mark-for-upgrading when blueprinting over fast-replaceable entities

[Honktown]

A subtle "conflict" is when you go to blueprint over existing stuff, and it's not "marked for upgrade" or however it might be implemented (one can't place a ghost on it since it would collide).

There was a single topic back in 2015: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=9296

Would be a nice-to-have.

Similarly, one can't mark a fast-replaceable entity to be changed when using copy-paste.

[Septimus ii]

That sounds like it would be really useful

[mrvn]

+1. very useful.

I would make this optional though. In the blueprint dialog there should be an option to

Replace:
[ ] never
[ ] fast replace
[ ] always

Pips:
[ ] don't touch
[ ] empty pipes

Never is the current behavior, fast replace is what yo describe and always would deconstruct + reconstruct when it can't fast-replace.

And for pipes blueprinting a water pipe over an oil pipe would deconstruct and reconstruct the pipe. This feature would requirethat ghost pipes can be tagged with a fluid so the bots will only place the new pipes when oil wouldn't flood right back in.

[Honktown]

+1. very useful.

I would make this optional though. In the blueprint dialog there should be an option to

Replace:
[ ] never
[ ] fast replace
[ ] always

Pips:
[ ] don't touch
[ ] empty pipes

Never is the current behavior, fast replace is what yo describe and always would deconstruct + reconstruct when it can't fast-replace.

And for pipes blueprinting a water pipe over an oil pipe would deconstruct and reconstruct the pipe. This feature would requirethat ghost pipes can be tagged with a fluid so the bots will only place the new pipes when oil wouldn't flood right back in.

I wouldn't care if it's not an option, because it doesn't seem right to not do it: I can normally place A over B if I'm in range. Why doesn't copy-paste or blueprinting let me? It feels broken.

Pipes would be way more complicated. A different-fluid pipe can't be placed. I suppose this is a complexity I didn't think about: different recipes. I was thinking in the context of a new or empty machine. The game could literally go "can't mix fluids" when trying to blueprint lol, it'd be consistent with normal placement.

[ssilk]

It’s not so that you can replace any entities. Only those in the fast replacement groups. Belts, Assemblies, inserters...

And if a blueprint would fast replace that, if possible, why not. But in normal use-cases I think this would be quite rare cases. Some pole is missing, some inserter cannot be updated, because not researched yet... but maybe I’m wrong with that assumption.

So I have mixed feelings about this OP. Need to try that out, how that feels.

Nevertheless I would support also a mode, where a built could be “overwritten”, would enable optimized robot usage (tries to “move” items, instead of destructing and rebuilding).

[Honktown]

It’s not so that you can replace any entities. Only those in the fast replacement groups. Belts, Assemblies, inserters...

And if a blueprint would fast replace that, if possible, why not. But in normal use-cases I think this would be quite rare cases. Some pole is missing, some inserter cannot be updated, because not researched yet... but maybe I’m wrong with that assumption.

So I have mixed feelings about this OP. Need to try that out, how that feels.

Nevertheless I would support also a mode, where a built could be “overwritten”, would enable optimized robot usage (tries to “move” items, instead of destructing and rebuilding).

My impression was in 2015, the mark-for-upgrading system didn't exist, so adding the behavior to blueprinting would've been complicated. Now that mark for upgrading does exist, it's trivial to add it to blueprinting in the cases of a machine that doesn't change the recipe, or things which don't produce things (belts, inserters, but not pumps).

There's another annoying behavior, related to "overwriting": if you fast-replace, it picks up stuff, even if it doesn't need to: belts, crafting machines, while inserters restart their grab cycle (had to verify that, interesting). The normal drop/pick-up stuff is because fast-replacing is based on deconstructing->constructing, even though it appears to "clone" because some properties are transferred. Construction bots also have a max_payload_size that can be changed in the prototype, but they always construct one at a time or pick up items spilled from deconstructing one at a time. The capacity even increases with the cargo research for logistic bots, but still always only 1 thing at a time.

[Olacken]

I wouldn't care if it's not an option, because it doesn't seem right to not do it: I can normally place A over B if I'm in range. Why doesn't copy-paste or blueprinting let me? It feels broken.

I would care because I use the fact that I can't place 2 different type of inserter in the same place to be able to build multiple tileable blueprint in a row without needing to realease the left mouse cleck and it if was by default it would make some of them impossible to build that way

[mrvn]

Construction bots also have a max_payload_size that can be changed in the prototype, but they always construct one at a time or pick up items spilled from deconstructing one at a time. The capacity even increases with the cargo research for logistic bots, but still always only 1 thing at a time.

A recent FFF showed construction bots batching placement of landfill. Not sure if that is in any release yet but that will be the use case for the cargo size.

[Honktown]

Construction bots also have a max_payload_size that can be changed in the prototype, but they always construct one at a time or pick up items spilled from deconstructing one at a time. The capacity even increases with the cargo research for logistic bots, but still always only 1 thing at a time.

A recent FFF showed construction bots batching placement of landfill. Not sure if that is in any release yet but that will be the use case for the cargo size.

FINALLY SOMETHING FOR THAT BS

Bots batch-placing tiles is fantastic. Hopefully someday we'll even get multi-loot/deconstruct pick-up. I can dream can't I?

[Boppiej]

A subtle "conflict" is when you go to blueprint over existing stuff, and it's not "marked for upgrade" or however it might be implemented (one can't place a ghost on it since it would collide).

There was a single topic back in 2015: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=9296

Would be a nice-to-have.

Similarly, one can't mark a fast-replaceable entity to be changed when using copy-paste.

Would be nice to have blueprint to be able to mark for upgrade, since i'm using overlapping blueprints.

[Honktown]

A subtle "conflict" is when you go to blueprint over existing stuff, and it's not "marked for upgrade" or however it might be implemented (one can't place a ghost on it since it would collide).

There was a single topic back in 2015: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=9296

Would be a nice-to-have.

Similarly, one can't mark a fast-replaceable entity to be changed when using copy-paste.

Would be nice to have blueprint to be able to mark for upgrade, since i'm using overlapping blueprints.

You hit alt-u to make an upgrade planner, or click the button next to the quickbar (may not be shown). After that it can be placed in inventory or the blueprint library thing (ctrl-b)

[Boppiej]

A subtle "conflict" is when you go to blueprint over existing stuff, and it's not "marked for upgrade" or however it might be implemented (one can't place a ghost on it since it would collide).

There was a single topic back in 2015: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=9296

Would be a nice-to-have.

Similarly, one can't mark a fast-replaceable entity to be changed when using copy-paste.

Would be nice to have blueprint to be able to mark for upgrade, since i'm using overlapping blueprints.

You hit alt-u to make an upgrade planner, or click the button next to the quickbar (may not be shown). After that it can be placed in inventory or the blueprint library thing (ctrl-b)

That would not solve my problem, since u need to use an extra step in the process and remember it by head. If blueprints have the ability to specify 1 or a few (not needed all, because then u can use the upgrade planner) to mark for upgrade. I would be very helpfull to play with that if u use blueprints from the start and it would mark priorities out in the overlapping blueprint.

[Honktown]

...

I had an idea but it would be a mod: a little window that would take a blueprint, and then one could insert upgrade planners as a modifier (maybe more than one and even deconstruction planners). Almost a blueprint equation lol. Would you be interested in it as a mod? We could talk about this in the Mod Ideas section.

[ssilk]

Ah, that sounds a bit like my viewtopic.php?f=6&t=76499 Blueprint Book is not enough for me

We could talk about this in the Mod Ideas section.

I’m coming!

[Boppiej]

Ah, that sounds a bit like my viewtopic.php?f=6&t=76499 Blueprint Book is not enough for me

Looks nice, but then 1 question remains: getting achievements doesnt work while playing with mods, right?

[mrvn]

Do you ever not want to upgrade when you blueprint e.g a red belt over a yellow? I think blueprints should automatically mark for upgrade where possible. The blueprint create/edit can have a checkbox for upgrading that's on by default.

[Koub]

Do you ever not want to upgrade when you blueprint e.g a red belt over a yellow?

Yes I do. Especially in the early part of a base, I change just some inserters from normal to fast as my needs evolve (typically my cable direct insertion for green chips).

[mrvn]

Do you ever not want to upgrade when you blueprint e.g a red belt over a yellow?

Yes I do. Especially in the early part of a base, I change just some inserters from normal to fast as my needs evolve (typically my cable direct insertion for green chips).

That's exactly the use case I have in mind. You replace the first inserter by hand. Then ctrl-c the assembler + inserter and drag place it over all other assemblers to update them all to fast inserter. You don't want to have to make a blueprint, make an update planner, combine the blueprint and update planer, place the combination and then clean up the inventory with the pointless temporary items.

[Koub]

I'm note sure we're understanding each other. What I meant is when I upgrade one entity, I don't always want to upgrade all entities of the same type in all my base. I may want to upgrade just a few entities at strategic locations of my base.

The way I'd do it is have N blueprints, one for every stage of my base, as my research advances, and overwrite the previous version with the new, expecting that all entities of the same type to be "overwritten" if not identical.

[Boppiej]

I'm note sure we're understanding each other. What I meant is when I upgrade one entity, I don't always want to upgrade all entities of the same type in all my base. I may want to upgrade just a few entities at strategic locations of my base.

The way I'd do it is have N blueprints, one for every stage of my base, as my research advances, and overwrite the previous version with the new, expecting that all entities of the same type to be "overwritten" if not identical.

That's exactly the way I'm editing my base/blueprints. So the specific upgrade marker from a blueprint would be very helpfull.