button as just described.
That'd have the advantage that it doesn't need any new buildings to be added into the game.

As for the performance savings: Can't you get the same effects in some way by simulating this the way you intend, but the player doesn't have to use these connectors? Just add in an "invisible" connector if a belt is linked to the Network.
To be honest, I didn't completely understand how you meant that. I'm sure you'll do a good job, whatever it is going to be.

[ratchetfreak]

I also hope you can connect 1 writer to many things.)

That's what got me concerned...On the reader side it is supposed to actually be like that. That's why they wrote lamps would stay as they are so that you don't have to put a reader to each lamp. So that would imply that for the writer you'd also need one writer per chest to put on the wire.

And this is the problem with the reader/writer terminology. confusion about what is being read/written.

• "Circuit Network Connector Reader" that is responsible for reading stuff from the connected entity, like reading chest contents, reading accumulator capacity.
• "Circuit Network Connector Writer" that is responsible for controlling the connected entity, for example turning entities on or off.

[Lupoviridae]

I really like the concept here, but I definitely think it needs some tweaking. Namely:

1) Having a sensor for chests seems superfluous. I would much rather have wires directly connectable to the five "smart" chests as they are now. It is simpler to understand, requires less elements, and (considering these are electronic chests) makes more sense to me. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

2) I agree with what other people are saying in this thread. One actuator to one building/inserter would get old pretty fast. From what I understand the main reason for this is to have a separate entity that executes the necessary code to increase performance and limit GUI changes. You are also trying to tackle a lot of design challenges with a single implementation. So here is my suggestion; have the actuator attach to power poles instead, and turn off power to buildings/inserters in that grid when a certain condition is met. Advantages to this approach:
-Still adds some additional design challenges (2x1 power poles, need to make sure power grids don't overlay), without being obnoxious
-Allows controlling of multiple buildings/inserters with minimal logic/performance impact
-The actuator can take circuit information directly from the pole! No wires needed.

The sensor idea seems solid. One sensor per pipeline or belt will be enough to serve the necessary function. (Honestly I would have tanks and accumulators able to attach directly, but needing one sensor per tank setup or accumulator array isn't bad.)

3) I also really want to see a push button entity (generates a 1 tick signal) This opens up a huge world of possibilities. Imagine building tetris or snake in game, you need up/down/left/right buttons.

[hitzu]

I don't see the necessity in having two different entities serving opposite functions. Instead of the distinct Sensor thing let's embed this function to all entities by default.

[tecxx]

The problem that I see is these huge 1x1 blocks just make no sense at all. You have all these cool machines, but for simple tasks of comparing values and whatnot, you need computers 1000% the size of what we use today. Sensors aren't that big, and mobile phones are capable of everything necessary for that. I already thought combinators weren't fitting into the world very well.

+1, same here.
i always wondered why we have to build these strange combinator parts instead of simply getting a script interface where i type some if/then/else code. would be way more geeky and fitting anyway. that said, i never used combinators because it simply didn't fit my playstyle.

[tecxx]

3) I also really want to see a push button entity (generates a 1 tick signal) This opens up a huge world of possibilities. Imagine building tetris or snake in game, you need up/down/left/right buttons.

don't take this personal please, i just find this comment to be the best example of why i think that factorio development has went the wrong way in the past couple of month. christmas lights and computers-in-computers and these things are nice and all, but what about the core game?
where are long needed features like fluid container trains, offical FARL implementation, resource spawner tuning, biter overhaul, a nice tech tree, making it actually challenging, a proper endgame, i could go on with a long list. mods are no excuse, the core game needs polishing. factorio promised to become the "next gen" transport tycoon, it definitely has the potential for it, but for me it feels that development has stalled for quite a year or so.

[Keks]

Am I understanding correctly, that every single entity that we want to have a circuit condition is going to need its own circuit network condition writer? For example, if I have 32 red circuit factories that I only want working on a single network condition, I will also need 32 writers next to each assembler? If that is the case that sounds incredibly and unnecessarily tedious.

not really just use a single writer to stop the Belt that delivers one of the resources and the whole complex will stop working.
Or better create a sub power-network using the power switch and turn even the Idle Powerdrain off.
as long as you can narrow the conditions to shut off everything in an area down to a single condition it's no problem

it's a bit worse for your smartinserters put a powerswitch between the pole powering your smartinserters and the energy network and you can turn them off you won't be able to control them individually though, which sucks.
i think the writers aren't the biggest problem the readers are making it impossible to put more then two chests next to each other if you want to wire them up (at least if they are filled and emptied by inserters. Logistics chests won't be to terribly affected ) . or we all will have to unload trains by logistics bots in the future which wouldn't be so bad once you are in the endgame.

Please consider leaving existing 1x1 entities that can be wired at the moment as they are.
I at least can't see the downside of doing so.

the next best solution would be this

Make each connector link to a block of contiguous identical entities and I'm sold.

So four chests in a row (or square) would all contribute to the signal if any of them are linked to a circuit connector. Same with inserters. This greatly mitigates the space issue. As written, connectors basically make smart chests and smart inserters into 2x1 entities, which is horrible. Allowing connectors to link to a block means you don't have to blow up your designs, you just need to use an extra space on each row.

but a 100% increase in required space for smartinserters & smartchests is a terrible Idea

greetings a Cookie

[Ohlmann]

As described, this update look *horrible*. There is three problem :
* the addition of a shitton of 1x1 stuff. 1x1 is a lot of space already, and as written I may very well need 3 of thoses per assembling machine
* the addition of a lot more wiring, since what was done with 1 wire will need 2 or 3 now.
* the removal of a system who was very simple to understand and very deep to use.

In short, despite the clarification, that look so spectaculary bad a feature I might want to stay on 0.12 to avoid having to deal with that shit.

Can the dev at least ensure they will be able to rollback that change if it end up being too bad ? It might end up good after adjustment, but for now it look like it's on very bad tracks.

[Linosaurus]

tldr: Please make an exception for smart chests and inserters. Sounds great for other things though.

A separate control block is a good way to add a second GUI to something like an assembler without confusing new players.

• Belts - good because only a few will be connected thus an obvious visual identifier is helpful.
• Assembly machine - ok because a control block will fit into my current blueprints without making them bigger.
• Tanks, pumps, train stations, roboports - ok because I only connect a few and there's free space around them.
• Accumulators, miners - if I need it I'll accept a bit of clutter. Space usually isn't a problem there.

But I really don't like it for chests and inserters.

• They are small and used in big numbers, so an extra block is a big change.
• A line of inserters would have ~half the throughput with logic blocks added.
• Chests don't seem to need a new GUI to connect them to the network.
• Smart inserters... yes, current gui is a bit confusing but really useful.

Compromise idea: remove logistics network (only) from smart inserter.

• GUI now has 2 functions instead of 3.
• For a single inserter I can use a logic block.
• For a line of inserters I can use wires and a logistics-to-circuit network logic block (this would need to exist)

Maybe consolidate the circuit reading and writing blocks into one. You only need a checkbox in the gui to toggle reading, this is worth it to have one less item to transport to new outposts.

[malcmiller]

You know what they say.
If it aint broke...

[Zeblote]

I don't think this is a good idea at all. Inserters and chests are often tightly packed in rows and grids and adding additional things next to them is not possible most of the time.

Instead, if you really need it to be seperate, why not make something that can be placed on top of existing entities and slightly changes their graphics by adding a few cables and a circuit board?

[timsheff]

[*]Make it one and the same item and name it Circuit Network Connector (CNC) and that's it (LNC = Logistics Network Connector respectively). There shouldn't even be 2 different items for reading from and writing to something with the circuit network anyways because it makes everything seem more complicated than it is and breaks your design rules of "not introducing unnecessary items"

+1 for CNC and LNC. Make the CNC rotatable with arrows visible in alt-mode like the ones on inserters.

Make each connector link to a block of contiguous identical entities and I'm sold.

+1 for this as well. Something like this would make smart train stations feasible. Or just leave smart chests in as some have suggested.

[ssilk]

I read the replies and I want to say a bit. I try to say with more distance.

First of all, I think the changes are all in all very good. Good work by Robert. I really miss pictures with this FFF. And if there is no graphics: Well then there is just some pencil drawings! A lot of this discussion is, because some cannot imagine how it works without pics. That is not their fail.

But there are critique points, which are serious.

I won't ignore them. But first some statements. The current way of connecting entities by wire is a "dead end" in many ways:
- You are not able to "see" the logic. (You need to click into the GUI of the device for that), you even don't might see, if a device is connected.
- Connecting too many devices with too many wires is also not visible enough. It's really hard to see.
- The mixture of electric poles with circuit network. How to hand over circuit wires without handing over electricity (think to the new power switch).
- The handling of red and green wires to separate networks.
- The fact, that combinators need 2 tiles. You cannot make really complex wiring like so.
- You cannot debug the wiring.
- shrinked to Circuit network only.
- You need to wire everything up.
- Wires are also some kind of dead end: They are nice to look and in the beginning also nice to work with, but connecting many hundreds is not fun.
- There is also a problem with "IN" and "OUT". It's not clear where some circuit start and where it ends - where the information goes in and where the result goes out.
- With this in mind, the unsystematics of wiring disables possible code speed-ups.

I see nearly all of this issues will be fixed with this change: The display problem can be solved (half ways), there is no need for wires anymore (nearly?), because there are now own "poles" for circuits only. And so on, I see only advantages, when I look on it like so.

When I read the replies I think they are just around the "surface" of this change: "No smart chest anymore, huuuaaaa, how will I connect my 10 chests now?" "No smart inserter... huaaa.... " "Where is the simplicity of the early days?" etc.

That is in most cases just fear, that the changes won't work for them. But there needs to be no fear: the game changes every day. It's not something static.

...

Well, one of the problems I forgot is: Everyone is a Factorio expert.

So here my "expert" changes:

A) Instead of having only one device, that is able to connect to one entity we need two more:
1. A device, that is able to connect to multiple devices in range. I think to something like the substation: All devices of the same type are connected.
2. You can insert in some (most?) devices a "module" instead. See former post https://forums.factorio.com/forum/viewtop ... 50#p124907
I'm very unsure, if that will help, but it should be at minimum prototyped to see, how that plays.

B) Add a "global network". That is just like logistic network, but everywhere on the map available (or at very large scale). Other networks (Railway network? Satelite network?) might follow.

And the rest will find. There is no need to make too much changes.

[Linosaurus]

I see nearly all of this issues will be fixed with this change: The display problem can be solved (half ways), there is no need for wires anymore (nearly?), because there are now own "poles" for circuits only. And so on, I see only advantages, when I look on it like so.

Wait what? Power poles (or something) that automatically connect everything in range to the circuit network? Cool. I think it's the first I've heard about it.

[Koub]

don't take this personal please, i just find this comment to be the best example of why i think that factorio development has went the wrong way in the past couple of month. christmas lights and computers-in-computers and these things are nice and all, but what about the core game?
where are long needed features like fluid container trains, offical FARL implementation, resource spawner tuning, biter overhaul, a nice tech tree, making it actually challenging, a proper endgame, i could go on with a long list. mods are no excuse, the core game needs polishing. factorio promised to become the "next gen" transport tycoon, it definitely has the potential for it, but for me it feels that development has stalled for quite a year or so.

This is exactly what I feel when I see the direction the game development is taking. I don't think most players will be interested in making a 16 bit processor emulator with the game's logic system. Most will be impressed to see a video about it on Youtube, but that's all.
And while such fancy - but not that needed - things soak the efforts and immense talent of our dev team, other things that whuold make the game feel more polished are delayed. Many mods that don't change the core game could be used as inspiration for "things that could be added", on par with some of the suggestions in the suggestion subforum.

Don't get me wrong : such improvements have already been made, and I hope some more will come ( the way the research is now continuously draining from the science packs is such an improvement), but I feel they are just a minor thing whereas they shouldn't.

I only hope these features will arrive once we enter beta and the game is content complete

[thewd]

What`s ETA for 0.13? ^^

[MeduSalem]

So reading back into the thread after 4 more pages of comments I somehow get the feeling that they should leave it the way it currently is, namingly with wire and direct connections. The proposed change (the way most people interpret it) would cause only more problems than it solves.

I want to talk about an additional problem that hasn't been brought up yet (or at least I didn't see anyone else mention it to that extend):

Maybe we don't completely get the grand scheme here but isn't the fundamental idea of changing the circuit network connections to the proposed system to make things more unified/consistent (and with that more simplified and easier to understand)?

Because if so then the new approach fails already at the drawing board because as Robert states on the Friday Facts they have to leave the lamps the way they are because they won't work together with the new system as it would require 1 connector per lamp which they found themselves unfeasable already (probably because they played around in a prototype with their factorio light show thingy), which is something everyone agrees upon in this thread.

And if they are trying to rebuild some of the Circuit Network contraptions people have come up with in the past months, I bet that they will find additional problems exactly like that with several of the inserter and chest setups as well where the space limitation (1 connector per chest or 1 connector per inserter) would be so significant that they have to leave the inserters and chests as they are with a direct connection as well or otherwise people would freak out and never touch the Circuit Network again. Some of the contraptions would only get a lot more tedious rather than easier and some things currently possible might become outright impossible alltogether due to the lack of space.

That's where I would draw the line on the design board and say that if the proposed concept is unable to handle or adapt existing stuff without having to resort on the old implementation again in some places as a compromise it is obviously too flawed for general implementation. If at all I would see that as a confirmation that the existing system is already a quite flexible and good foundation to further build upon rather than abandon it because there haven't been any serious compromises necessary yet as far as I know of.

Getting to the point... Having the "current" implementation (with direct connection and integrated GUI) and the new proposed one (with extra 1x1 boxes with seperated GUIs) all side by side and having to remember on a per-item basis how which item behaves is just... urgh. URGH... SUCKS. Not an improvement at all. On the contrary we would take a huge step back in accessibility of the entire system because of having 2 systems compete with each other and the player in the middle who would have to bear this shortcoming.



So as long as there isn't a better approach than that which is able to cover all aspects without questionable compromises just leave it as it is as there are bigger problems to solve in the game than another fundamental rework of the Circuit Network.

Said in a TLDR-manner: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

That's my advice because honestly I can't imagine myself (or anyone else in that matter) putting 1x1 boxes next to every item I want to control. It's more work because of having to place 2 or more items (depending on if I want to read AND write to the same machine) and still being required to hook up all of the connectors with a wire to the other connector boxes. More items means automatically being more prone to additional errors when it comes to the circuit network due to the additional complexity. Finally the entire system will use a lot more space (double the previous for the most part).

There's got to be another, better solution if the devs really feel that there needs something to be done about the Circuit Network accessibility. Some of the proposals of other people (like the modules, or one connector box reading from/writing to multiple items connected by a wire, decreasing the overhead at least somewhat, etc) here in the thread might be prototyped into something but that said they would still have to prove as a worthy replacement.



Also on a sidenote somehow I have the gut feeling that the only reason why the devs are even considering the new proposal is the damn GUI in the first place. They already mentioned on several occasions that they hate fiddling with it and that they have the strict feeling that they would overwhelm users with too much options. And since connecting a lot of the machinery to the Circuit Network means fiddling with a lot more GUIs and putting a lot more options everywhere it clashes with their design philosophy. Maybe I am wrong but that's how it feels to me. xD

[keyboardhack]

So reading back into the thread after 4 more pages of comments I somehow get the feeling that they should leave it the way it currently is, namingly with wire and direct connections. The proposed change (the way most people interpret it) would cause only more problems than it solves.

Maybe we don't completely get the grand scheme here but isn't the fundamental idea of changing the circuit network connections to the proposed system to make things more unified/consistent, simplified and easier to understand?

Because if so then the new approach fails already at the drawing board because as Robert states on the Friday Facts they have to leave the lamps the way they are because they won't work together with the new system as it would require 1 connector per lamp which they found themselves unfeasable already, which is something everyone agrees upon in this thread.

And if they are trying to rebuild some of the Circuit Network contraptions people have come up with in the past months, I bet that they will find additional problems exactly like that with several of the inserter and chest setups as well where the space limitation (1 connector per chest or 1 connector per inserter) would be so significant that they have to leave the inserters and chests as they are with a direct connection as well or otherwise people would freak out and never touch the Circuit Network again. Some of the contraptions would only get a lot more tedious rather than easier and some things currently possible might become outright impossible alltogether due to the lack of space.

That's where I would draw the line on the design board and say that if the proposed concept is unable to handle or adapt existing stuff without having to resort on the old implementation again in some places it is obviously too flawed for general implementation. If at all I would see that as a confirmation that the existing system is already a quite flexible and good foundation to further build upon rather than abandon it.

Getting to the point... Having the "current" implementation (with direct connection and integrated GUI) and the new proposed one (with extra 1x1 boxes with seperated GUIs) all side by side and having to remember on a per-item basis how which item behaves is just... urgh. URGH... SUCKS. Not an improvement at all. On the contrary we would take a huge step back in accessibility of the entire system because of having 2 systems compete with each other and the player in the middle who would have to bear this shortcoming.



So as long as there isn't a better approach than that just leave it as it is as there are bigger problems to solve in the game than another fundamental rework of the Circuit Network.

That's my advice because honestly I can't imagine myself (or anyone else in that matter) putting 1x1 boxes next to every item I want to control. It's more work because of having to place 2 or more items (depending on if I want to read AND write to the same machine) and still being required to hook up all of the connectors with a wire to the other connector boxes. More items means automatically being more prone to additional errors when it comes to the circuit network due to the additional complexity. Finally the entire system will use a lot more space (double the previous for the most part).

There's got to be another, better solution if the devs really feel that there needs something to be done about the Circuit Network accessibility. Some of the proposals of other people (like the modules, or one connector box reading from/writing to multiple items connected by a wire, decreasing the overhead at least somewhat, etc) here in the thread might be prototyped into something but that said they would still have to prove as worthy.



Also on a sidenote somehow I have the gut feeling that the only reason why the devs are even considering the new proposal is the damn GUI in the first place. They already mentioned on several occasions that they hate fiddling with it and that they have the strict feeling that they would overwhelm users with too much options. And since connecting a lot of the machinery to the Circuit Network means fiddling with a lot more GUIs and putting a lot more options everywhere it clashes with their design philosophy. Maybe I am wrong but that's how it feels to me. xD

I have to agree with all of this. Making a system that is inconsistent from the beginning because the basic idea is flawed obviously shows that... well the idea is flawed. As i have understood it then it would require a 1x2 space to make a smart inserter with the new system which is completely unacceptable in most situation that would otherwise have benefitted from a smart insterter. Making things compact in factorio is a vital part of having an efficient factory because there really isn't any long distance transportation method that is viable to use to move goods within a factory. The concept of smart inserters would be even harder to get into as you now need to understand the concept of two machines instead of only one.

A clarification of the plan with the circuit network is seriously needed if we are all misunderstanding the concept behind the new system.

[Klonan]

Hi all,

After reading your comments, posts and feedback, both here and on the subreddit, it is clear that not everyone is happy with some of the proposed changes.
While some people say "but the game is alpha its going to change", i do somewhat agree with some of the arguments against the changes.
By reading it seems most of the issue is with smart inserters and smart chests, and that the changes may break current factories when upgrading,
it might break loading/unloading stations, might be more difficult and awkward to setup compact smart systems, and many other great points.

I will talk with Twinsen this week, and hopefully strike a balance that will be more digestible for old and new players, so rest assured your feedback has not fallen on deaf ears

[The Phoenixian]

Hi all,

After reading your comments, posts and feedback, both here and on the subreddit, it is clear that not everyone is happy with some of the proposed changes.
While some people say "but the game is alpha its going to change", i do somewhat agree with some of the arguments against the changes.
By reading it seems most of the issue is with smart inserters and smart chests, and that the changes may break current factories when upgrading,
it might break loading/unloading stations, might be more difficult and awkward to setup compact smart systems, and many other great points.

I will talk with Twinsen this week, and hopefully strike a balance that will be more digestible for old and new players, so rest assured your feedback has not fallen on deaf ears

That is all that we can ask.

Rest assured, while I and many others may disagree with this change, your willingness to explain a potentially unpopular change in the devblog and to listen to our feedback -- no matter what you choose to go with in the end -- is what I respect most about you guys.