Control Power Connections by Coloring Power Poles (with Lamps)

[leitk]

I wrote a very small mod for this, Tiny Pole https://mods.factorio.com/mod/TinyPole
I just verified that it works for .17 as well, and made a new version with the updated version information.
All it does is adds a pole with small range and coverage.
This allows it to not interact with other poles so you can separate power grids that are close to each other.
This is especially handy in blueprints that need different power grids.

[Masterpintsman]

... (like viewtopic.php?f=6&t=70996#p432071 or viewtopic.php?t=47949#p343798 as examples) ...

How would that ever connect to anything? Any blue wire would isolate the involved poles from all others.

You need something so a pole can have a blue wire but also auto-connect to the rest.

To isolate the involved poles is the basic idea, though in the sense of disabling further auto-connection of coper, not by auto-disconnecting existing copper cables to existing poles. Sections blueprinted would connect by applying the blueprint so one of the new poles is built on an already existing powered one, leading to the blue wire leading to the pole in the print connecting to the existing pole (identical to how tiling setups that use green/red cable currently works).

You would never want to place wires for a whole area, that's hundrets of wire-connections.

While I don't want to manually copper rewire everything... the way I like to play the game gives me way too many sections where I have to do that. Certainly I could work around this by spreading things out wide enough for auto-connection to not happen, but where is the fun in not packing things as dense as possible?

That's exactly why I made this suggestion: I'm sick of having to massage hundreds of wires into the configuration I want (my base design makes heavy use of power switches and individual subnets to manage limited power, plus OCD) thus I would like the ability to copy blocks in the intended configuration without having to rewire all the power poles afterwards anymore.

[mrvn]

... (like viewtopic.php?f=6&t=70996#p432071 or viewtopic.php?t=47949#p343798 as examples) ...

How would that ever connect to anything? Any blue wire would isolate the involved poles from all others.

You need something so a pole can have a blue wire but also auto-connect to the rest.

To isolate the involved poles is the basic idea, though in the sense of disabling further auto-connection of coper, not by auto-disconnecting existing copper cables to existing poles. Sections blueprinted would connect by applying the blueprint so one of the new poles is built on an already existing powered one, leading to the blue wire leading to the pole in the print connecting to the existing pole (identical to how tiling setups that use green/red cable currently works).

That assumes you have an overlap and that the blue wire connects to the overlapping pole. But think about all the other poles inside your blueprint. They don't have any copper wires already connected. So your blue wire might connect to the outside through some overlap but internally nothing connects to the blue wire. Which means you have to use blue wire everywhere inside and have no auto connecting copper wires at all basically.

[Masterpintsman]

That assumes you have an overlap and that the blue wire connects to the overlapping pole.

Yes. Identical to how green and red wire currently works.

But think about all the other poles inside your blueprint. They don't have any copper wires already connected. So your blue wire might connect to the outside through some overlap but internally nothing connects to the blue wire. Which means you have to use blue wire everywhere inside and have no auto connecting copper wires at all basically.

Having to manually wire the source of a blueprint with blue once to have it copied as intended would be, in my eyes, a huge QoL upgrade - compared to the current situation of having to manually untangle each and every copy I place.

[mrvn]

That assumes you have an overlap and that the blue wire connects to the overlapping pole.

Yes. Identical to how green and red wire currently works.

But think about all the other poles inside your blueprint. They don't have any copper wires already connected. So your blue wire might connect to the outside through some overlap but internally nothing connects to the blue wire. Which means you have to use blue wire everywhere inside and have no auto connecting copper wires at all basically.

Having to manually wire the source of a blueprint with blue once to have it copied as intended would be, in my eyes, a huge QoL upgrade - compared to the current situation of having to manually untangle each and every copy I place.

What you end up is every wire being blue. So you might as well just store copper wires in the blueprint. Same result, less work.

And not going to happen according to devs.

[ssilk]

That doesn't solve the problem, that wires are connected, that should not be connected.

I played meanwhile a whole game with sub-factories that are switch-powered.

Result is this:

To use blueprint for switch-powered assembly you need just SPACE. A lot of space. About 10-20 tiles (depends on, which type of poles you use) around the blueprint and you need to avoid to place anything inside that zone, cause you will always forget about it, that the little cable could connect.

And I tried out many setups (different powering, different poles, avoid using big poles, and so on). Once you are learned how to construct it to avoid unwanted connections (and you learn only that you really need to let so much space left), it is not so difficult to construct such factories and it promises a lot of fun for my next big map to use power-switching - especially in the beginning, when power is a problem.

Problems?

It makes generally no fun to construct with so much space around. Point.

There is especially this problem, which drives me crazy: For very big areas (smelting...) you need a roboport in the center of the blueprint (so that it can be blueprinted automatically), which should of course be always powered. With a big power pole: no problem, but this big pole will connect to any other poles. Big problem, no fun with that.

Another similar problem are the circuits. Sometimes it's no good idea, that circuits don't work without power (but sensor on belt etc. work without).
On the other hand I found it very practical in some cases to switch the circuits off by turning off the power. No power, no CPU. So my thought.
Does anybody know that: Is that correct or will an unpowerd circuit use eventually more CPU than an powered?


Long words short: With any of my constructions I would have no problem, if my idea (a colored lamp besides the pole or something similar to avoid connections from that pole to a pole without that color) would be implemented. And I really didn't create my constructions so, that it works with this idea.

The idea with different poles: Definitly also possible. But due to the big number of poles that I use it would be hard to produce all of them - even if we only need to "convert" them (no extra item cost). I think it's an option, but really not a very useful.

Different colored wires: Really no option. You would need to wire so many and the chance to forget a single connection is extremly high.

Did I forget some others?

Summary:

I still think the idea to mark the poles with something (a lamp...) is still the most beautiful. It is also really useful to see
a) network is powered yet or not
b) no blinking "not powered yet" symbols everywhere (that blinking made me really crazy)
c) that there is the area with power-control.

[Masterpintsman]

What you end up is every wire being blue.

That could be one approach in case the user decides that way, the other would be to work with overlapping poles in the prints (so the new connects to the existing power grid) when employing blue wire.

So you might as well just store copper wires in the blueprint. Same result, less work.

Same result: no, it would remove the auto-connection of power poles of blueprints in general - I want control over when it happens.

Less work: Could be solved by allowing an upgrade planner to turn current copper into blue wire on selected poles, fixing these wires in place so one can deterministically blueprint them. And the reverse to restore automatic wiring on selected poles (preferably without triggering it).

It makes generally no fun to construct with so much space around. Point.

This.

Different colored wires: Really no option. You would need to wire so many and the chance to forget a single connection is extremly high.

See above regarding allowing an upgrade planner to change the color (basically toggle auto-connect).

I still think the idea to mark the poles with something (a lamp...) is still the most beautiful.

This needs extra entities, which need room to be placed. Or (to remove the extra tile for the marker entity) an additional version of each power pole, which would eat into inventory and hotkey room more heavily than blue wire (which would require only one slot).

[mrvn]

What you end up is every wire being blue.

That could be one approach in case the user decides that way, the other would be to work with overlapping poles in the prints (so the new connects to the existing power grid) when employing blue wire.

So you might as well just store copper wires in the blueprint. Same result, less work.

Same result: no, it would remove the auto-connection of power poles of blueprints in general - I want control over when it happens.

Less work: Could be solved by allowing an upgrade planner to turn current copper into blue wire on selected poles, fixing these wires in place so one can deterministically blueprint them. And the reverse to restore automatic wiring on selected poles (preferably without triggering it).

But that's just it. Nothing will auto connect to blue wires. So you either have no (blue) wires in the blueprint and auto connect works. Or all your wires are blue and no auto connect happens at all. Any mix of blue and copper wires will drop the connections between copper and blue and produce a broken result.

So if you simplify to a check box "Include wires" in the blueprint you get the same result for any functional blueprint without the extra work of blue wires.

[Masterpintsman]

So you either have no (blue) wires in the blueprint and auto connect works. Or all your wires are blue and no auto connect happens at all. Any mix of blue and copper wires will drop the connections between copper and blue and produce a broken result.

Have you ever looked at power switches? These are bascally two poles.
Also: Not auto-connecting to new poles that carry blue wire is different to dropping existing connections.
Apart from that: your 'broken' result can well be what is intended, as the whole idea of blue wire is the ability to blueprint power network islands that don't auto connect.

So if you simplify to a check box "Include wires" in the blueprint you get the same result for any functional blueprint without the extra work of blue wires.

No, it wouldn't be the same result, not even by far.
But it could be good enough to work around the most unfun aspects of power auto-connections...

[mrvn]

So you either have no (blue) wires in the blueprint and auto connect works. Or all your wires are blue and no auto connect happens at all. Any mix of blue and copper wires will drop the connections between copper and blue and produce a broken result.

Have you ever looked at power switches? These are bascally two poles.
Also: Not auto-connecting to new poles that carry blue wire is different to dropping existing connections.
Apart from that: your 'broken' result can well be what is intended, as the whole idea of blue wire is the ability to blueprint power network islands that don't auto connect.

What I mean is that if you take a blueprint of a factory that has copper and blue wires and place it then any copper wires connecting to poles with blue wires will not be connected like they were in the original. Compared to the original the copy will have lost wires.

And yes, I have looked at power switches. That's basically the only place where this idea makes sense because one terminal in of the power switch would potentially have a copper wire and the other a blue wire making sure only one side of the switch auto-connects. Every other power pole it's harmful.

PS: Lets get back to the original idea to color the poles instead. Because that one at least is a workable idea.

[BlueTemplar]

(BUMPING this thread because this is the thread with the best discussion / number of suggestions.)

Some older discussions :
Separation of poles and power wires : viewtopic.php?p=5962#p5962
Handling different electric networks : viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1261&p=8819 (Ultimately, this is what most suggestions are trying to do !)

Some newer discussions :
Option: disable auto-connect for a power pole : viewtopic.php?f=6&t=74205
Allow disabling of power pole auto-connect in clipboard and blueprints : viewtopic.php?f=6&t=81465
Also helpfully contains :

[...]
Previous queries and mentions concerning this behaviour:

1. Place power poles without wires?
2. [0.17.79] Overlapping electric networks can cause increased power draw - Reproduction steps provided by myself.
3. Option: disable auto-connect for a power pole - Similar request, but power pole specific.
4. an idea for fixing auto-connecting power-pole problems - Similar, but has several suggestions in one, and does not follow the template so probably overlooked.
5. power and blueprints workaround - doesn't seem to get the message across.
6. Toggle autoconnection and power suply of power poles - Old suggestion that pretty much mirrors this one except for the mention of clones.
7. [urll=viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27456][0.14] [kovarex] Power Switch blueprint doesn't remember power line positions[/url] - Old bug report, turned feature request made prior to current blueprint handling.
8. About Cables and Wires / Make Wires Free / Power Poles Contain Cables - The granddaddy thread that this suggestion will probably end up in.
9. Probably many others that will need searching out ...

[...]

Network Mask for Electric Poles : viewtopic.php?f=6&t=86937
Control Power Connections by Colored Power Poles (revisited) : viewtopic.php?f=6&t=89065
Option to Lock Power Poles Against Auto-connection : viewtopic.php?f=6&t=91100

Of course, finally posting my idea this late basically means someone else already thought of it...
(It was basically that last one - a Lock Planner, except I thought to make the locked poles glow gold and/or have a hovering golden sphere above them, but an actual lock graphic is probably better ! )
I also like the blue wire idea, and actually even the lamp near pole idea of the OP (except I would just use a normal lamp with a color signal) : this is in line with Factorio's lego-like nature !

[...]
Totally different method: a "cable free zone" floor tile that doesn't allow any cables to run above it. Requires only one additional tile, and can be placed any shape you want. Wouldn't work as good as colored poles in small cramped areas, but if all you want is to protect your blueprint from connecting to the outside...

I might have an original idea : this, but instead the floor tile switches the power poles placed on it to locked.

Bonus : relevant mods mentioned in these threads :
Gandalf 1.0.0 : Telling the power cables; "You shall not cross". : viewtopic.php?p=136541#p136541
Tiny Pole : an easy to isolate pole : https://mods.factorio.com/mod/TinyPole
Manual Wire Placement : Prevents newly built power poles from having pre-placed wires on them. : https://mods.factorio.com/mod/ManualWirePlacement

Bonus² : A use case : biter defense :

ABRDW_fortified_base_01.png (5.33 MiB) Viewed 1759 times

(Yes this has 2 separate power networks, and yes they connect by mistake ALL. THE. TIME.)