Version 0.17.29

Information about releases and roadmap.
Shadewing
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 10:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.29

Post by Shadewing » Sat Apr 13, 2019 12:17 am

Here is a link to my suggestion for bringing back obstacle avoidance without the loss of most of the simplified planner benefits.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=69448

Sente
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 2:37 am
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.29

Post by Sente » Sat Apr 13, 2019 6:05 am

I would also like to have obstacle avoidance for ghost rail-building back. I really appreciated that feature quite a bit. I use it pretty extensively in my games.

nuhll
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 820
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2016 9:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.29

Post by nuhll » Sat Apr 13, 2019 8:31 am

Is it correct that u cant place blueprint books in blueprint books? Or is it a bug?

User avatar
mward
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2014 9:38 am
Contact:

Suggested solution for rail placement issues

Post by mward » Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:52 am

  1. Clicking without shift:
    1. If the whole rail is within reach: direct build mode
    2. When any part of the rail gets out of reach, automatically switch to ghost build mode while avoiding obstacles"
  2. Clicking with shift or pressing shift enters ghost build mode while removing obstacles. Releasing shift switches back to the other mode (avoiding obstacles either direct build or ghost build depending on the range)
If you really must place a short length of ghost which is within reach, and do not want to direct build it, then you simply have to move out of range first.

This allows cliff avoiders to carry on avoiding cliffs, but also follows the player's natural instinct to press shift when they are ghost buiding and see an obstacle that they want the bots to remove.

User avatar
leadraven
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 268
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Suggested solution for rail placement issues

Post by leadraven » Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:55 am

mward wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:52 am
  1. Clicking without shift:
    1. If the whole rail is within reach: direct build mode
    2. When any part of the rail gets out of reach, automatically switch to ghost build mode while avoiding obstacles"
  2. Clicking with shift or pressing shift enters ghost build mode while removing obstacles. Releasing shift switches back to the other mode (avoiding obstacles either direct build or ghost build depending on the range)
If you really must place a short length of ghost which is within reach, and do not want to direct build it, then you simply have to move out of range first.

This allows cliff avoiders to carry on avoiding cliffs, but also follows the player's natural instinct to press shift when they are ghost buiding and see an obstacle that they want the bots to remove.
It is a terrible idea to involve reach into building control.

User avatar
Shingen
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Suggested solution for rail placement issues

Post by Shingen » Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:14 am

leadraven wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:55 am
mward wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:52 am
  1. Clicking without shift:
    1. If the whole rail is within reach: direct build mode
    2. When any part of the rail gets out of reach, automatically switch to ghost build mode while avoiding obstacles"
  2. Clicking with shift or pressing shift enters ghost build mode while removing obstacles. Releasing shift switches back to the other mode (avoiding obstacles either direct build or ghost build depending on the range)
If you really must place a short length of ghost which is within reach, and do not want to direct build it, then you simply have to move out of range first.

This allows cliff avoiders to carry on avoiding cliffs, but also follows the player's natural instinct to press shift when they are ghost buiding and see an obstacle that they want the bots to remove.
It is a terrible idea to involve reach into building control.
I agree it's a bad idea, and also that doesn't solve the issue of having too many different building states, which is what Wube seem to have wanted to simpllify.
Which, btw., i also think was a bad idea.

#TeamMoreOptions

User avatar
mward
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2014 9:38 am
Contact:

Re: Suggested solution for rail placement issues

Post by mward » Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:29 pm

Shingen wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:14 am
I agree it's a bad idea,
Why is it a bad idea? What is bad about it?

With any other blueprint placing, if I see an obstacle I hold shift to place the blueprint while removing the obstacle. This makes the same function work with rails.

User avatar
5thHorseman
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 694
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Suggested solution for rail placement issues

Post by 5thHorseman » Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:50 pm

mward wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:29 pm
Shingen wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:14 am
I agree it's a bad idea,
Why is it a bad idea? What is bad about it?

With any other blueprint placing, if I see an obstacle I hold shift to place the blueprint while removing the obstacle. This makes the same function work with rails.
Rails are fundamentally different than all other objects, in that you can (and actually must in some circumstances) place them by using a unique mode. It's reasonable to expect that mode has other unique qualities to make it work better.
"So you completed the game with a spaghetti factory? Well I hand crafted a rocket and threw it into space with my bare hands!"

User avatar
Shingen
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Suggested solution for rail placement issues

Post by Shingen » Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:07 pm

mward wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:29 pm
Shingen wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:14 am
I agree it's a bad idea,
Why is it a bad idea? What is bad about it?

With any other blueprint placing, if I see an obstacle I hold shift to place the blueprint while removing the obstacle. This makes the same function work with rails.
that "I agree it's a bad idea" was a response to involving REACH into building and now you're talking about something completely different.
firstly, reach is not involved in any other building IIRC (besides obviously being/not being able to manually place something further away),
secondly, it already worked in such a way that holding shift placed a ghost and marked obstacles for deconstruction.

if anything, they actually made it work the same as other objects that without shift you always place that object manually, while with it you place a ghost and decon obstacles.
the problem is, we think they shouldn't.

but i understand their point, and i think i would personally prefer to have a separate "rail planner" item with appropriate options/checkboxes to remove obstacles or not (and also options to build 2 parallel rails with automatic signals etc.), and keep the rail item to work like any regular item, or leave it working the way it works now.

User avatar
jockeril
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:04 am
Contact:

Re: Suggested solution for rail placement issues

Post by jockeril » Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:53 am

Shingen wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:07 pm
mward wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:29 pm
Shingen wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:14 am
I agree it's a bad idea,
Why is it a bad idea? What is bad about it?

With any other blueprint placing, if I see an obstacle I hold shift to place the blueprint while removing the obstacle. This makes the same function work with rails.
[...]

but i understand their point, and i think i would personally prefer to have a separate "rail planner" item with appropriate options/checkboxes to remove obstacles or not (and also options to build 2 parallel rails with automatic signals etc.), and keep the rail item to work like any regular item, or leave it working the way it works now.
Anything but another item :? I'd rather they make an option in the options -> other menu to have the old way or the new way then have another item in my already too small inventory, especially at the start - or they can add a button to the new addition to the quickbar to toggle that behaviour
[request] RTL support please

Hebrew Translator for FARL & EvoGUI and much more

join me on
- Twitter[@jockeril],
- Twitch.tv/jockeril,
- Youtube/jocker-il (or JoCKeR-iL)
- and steam !
Image

User avatar
BlueTemplar
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1069
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.29

Post by BlueTemplar » Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:33 am

Planners don't necessarily take space : they can be kept in your blueprint library.

nuhll
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 820
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2016 9:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.29

Post by nuhll » Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:40 am

BlueTemplar wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:33 am
Planners don't necessarily take space : they can be kept in your blueprint library.
Hahahah lol, u can, but they loose your settings (dont know which genius thought that this would be a good idea)

User avatar
BlueTemplar
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1069
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.29

Post by BlueTemplar » Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:51 am

Well, then they shouldn't. (Hopefully this will changed in the current blueprint rework.)

nuhll
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 820
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2016 9:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.29

Post by nuhll » Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:33 am

I also hope. It makes so much sense. You have upgrade and remove next to your hotbar, can change the settings (and they get saved) if you want to have multiple settings, you just drop it into your inventar (like its now). Problem solved. :o

Post Reply

Return to “Releases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: steinio