Toggle autoconnection and power suply of power poles

[rampelstinskin]

Right now blueprint and power switch don't work together.
If you build some setup with manually connected poles many connections will be wrong.
Because power poles always auto connect to each other and don't remember manual connections.
For example: https://youtu.be/FM_QqLuPXgY?t=3m32s
Copy, paste and... go fix all connections.
Here more complains about current behavior viewtopic.php?f=23&t=38481

Replace current shift+LMB on power pole behavior with toggle auto connections.
Because current behavior very inconvenient and borderline useless.
New behavior:
All automatic connections to this pole must be disabled.
Only manual connections allowed.
Blueprints must save status of power pole and manual connections.

For some complicated cases also needed toggle power supply zone. In case i need extend power line without supplying power to buildings.
I suggest shift+RMB on power pole.

[ssilk]

I'm more or less sure for 0.15 a fix of this issue will come.
See viewtopic.php?f=58&t=27456

See also viewtopic.php?f=80&t=30845 About Cables and Wires / Make Wires Free / Power Poles Contain Cables
and especially viewtopic.php?f=6&t=30477 A better Way to Built Electric Network / New way of connecting to electricity

[rampelstinskin]

I'm more or less sure for 0.15 a fix of this issue will come.
See viewtopic.php?f=58&t=27456

My solution strictly better.
It solves all cases without side effects.

See also viewtopic.php?f=80&t=30845 About Cables and Wires / Make Wires Free / Power Poles Contain Cables

Wasting wires minor annoyance at most.

and especially viewtopic.php?f=6&t=30477 A better Way to Built Electric Network / New way of connecting to electricity

Direct connections to machines good addition to my solution.
It can be useful in some corner cases.
Also should be possible to connect one machine to multiple power nets.

I see it like this. If you want to connect to the existing power network you should click with a power pole in the hand on the existing power pole and place it like usual— every new pole would connect only to the previous one (no more wire mess!). If you start by placing a standalone pole then it would be a new network, but of course you can connect and disconnect networks as usual with copper cables.

Also good solution but

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

My solution allows keep default auto connect. Good for new players.
And have precise control in corner cases. Good for advanced players.

[ssilk]

I'm more or less sure for 0.15 a fix of this issue will come.
See viewtopic.php?f=58&t=27456

My solution strictly better.
It solves all cases without side effects.

Everybody has his own opinion.
-- German proverb

As I understand the linked article, the solution is already implemented.

[rampelstinskin]

Everybody has his own opinion.
-- German proverb

Please show counterexample where my solution worse.

As I understand the linked article, the solution is already implemented.

Quote please.
Because i understand this quote as "will not be implemented".

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

My solution don't have this problem.

[ssilk]

Please show counterexample where my solution worse.

Well. Simply:

My solution strictly better.

I've learned, that people, who said such sentences either are too clever to tell the disadvantages of their idea or they doesn't know it better yet (they have overseen the most important things).

As I understand the linked article, the solution is already implemented.

Quote please.

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=27456#p212914

Because i understand this quote as "will not be implemented".

I'm guessing, you're guessing. But if you read the whole thread you see, that they seem to change the way the poles connect together.

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

My solution don't have this problem.

It has of course others: For example, you need then to click much more.

[rampelstinskin]

My solution strictly better.

I've learned, that people, who said such sentences either are too clever to tell the disadvantages of their idea or they doesn't know it better yet

Or my solution strictly better.
You can disprove my words with one counterexample. Can you do it?

(they have overseen the most important things).

Name one.

As I understand the linked article, the solution is already implemented.

Quote please.

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=27456#p212914

I decided that it is not worth it

I can't understand how you interpret this words as "already implemented".
My english imperfect. But it not that bad.

Because i understand this quote as "will not be implemented".

I'm guessing, you're guessing. But if you read the whole thread you see, that they seem to change the way the poles connect together.

Nope. In 14.21 behavior is broken.

It has of course others: For example, you need then to click much more.

Example please.
In all cases i examined my solution need same or less clicks than current behavior. And it works with blueprints.

[Deadly-Bagel]

Essentially it's the same behaviour, toggling to manual removes all power lines to allow you to connect them manually. The only difference in functionality is that you can't accidentally connect another power pole to it, which I see as more of a feature than a problem.

Reading through the other topic my first thought was to save a state, or even a separate hidden entity, in the blueprint for power poles with manual connections then connect copper wires the same way as circuit wires. Reread this topic and it's basically what is being suggested.

[ssilk]

Or my solution strictly better.
You can disprove my words with one counterexample. Can you do it?

Well, I have no interest in disproving you. I just do my job as moderator and point you to do your job as suggestor, cause that is in your interest to make your suggestion better than it is yet: It's mainly a meta-discussion.

[... about eventually implemented behavior ...]
Nope. In 14.21 behavior is broken.

They seem to have implemented it in 0.15. Next version.

The rest I don't want to answer to, cause if it is implemented we would discuss uselessly, and if not we can still discuss it.

[Deadly-Bagel]

Umm... They seem to have not implemented it and don't intend to? Unless you're talking with the devs directly on the matter, because the only dev responses in the topics you linked say "we won't be implementing this" and "we support switch connections, just not in blueprints". From our perspective this doesn't look like it's getting fixed.

[ssilk]

Hm, hm. Reread that article. Well, looks like I interpreted a bit too much here ... what should I say?
I'm sorry... but with that much posts I need to read every week I could go wrong some times. My concerns in this thread where only, cause I thought a solution is already implemented but we don't know it yet and so a discussion is eventually useless.

[Deadly-Bagel]

Understandable =) We all appreciate the work you do here and we're on the same page now so all good