Typically, shift+click for blueprint placement marks all necessary cliffs for deconstruction via cliff explosives. This has worked fine for me in the past. However, I have a (presumably edge) case where not all cliffs that should be exploded have been exploded. It looks to me like the predictor thinks one cliff explosive is enough but one part of the cliff gets missed somehow. The issue is presumably dependent on the cliff configuration, so save files are included.
Attachments (provided via dropbox, upload didn't work, ~40 MB each): https://www.dropbox.com/s/bxlcgbpes6s6u ... e.zip?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/c983cb3grcu25 ... e.zip?dl=0
Cliff_Issue_PrePlace.zip - save file immediately before placing the blueprint. The blueprint is the blueprint book (1st hotbar, slot 4) and it continues the existing rail line. If the specific placement location is unclear, look at what was placed in the other save file.
Cliff_Issue_PostPlace.zip - safe file after placing the blueprint. The issue is apparent in this save, because there's a ghost rail placed at a cliff, and it can't be constructed. I don't know how this could occur except some misprediction of cliff deconstruction.
Note: the save files currently have active alarms (some of my wall sections are low on artillery ammo) so I recommend turning down the volume.
I don't think this is a high-priority, as the fix is simple (manually explosive the cliff), but I'm posting FYI.
[0.17.21] Cliff not exploded after shift+click with blueprint
Re: [0.17.21] Cliff not exploded after shift+click with blueprint
Yes, those look similar and I wouldn't have posted a new thread if I had found any of those others.
Apologies for posting a duplicate - I searched the bug forums for 'Cliff Explosive' but none of the threads you linked actually include that phrase. Based on the first link, it looks like the issue isn't a priority for fixing, which (as mentioned) ok with me.
Apologies for posting a duplicate - I searched the bug forums for 'Cliff Explosive' but none of the threads you linked actually include that phrase. Based on the first link, it looks like the issue isn't a priority for fixing, which (as mentioned) ok with me.
