Powered logic devices (combinators, inserters, etc.) should behave consistently under low power

[Deadlock989]

Well, it's inconsistent with the way it works when you power it properly.

[Theikkru]

I think I get the general idea, but can someone succinctly say what's inconsistent about this? Every other entity in the game works slower when not receiving full power; combinators do the exact same thing.

It's inconsistency between logic devices, not just a difference from full power. (See link in first post.) If all logic devices slowed down the same way, the logic wouldn't break; it would just work slower. The problem is that some devices (inserters) maintain the same logic signaling behavior when underpowered, while others (combinators) do not. This results in the logic breaking because of what's effectively clock async, even within the same electrical network.

In the demo save I provided, the important thing being demonstrated is that the inserters still consistently send single-tick pulses for their signals (as recorded by the full-power combinator), even when running on low power, while the low-power combinator running on that same electricity is unable to reliably capture those signals.
Consistent behavior would be either:
(A) everything keeps ticking along unaffected by the low power like the inserters now, in which case the demo save should show no difference between the combinators, or
(B) everything gets slow and jittery in lockstep, in which case the full-power combinator should register multiple counts per inserter grab because the inserter signal is sluggish and lasts more than 1 tick, while the low-power combinator keeps true count because it's running on the same protracted power clock.

[foamy]

I think I get the general idea, but can someone succinctly say what's inconsistent about this? Every other entity in the game works slower when not receiving full power; combinators do the exact same thing.

It's inconsistency among logic devices even when powered at the same level.

[Theikkru]

As a corollary to this topic and the scenario (B) above, I'd like to add that, in the name of consistency, I'd welcome the addition of a 1W power requirement on other normally un-powered devices (such as belts) when hooked into a logic circuit. Not only would that add a bit of realism, (given the extra apparatus that appears on them graphically,) it would also ensure that all logic devices on the same electrical network stay in sync.

[ilikegoodfood]

in the name of consistency, I'd welcome the addition of a 1W power requirement

Ensuring that the unpowered signal sources remainb in sync with the powered ones during brownout is a good idea. +1 to this being implemented.

[5thHorseman]

I think I get the general idea, but can someone succinctly say what's inconsistent about this? Every other entity in the game works slower when not receiving full power; combinators do the exact same thing.

The problem is belts and send pulse signals, and if a combinator is low on power it can miss a pulse. But because they have a little internal power buffer, some combinators may see the pulse while others may not.

I personally am in the "if you're going to use combinators for intricate timings, then make sure they have enough power to run" camp. I don't think it's up to the game to cache pulses for you because you can't build well.

Were I Wube I'd put a "your combinators are low on power" alert out there, make it optional, and call this "bug" fixed.

[Theikkru]

The problem is belts and send pulse signals, and if a combinator is low on power it can miss a pulse. But because they have a little internal power buffer, some combinators may see the pulse while others may not.

The one I'm highlighting is specifically the inconsistency between inserters and combinators, not belts, (unless they get a power requirement,) because those are the devices that require power and ergo would be expected to act consistently with each other when power is low.

Also, while it's technically true that combinators can get desynced from each other, that doesn't happen under normal circumstances; combinators on the same electrical network will experience the same buffering math, and that buffering gets resynced whenever power is sufficient, so the only cases where combinators on the same network get desynced would be when you build a bunch of them while power is low and try to use them before power is restored to full. You can test this in the demo save I posted by duplicating the low-power test combinator a few times.

[...]I don't think it's up to the game to cache pulses for you because you can't build well.

The point isn't that the game should go out of its way to help you compensate, it's that it makes no sense that inserters inconsistently don't suffer the same effects of insufficient power that combinators do. The logic not breaking should be a natural consequence of low power being applied equally (which is why I specified powered logic devices on the same electrical network).

The real question here is why things on the same electric network can get desynced at all, given that such a problem has no real game design positives and a lot of negatives, as I've argued earlier. I can't imagine it would be that hard to just clock logic behavior using the electric network; it might even help optimize performance since dedicated logic devices (e.g. combinators) wouldn't need a power buffer anymore.

[ssilk]

I think this would take away some nice details and a lot of depth for playing with combinators, that you will not find in any other games.

And you can use that behavior for things like timers. One of the reasons, why the suggestion with the colored electric network was done, because that is the real problem with this behavior.

- solar+accumulator is a simple solution, it is able to backup up to 42 combinators. Combined with 1.1 feature of blueprints preserving power pole connections (fff-362) it should be also easy to duplicate power production without worrying about wires.

I’m quite curious for that change. But I think this will not solve the problems. This will solve copying it, but you will have problems to build it. One wrong placed pole and that was it.

[jodokus31]

Why should it even behave consistently? In reality things behave very differently under low power. A motor gets slower but a CPU can't calculate reliable.
I think it's a nice touch, that there is a bit of randomness. And yes, i know it's a game which should be fun playing in the First place...

[foamy]

I think this would take away some nice details and a lot of depth for playing with combinators

What 'depth' does fixing this remove? The depth in combinators is in their logic, and for that depth to be genuinely explored it needs to behave in a deterministic and predictable way.

I won't say nobody has ever used the mismatch between combinators and inserters to achieve something, but it reminds me of that XKCD comic about workflows. Fixing it makes the game better; leaving it as-is means it's a rake-handle waiting to smack people in the face when they do try to use the depth that combinators allow, and what's more it's not something that is at all easy to diagnose even by the standards of tracing combinator logic.

[Deadlock989]

What 'depth' does fixing this remove? The depth in combinators is in their logic, and for that depth to be genuinely explored it needs to behave in a deterministic and predictable way.

I'm going to stop you right there. Factorio is literally deterministic. If it weren't then multiplayer would not work.

And it is predictable. If you don't build things properly and you can't even be bothered to supply them with power properly then you can predict that your intricate pulse mechanism that depends on sixtieth of a second timings will die, like some kind of fragile Victorian stopwatch made of sugarglass.

Sorry, but in a subforum absolutely full of "I never thought leopards would eat my face" threads, this is one of the leopards-ate-my-faceiest.

[ilikegoodfood]

I'm getting the strong impression that those shutting this idea down are simply not seeing the issue that is being very reasonably and patiently described over and over again. I'm very impressed by foamy's patience in this.

The negative impact of low power on logic systems (combinators) is disproportionate to the negative impact on everything else in the factory. This in and of itself is an inconsistency that will hamper less-skilled players trying it out. The lack of it being explained anywhere, that this can even happen, and the lack of diagnosis in an already complex system exacerbates this significantly.

Just because you folks have come to learn of this idiosyncrasy and have habitualized work-arounds doesn't changer the fact that it is, at least from my point of view, an inconsistent idiosyncrasy and that they are workarounds, not solutions. The solutuion is for combinators to slow down and switch off uniformly, as does pretty much everything else in the factory.

If you don't build things properly and you can't even be bothered to supply them with power properly

This statement is not conducive to the discussion, nor is this one:

Sorry, but in a subforum absolutely full of "I never thought leopards would eat my face" threads, this is one of the leopards-ate-my-faceiest.

You're instantly assuming that the player is familiar with higher-end power systems and that they've invested the time and energy into them, regardless of their combination of map and game settings, which can make such things an expensive luxuary. It is very easy, especially on single player, to be so focussed on one specific task or area, that your power consumption sneeks up towards production limits, and then to be attacked from multiple sources at once, causing a brown-out from laser turret fire, or soemthing else like it. A key resuource link may have been attacked while you were busy elsewhere.

It doesn't matter what it is, but there are valid reasons for players of different skill levels and playing on different settings and seeds, to not yet have sufficient power redundancy. The two quoted statements are not conducive to anything being said here. Rather they are demeaning and condescending, just like the infamously toxic 'git good' that has been so memed.

Please just focus on the actual issue, which is that it is an unexpected behavour to those who haven't learned of it yet, it feels inconsistent to them, and it can have huge repurcussions, depending on the logic being used.

[Deadlock989]

inconsitant idiocicracy

These aren't even words.

[ilikegoodfood]

inconsitant idiocicracy

These aren't even words.

Really? You're going to respond instantly to a spelling error?
You have no idea of my age, if English is my first language or a foreign language to me, no idea if I have a disability that effects spelling, such as dyslexia, or anything else, and you respond to a spelling mistake instead of actually responding to the content of the post?

Ontop of that, you're framing suggests that you intend it as a means of dismissing my entire post.

[Deadlock989]

You have no idea of my age, if English is my first language or a foreign language to me, no idea if I have a disability that effects spelling, such as dyslexia, or anything else, and you respond to a spelling mistake instead of actually responding to the content of the post?

With "idiocicracy" it's more than just a spelling mistake. I have no idea what you're even trying to say. Do you mean the 2006 Mike Judge film "Idiocracy"? I don't see how that's relevant here.

Ontop of that, you're framing suggests that you intend it as a means of dismissing my entire post.

Pretty much.

[ilikegoodfood]

With "idiocicracy" it's more than just a spelling mistake. I have no idea what you're even trying to say.

Well, seeing as you claim to not be able to work out the context, I did correct it before replying to your comment, so you have no excuse now.

A better solution would have been to highlight the incorrect words and simply say that you couldn't work out what I meant because they're incorrect. No judgement attached, no attempt at dismissal, just plain straight communication.

[Deadlock989]

Well, seeing as you claim to not be able to work out the context, I did correct it before replying to your comment, so you have no excuse now.

I have no interest in going round and round the houses on this. If you want intricate combinator set-ups to work then maybe you have to accept that you might have to give them the miniscule trickle of power they need.

You shouldn't build things that need to never break in a way that they can break and then complain when it breaks. Nor should you then go all green ink on the forums because you expect the game to be changed so you don't have to change.

Factorio has basic noob play and then it has advanced play. Circuit networks are the latter.

Yes, I cheered when they binned Compilatron.

[ilikegoodfood]

TL;DR
You're response was heard and understood the first time. You disagree with changing it. Fair enough. You have no need or obligation to hang around here (in this specific thread), or even respond to this.

Detailed Response to last post:

You shouldn't build things that need to never break in a way that they can break and then complain when it breaks.

I haven't run into this issue yet...

That's an unfounded assumption. Again you are falling back on a judgement rather than simply saying you don't agree that it's a problem and leaving it be.

Factorio has basic noob play and then it has advanced play.

Newb and experienced aren't the only two states a player can be in. This game has many stages of complexity and each one is a learning experience that takes time, effort and repetition. Smoothing those transitions a little doesn't inherently have to dumb-down the game for experienced players. This change has absolutely no impact on experienced players at all, as they'll just continue as they were, and nothing will perceptably change for them.

You also appear to be assuming my play-experience based on the age of my forum account. I've been playing on-and-off since well before Factorio was available on Steam. I created this account to post an idea, and I figured I'd try and contribute to the discussions going on here while I kept an eye on that idea.

Nor should you then go all green ink on the forums because you expect the game to be changed so you don't have to change.

I have no idea what 'go all green ink' means, but I'm reasonably sure that a reasonable and well-meaning attempt to bring this thread back on topic isn't it. And I freely admit that I commented in support of a different, related idea suggested in that off-topic discussion, contributing to this thread being off topic.

As for not changing, I have never said that I wouldn't use isolated systems of solar panels and accumulators, nor even that I considered doing so an issue. It is indeed a fast and valid workaround, as I've said already. My actual words were:

Glad I spotted this thread...

This is because I wouldn't have known that I needed to use isolated power grids for combinator power-security, as I haven't encountered this issue.

Yes, I cheered when they binned Compilatron.

Totally irrelevent. Many new players may have also felt that he was annoying and shouldn't be there, while some longer-term players may not have minded him or cared either way.

[5thHorseman]

The one I'm highlighting is specifically the inconsistency between inserters and combinators, not belts, (unless they get a power requirement,) because those are the devices that require power and ergo would be expected to act consistently with each other when power is low.

Sorry about that. I was going by the linked related bug report in an earlier post and got mixed up.

The point isn't that the game should go out of its way to help you compensate, it's that it makes no sense that inserters inconsistently don't suffer the same effects of insufficient power that combinators do.

I don't know why that makes no sense. Inserters are mechanical and move slower when deprived of power. Combinators are little computers with no moving parts. I would expect them to behave differently with low power. Frankly speaking, I was surprised to learn combinators worked AT ALL on low power. I would have expected them to just flat out stop working when power got below a threshold, and the threshold I'd consider reasonable would be 100%.

The real question here is why things on the same electric network can get desynced at all, given that such a problem has no real game design positives and a lot of negatives, as I've argued earlier. I can't imagine it would be that hard to just clock logic behavior using the electric network; it might even help optimize performance since dedicated logic devices (e.g. combinators) wouldn't need a power buffer anymore.

I have never designed a game, at least not one as complicated as Factorio, so I can't speak to any of this in general. I though CAN imagine that it might be hard to "just clock logic behavior using the electric network," considering none of us know how any of this is coded internally.

[Deadlock989]

I mean it's well known that Stock, Aitken and Waterman created Rick Astley by only putting half the batteries in a tape player with a Kylie Minogue cassette in it.

The only reason I failed my Maths GCSE was because the battery in my calculator was low so when I tried to work out 2 + 2, I got 1.354.