[0.14] [kovarex] Power Switch blueprint doesn't remember power line positions

[19wolf]

So I have a power pole near enough another power pole that they would normally connect. But instead I put a power switch between them and removed the direct line. When blueprinting, these wire changes are not remembered.

[Loewchen]

Please make a screenshot of what you blue print and one of what the blueprint produces. Thx.

[Fug1t1v3]

Blueprint doesn't take wires connected to power switch inside itself and then bots place power poles they are being connected by themselves but not to power switch

output_hva7tp.gif (3.08 MiB) Viewed 13882 times

[Klonan]

Thanks for the report (and the delicious gif)

While this is not a 'bug' bug, we feel that it should be possible to store powerswitch cable positions in blueprints such as this

[19wolf]

this is not a 'bug' bug ...

I had a little debate on the irc as to wether it was a bug or feature request

[kovarex]

Moving to 0.14 stuff.

[19wolf]

I never expected it to be so difficult... good luck solving it!

[kovarex]

It is not that simple, as the extra logic of remembering connection in blueprint, and between ghosts needs to be extended for normal wires as well.

[chris13524]

It is not that simple, as the extra logic of remembering connection in blueprint, and between ghosts needs to be extended for normal wires as well.

I would have expected blueprinted poles to not connect automatically. It should work exactly like circuit wires do.

[tamanous]

Uhm, I thought that was broader known.

This problem occures when you try to import a manually wired blueprints via Blueprint string mod, as it says it can not be imported because of the wiring.

Thanks for taking care. I strongly believe that solving this would be appreciated by many players.
Perhaps move topic to ideas & suggestions?!

[DRY411S]

It seems peculiar that blueprints don't remember copper cables between power switches, but they do remember green and red wires between practically anything!

[kovarex]

We need the blueprint stuff to connect automatically, that is quite clear to me.

But I agree, that these custom connections between pole and power switch could be saved in the blueprint.

[chris13524]

We need the blueprint stuff to connect automatically, that is quite clear to me.

But I agree, that these custom connections between pole and power switch could be saved in the blueprint.

I think that any connections between blueprints (previously solved by autoconnections) could be fixed by overlapping blueprints. Although this approach causes turret blueprints (for leapfrogging) won't work as easily.

[kovarex]

I decided that it is not worth it, as we want to keep the automatic copper cable connections.

[chris13524]

I decided that it is not worth it, as we want to keep the automatic copper cable connections.

Does this mean you will not be supporting power switch connections?

[kovarex]

I decided that it is not worth it, as we want to keep the automatic copper cable connections.

Does this mean you will not be supporting power switch connections?

We support them, just not in the blueprint.
The poles next to the power switch would still connect, so it would be quite useless overall.

[DragonMudd]

I decided that it is not worth it, as we want to keep the automatic copper cable connections.

Does this mean you will not be supporting power switch connections?

We support them, just not in the blueprint.
The poles next to the power switch would still connect, so it would be quite useless overall.

Would it be simpler to make it an additional tick box option that you could turn on and off? Maybe when selected "on" it will only create connections that are in the blueprint and will not connect any wires to poles that aren't in the blueprint, then the user can choose to walk around and connect any additional external connections. At the moment it's essentially impossible to make modular independently controlled blueprints that allow one to scale up and scale down the power demands of a base, e.g. "turn on 4 out of 10 of these subsections".

[Zeblote]

I decided that it is not worth it, as we want to keep the automatic copper cable connections.

Why? Would it not make more sense to save all connections, and when placing a blueprint poles only connect to other ones that were there before placing the blueprint?

[Xeteth]

I decided that it is not worth it, as we want to keep the automatic copper cable connections.

Does this mean you will not be supporting power switch connections?

We support them, just not in the blueprint.
The poles next to the power switch would still connect, so it would be quite useless overall.

Would it perhaps be possible to have a checkbox on blueprint (similar to include concrete) that would enable/disable the remembered positioning of wires? It would be extremely helpful when blueprinting stuff such as my circuit network controlled factory. Without it remembering cabling it literally takes hours to re-wire something like this.

[Yoyobuae]

Could the power switch be made 3 tiles wide at least? It being two tile wide means that if two power poles can reach the power switch then those two poles can also reach each other.

This causes an annoying usability issue:

1. Place down power switch
2. Place electric pole for right side
3. Place electric pole for left side
4. Both poles auto connect
5. Pick copper wire and break connection between poles
6. Connect each pole to respective side of power switch

Steps 4 would happen and step 5 would be unnecessary with 3 tile wide power switch and careful placement. Similar issues when placing blueprints.

Could go a step further and remove the manual wiring requirement from power switch. Make it work simply by being placed in between two electric networks, no copper wiring needed. This would fix issues with blueprinting them as well.