Version 0.16.7

[TheRaph]

Well, before the train tank existed, feature requests with details were being made for it.

As in here:

Transport via tank wagon / liquid tanker:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=14829&hilit=transport+liquid%2A New Train Cars
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2093&p=15766&hilit= ... ank#p15766 My thought on the oil industry
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2422&hilit=wagon+tank%2A Some suggestions(or may be even requests) - some of them depend this subject, especially Kovarex comment seems to be important
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2848 Enrichment of train-stuff, and other
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4549&hilit=wagons+tank electric engines and train tiers
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=14365 Add-on for Train
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=20367 Wagon which can transport fluid
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=26141 Oil container for trains

[rldml]

Well, before the train tank existed, feature requests with details were being made for it.

As in here: [...]

"Train Tank"/fluid waggon != "Train Tank"/fluid waggon with the possibility to split it up into three separate fluid tanks.

The fluid waggon is still part of the game, so i cannot see the discrepance.

[TheRaph]

Well, before the train tank existed, feature requests with details were being made for it.

As in here: [...]

"Train Tank"/fluid waggon != "Train Tank"/fluid waggon with the possibility to split it up into three separate fluid tanks.

The fluid waggon is still part of the game, so i cannot see the discrepance.

Sorry for that - I've deleted to much from Blu3wolf's originally posted text.
I think his intend was not to say "It was requested as 3-parted wagon" - but as answer to kovarex's text about "the mistake to allowing a feature".

[sicklag]

.

[Caine]

I always viewed the separate tanks in the fluid wagons as a logical equivalent of item filters in cargo wagons.
It provides a simple way to do more with a single wagon and thus a more flexible solution for the smaller scale.

The fact that this could be done was a bit surprising at first, but great and intuitive. My preference, in order:

• Configurable fluid tank, as before
• Non-configurable, three separate tanks
• Non-configurable, single tank.

[rldml]

Sorry for that - I've deleted to much from Blu3wolf's originally posted text.
I think his intend was not to say "It was requested as 3-parted wagon" - but as answer to kovarex's text about "the mistake to allowing a feature".

To be more specific: I believe, Kovarex didn't refer to the fuel waggon in general, but for the ability to split them up.

That's why i can't see the discrepance.

Hope, it's clear now what i meant...

[Floaf]

Cheesus!

Well, I never used that functionality of the fluid wagon since the overhead of transporting as small amount as one tank of individual fluids is too large anyway.

But seriously, one of the fun stuff when getting a new version is to fix stuff that is broken, it make you think and plan again.
And for all that don't have space enough for larger stations, just make a blueprint of the areas(even if it is large) that is in the way, remove it by using robots and place it a bit away from where it was. That is an easy way of refactoring the structure of the base that i use a lot.

And for all that think it's the end of the world for a lot of people not having the old style fluid wagon, as always, there will be a mod.

[Ne00n]

I was a neat feature, but I do not get why people complaining about it, just add more wagons if you really need it.

Usually you should have some space left to extend everything, sure it needs more work, but in the time you raged about it, you could fixed your save.

[Vykromod]

I was a neat feature, but I do not get why people complaining about it, just add more wagons if you really need it.

Usually you should have some space left to extend everything, sure it needs more work, but in the time you raged about it, you could fixed your save.

Of course it's not a problem that can't be solved, but why should we be forced to do it essentially without any valid justification whatsoever?

And that's not all as simple as it sounds either. Up until now all I needed is one locomotive and one tank wagon for my refinery base, and a modest station. There's no point making that station expandable beyond support for locomotive and 2 tank wagons, as when I reach peak performance of the outpost, all I need to do is to just set up another refinery outpost.

But now I need at least 3 wagons, and let's not forget these are way heavier than cargo wagons, so one locomotive will not do. So I need to make a large station for 5 wagon-train. At this point, I might as well tear down the whole station and railwork nearby because there never was any reason to make it compatible for expansion, or to accommodate for such a change that might come out out of the blue.

Again, I can do that, but for what reason should I be forced to do it? There's still no real reason given for removing a used feature like this. What are they going to remove next, combinators (because they are too complex) and then you're going to say "meh, I don't know why you complain, you can just do X to get around that"?

[tk0421]

I was a neat feature, but I do not get why people complaining about it, just add more wagons if you really need it.

Usually you should have some space left to extend everything, sure it needs more work, but in the time you raged about it, you could fixed your save.

well, my current mega factory (about 300ish hours old) extensively used single car fluid trains with 2-3 fluids per train.

there is no room to convert hundreds of stations to single cargo-wagon barrel deliverers, or the machines needed to unbarrel, and handle those empty barrels.

the main reason this is such of an outcry issue, is it came with no warning, as a standard user of (0.1?.x?) version on steam. i have been forced to revert to 16.6 to continue, or just not play at all untill i decide what to do going forward.

dont get me wrong, i LOVE this game. i bought it a second time when the steam version came out just to keep track of how much time i play it. I hit a new milestone this last weekend on that counter, 1500 hours, and much more untracked before steam. I usually dont complain much either, and aside from this issue .16 has been fantastic. especially all the work that went into optimization, i went from about 50-60% cpu load (on 1 core) in .15 to .16 where i can barely tell the graph is registering anything other than idle activity. I dont think this has been getting enough attention, especially this week since 16.7 and the fluid hysteria began. I'm sure we'll get more details on this decision today in FFF, i just hope we get some good news, the devs arent bad people, they want us happy after all.

usually a new major version means time to start a new factory anyway... but i still had goals for my .15 build that i hadnt met.
I hope a non-mod solution can be found to revert this change.

[taikodragon]

Adding some thought to why the fluid wagon wasn't intuitive to have it configurable: In a 2-1 or 1-2 configuration the wagon isn't symmetrical, and I think for many players that use double headed trains, any schedule with an odd number of stops could reverse the whole direction of the train and break the setup. This isn't obvious until it's played out and requires careful tracking on the part of the user to make sure the train always pulls into the station the same way. I think that is the part of the whole 3 tanks per wagon problem is that it requires obtuse fiddling to make the train orientation reliable.
I personally tried to use the fluid wagon split and found it wasn't worth the trouble of tracking when the 1-2/2-1 would stay aligned right. The only reasonable way was to use it as 3 separate tanks and even then the outer tanks needed to be the same fluid so the wagon is symmetrical.

[Caine]

Adding some thought to why the fluid wagon wasn't intuitive to have it configurable: In a 2-1 or 1-2 configuration the wagon isn't symmetrical

Symmetry is only a (small?) issue if you use single track rails with bidirectional trains. My trains only go forward, there is only one orientation. The main transport arteries are all dual track. Small side-stations will have a loop.

It is still unclear to me why the feature was removed. Ultimately it is the developers choice, but I would just like to know. We can and will work around it, but to me mixed fuel wagons made the setups more interesting.

[Lexxy Fox]

Just wanted to add a quick +1 to cockpit Factorio separate fluid tank wagons At least in terms of modding hooks, if that aspect is actively maintained. Both sides of the argument have good points for vanilla.
Alternatively, if separate fluid tanks are decided against, then a +1 for changing the graphics to a single, big tank.

[Jan11]

Thx for all the fixes. I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

[Ne00n]

I was a neat feature, but I do not get why people complaining about it, just add more wagons if you really need it.

Usually you should have some space left to extend everything, sure it needs more work, but in the time you raged about it, you could fixed your save.

Of course it's not a problem that can't be solved, but why should we be forced to do it essentially without any valid justification whatsoever?

And that's not all as simple as it sounds either. Up until now all I needed is one locomotive and one tank wagon for my refinery base, and a modest station. There's no point making that station expandable beyond support for locomotive and 2 tank wagons, as when I reach peak performance of the outpost, all I need to do is to just set up another refinery outpost.

But now I need at least 3 wagons, and let's not forget these are way heavier than cargo wagons, so one locomotive will not do. So I need to make a large station for 5 wagon-train. At this point, I might as well tear down the whole station and railwork nearby because there never was any reason to make it compatible for expansion, or to accommodate for such a change that might come out out of the blue.

Again, I can do that, but for what reason should I be forced to do it? There's still no real reason given for removing a used feature like this. What are they going to remove next, combinators (because they are too complex) and then you're going to say "meh, I don't know why you complain, you can just do X to get around that"?

They mentioned a justification, I guess they have also in mind, if they rewrite this stuff properly, that there could be performance issues, since you need to calculate for each tank wagon 3 times, instead of 1 time.
You are not forced to do it, its just an alpha, not even release. There is a good chance that this decision is not final and they will reverse it.

Even then, I am sure there will be mods for it, if possible.

well, my current mega factory (about 300ish hours old) extensively used single car fluid trains with 2-3 fluids per train.

there is no room to convert hundreds of stations to single cargo-wagon barrel deliverers, or the machines needed to unbarrel, and handle those empty barrels.

the main reason this is such of an outcry issue, is it came with no warning, as a standard user of (0.1?.x?) version on steam. i have been forced to revert to 16.6 to continue, or just not play at all untill i decide what to do going forward.

dont get me wrong, i LOVE this game. i bought it a second time when the steam version came out just to keep track of how much time i play it. I hit a new milestone this last weekend on that counter, 1500 hours, and much more untracked before steam. I usually dont complain much either, and aside from this issue .16 has been fantastic. especially all the work that went into optimization, i went from about 50-60% cpu load (on 1 core) in .15 to .16 where i can barely tell the graph is registering anything other than idle activity. I dont think this has been getting enough attention, especially this week since 16.7 and the fluid hysteria began. I'm sure we'll get more details on this decision today in FFF, i just hope we get some good news, the devs arent bad people, they want us happy after all.

usually a new major version means time to start a new factory anyway... but i still had goals for my .15 build that i hadnt met.
I hope a non-mod solution can be found to revert this change.

oh wow, 300 hours on a single map? respect. We usually playing 40-80 hours on a map, after that we start a new round.
Well, if you have no space and 100 stations, you are basically fucked, lets wait for the stable release.

[Light]

Another case of a developer trying to justify an internal decision without gathering any input from the community before pulling the rug from under their feet. Although, after the whole 0.16 concrete debate it's starting to be a bit obvious that it wouldn't have mattered either way.

I've gotten that bad vibe lately from what I've been reading that they've started to lose focus on putting the community first. There was a great deal of love for the 3-way tanker when it was released long ago, so it's baffling that their internal team would ever consider it a mistake to add it in the first place.

Hopefully I'm wrong and they've been considering both sides of the coin but just aren't communicating that as clearly, but sudden changes without a solid reason or even opening it up for debate beforehand isn't showing that they are.

Since what's done is now done, now is the time to debate and the dev team to listen.

[OBXandos]

So is there any reason other than aesthetics to use the tank wagon now? Barrels in a cargo wagon carry more fluids, can be customized with item filters, and the cargo wagon is lighter than the tank wagon. It sounds like we could just get rid of the tank wagon all together if it offers no advantages.

[Serenity]

Barreling was always overly complicated. Hooking up a pump to the tanker is a lot easier

[SQLek]

So is there any reason other than aesthetics to use the tank wagon now? Barrels in a cargo wagon carry more fluids, can be customized with item filters, and the cargo wagon is lighter than the tank wagon. It sounds like we could just get rid of the tank wagon all together if it offers no advantages.

Also pumps. They need code to handle fluid wagons, offsets, logic, animation.

Advantages of fluid wagon over barrels:
- No deadlock because to many empty barrels.
- Handy way to move different liquids without 40 middle clicks per wagon.

Advantages of barrels:
- Lighter.
- Better integration with bots or belts.
- Option to filter how many and which barrels.

[lindahartlen]

So is there any reason other than aesthetics to use the tank wagon now? Barrels in a cargo wagon carry more fluids, can be customized with item filters, and the cargo wagon is lighter than the tank wagon. It sounds like we could just get rid of the tank wagon all together if it offers no advantages.

What I have done honestly. Sure it is a bit of a pain to supply all those barrels to each outpost but that is a one time deal and once I get the hang of how many I need that should be easy enough. This will actually reduce my trains in length (playing with angels so lots of fluids/gasses). I mean even before using the tank wagon was more or less. well.. it looks cool. Because barrels where superiour in every way.. now? Yeah not building any more tank wagons.

If the devs feel the triple tank wagon was a hassle, then sure ok I can roll with it, i just don't understand the justification. I think that is what most of us are baffled about, give us a solid reason WHY you are removing it. Saying, you wouldn't miss it if it didn't exist isn't a good reason. I wouldn't miss factorio if it didn't exist either, but that isn't a reason to stop developing factorio? ^^ I love this game, 2100+ hours already.