Friday Facts #403 - Train stops 2.0

[qubit]

I read every single FFF with delight and relish! I've played Factorio for 7 years, and have always come back to it. Despite having been a consistent gamer for ~30 years, Factorio is by far my most favorite game ever and the one I constantly come back to. I'm not one to comment frequently, so this post is rare.

I'm super excited about the 2.0 version and all the new features, but every single one of the changes discussed in this particular FFF felt so useful to me that I just had to comment. Thank you so much to the team at Wube! I am so impressed by and absolutely love your attention to detail!

[FuryoftheStars]

I think the ultimate thing for making remote control of your factory while you are away is a drone hub cart for trains. Just think of it, it already possible to spread your logistics network by placing new drone posts on the edge of it, but it would make process simply annoying to reach distant ore patch.
With a drone hub cart you can easily build station for providing supply for new outpost and initial drone post and then develop outpost in a usual way. Railway fixes also would be easier when you are away with this feature.

Allowing trains with a drone cart to build route on a ghost rails and stop’n’go whenever end of build track is reached would make building rails roads much more streamlined process. Here also comes new system of interrupts, when there are not enough of rails go back and get some. This would require a double headed train and something like a crisscross lane change (if you use right-/lefthanded rail system), but still sounds like a new interesting task on a way of global automation.

Absolutely, yes, please! I suppose as someone else just mentioned there are spidertrons, but I still feel an actual train would be more fitting (if the pathfinder can be setup to work for this, of course).

But it may be more fitting to have it as a special locomotive vs a special wagon. The construction bots would need recharging in some way and I feel allowing a nuclear reactor into an equipment grid which you then can't use to power the train would be wrong. Instead the bots should probably get their energy straight from the locomotive(s), burning through fuel faster, and thus the need for more fuel slots may be relevant. As an offset, too, so these don't become the defacto locomotives with just all around better capabilities (or as a wagon, a defacto inclusion to any train), they should probably have a much lower top speed (like half, at least).

Of course, for them to be really useful, there'd have to be some way for them to automatically detect damage/breakage in the rails lines and automatically dispatch to repair.

---------------------------------------------------

[*]It would be a lot easier if the "HOLD [ctrl+]shift" for rail planner [with obstacle avoidance] was replaced with "press shift/ctrl to TOGGLE", as it would also help in resolving the above issue.

Going further, if it is a toggle, then there's no need to even use modifier keys. There are other keys bound to contextual actions make no sense while placing rails, and thus can be reused while in rail placement mode. For example, F or G. F is already overloaded for different contexts (pick up items on ground, flip blueprint); might as well add another special context to its binding.

This would avoid issues where Shift+R is used to reverse rotation, but Shift also toggles rail placement mode. A developer can try to smooth over the rough edges of that situation, but it's never perfect. For example, I might press Shift in preparation to rotate, but then I change my mind. I release Shift and now I've toggled my placement mode. That has annoyed me in numerous applications/games in the past.

I support this!

---------------------------------------------------

Will we be able to drive the trains backwards from remote if they are in a deadlock and just have one locomotive?

Considering we can drive them backwards manually anyway, why wouldn't we be able to with remote?

---------------------------------------------------

What if you run out of fuel on a bridge, and there's another stopped train in front of you? Does pushing push that one too, or damage it, or are you still stuck?

I'd imagine it does the same thing now when you're not out of fuel. That said, if the one in front of you is out of fuel, too, it sounds like you have a pretty major problem. But, you can also always couple the trains together....

---------------------------------------------------

Flintstone mode seems... silly and breaks any semblance of physics (inertia is not something so easy to overcome). Why not just add sidewalks to rail bridges instead, allowing the player to walk to the stuck train and refuel it?

My guess would be because of the way the game engine is written (remember: this is actually a 2D game with some faking for 3D looks). The devs have already mentioned that the ramps are as long as they are because of multiple trickery affects with the layer system that has to be done to allow trains to work on the elevated rails. Allowing players, and thus biters, on these would probably make things even more complex (especially when you consider you now have to somehow allow the player to path within and back out of the bounding box from the ends, but not from the sides).

[Sachertorte]

Genhis also just finished up Super-force building support for the Rail planner, so crusading over lakes is easier than ever.

Imagine dropping this bombshell as a throwaway line at the end of the FFF!

(for anyone who missed it: look closely at the bottom segments of rail in the last video about map-planning)

[Terrahertz]

Flintstone mode seems... silly and breaks any semblance of physics (inertia is not something so easy to overcome). Why not just add sidewalks to rail bridges instead, allowing the player to walk to the stuck train and refuel it?

Just ask the energy shield what it thinks about the laws of inertia, when it stop an entire train.

But let's think about this:

How can the engineer push a train? Well in actuallity he would not, probably he would get out, scale the guardrail and get fuel. OR all of those entities have a handcrank, to VERY slowly get them moving.
But to keep things simple and not add graphical overhead for a situation that should not happen that often to begin with, he can do it.

Another example where people are just fine with things the way they are:

How can this one tiny drone or the engineer carry an entire nuclear reactor/rocket silo/train? Well in actuallity they would not, they would do multiple trips to bring it in tiny pieces to where it needs to go.
But in order to keep things simple and not add graphical overhead for a situation that should not happen that often to begin with, they can do it.
And I know you build stuff all the time in the game, but most things are built once an then not touched for hours.

[Salzig]

With more and more stuff coming to 2.0, it feels more and more like a big-bang release I'm not used to with factorio, and I'm also not sure if I like it. Switching from 1.0 to 2.0 will get quite overwhelming I believe. And I'm not even talking about the expansion.

Have you thought about selling "Early Access" 2.0 to let users experience the iterations again?

This was discussed in FFF 365 (https://www.factorio.com/blog/post/fff-365)

Which is 38 (403-365) FFFridays ago. But more important, why change something when august is not that far anymore.

I hope I won't get overwhelmed by all the nice stuff we've seen so far.

[jgilmore42]

Since you've added manual pushing of wagons, I would love if you could I update the wagon model slightly. Adding a ladder at the end like North American boxcar, that our engineers would hang off of when riding them would be very amusing to me and hopefully others.

I second that. Adding a visual indicator that somebody is riding that railcar would be awesome. Finding somewhere to add the graphic of the rider would be difficult though, especially since you'd have to keep the scale the same so it feels right. No magically shrinking to half height when you hop onto a train! Maybe sitting on top? Riding it like a horse? Taking a nap on top? The "sniper lying down" pose? Something to indicate that he's interacting with his built-in VR interface to manage the factory?

I don't think riding the ladder on the end of the car would work out scale wise, but it'd be nice if it did.

[Haighstrom]

This was all wonderful. I think remote controlling trains should be behind a slightly advanced tech.

[grandexar]

This is awesome! I’m definitely going to need a reminder on all the new QOL features once the update comes out!!! Hopefully there will be a little article in the in-game wiki! Or maybe a feature list somewhere?!

[mmmPI]

I like the flintstone mechanic, it is necessary for elevated rails in my mind, if you run out of fuel above water, but it wasn't necessary to also make it available for single wagon and i like the extra details.

I like the ability to copy color and limits by naming the station the same a an existing, my routine previously was to go to map view and find a similar station to copy paste, which was unecessary user clicks and manipulation and not always easy to find a particular station in the mess of name.

I like the hiding name of train station but having them visible on hover idea, that's again a nice detail added to the just hide/show possibilities.

I'm not user of rail planner , but i may give it another try to see if it has become less frustrating to use, though it may be impossible for it to be as convenient as force blueprint, which i'm eager to try a lot more. I was already prefering blueprinting than rail planning so i think it's not going to change, but when actually playing things are different than wild speculations on the forum

I think remote manual driving has a lot of fun potential, with mods like renai's transportation, where it can easily happens than a train jumps on a ramp and then crash on the ground due to speed miscalculation, now it will be a whole lot safer to make some goofy designs and test them with appropriate safety measures. I know it's niche but looking at it this way makes it SO GOOD I would never to manual drive anymore anyway otherwise.

[Bi0nicM4n]

Dear devs! Consider adding some kind of black & white outline to the icons in the train stop names that are shown on the map, or maybe even showing the whole name as a label on a white background. For example, in this video from your today's post I noticed that icons for stone and sulfur were almost blending in with the transport belt lines displayed on the map.

[voxelv]

"Players can push locomotives with their feet, flintstone style".

Please please PLEASE make the locomotive/cargo wagon go faster if you're wearing lots of exoskeletons!

[Kalanndok]

About the problem on how to refuel a stuck train on a water-bridge...

Why not just giving bridges emergency-solar-panels which allow them to power trains so they can drive at 5 km/h maximum speed while on the bridge until they are on solid ground again?

[GalegO]

Taking the opportunity of Train Station subject, I have two Small QOL request.

- Increase the number of the Positions (white brackets);
- Inform the number inside it, so we don't need to manually count them to place the trains.

Thank you!

[FuryoftheStars]

- Increase the number of the Positions (white brackets);

There's a setting in game for this.

[robot256]

About the problem on how to refuel a stuck train on a water-bridge...

Why not just giving bridges emergency-solar-panels which allow them to power trains so they can drive at 5 km/h maximum speed while on the bridge until they are on solid ground again?

Almost nobody talks about the ability to couple and uncouple wagons on the track. If a train gets stuck with no passenger onboard, it will be possible to drive another train onto the bridge, couple to the stuck train, and push or pull it off. If you can couple/uncouple by remote, then this will be solved.

Uncoupling is a little annoying because you can't specify which end to uncouple first. I made a helper mod to make it more predictable.

[linktothepast83]

Amazing stuff as always! I barely comment since i always find everything well thought out and have nothing of value to add.

This time i was thinking of something i would like to ask for the train stations which might make them more convenient. Why not make train stops handle the fuel refueling process automatically for every train stationed? Having a fuel only inventory for train stops that you could fill or make it work like a requester chest. Apart feeling more natural to have the train station handle automatically the refueling you wouldn't have to cater for the refuelling needs for different types of trains in your station. I always found annoying having to cater for the refuelling needs of different train configurations like 1,4 and 2,2 etc. And refueling should be the natural job for the train stop and not of manual labor for the player imo. Plz consider such a change in the expansion, thanks!

[KatherineOfSky]

I just posted my reaction to this news on my channel, but TLDR = YAY!

To round out the improvements to remote access, I would like to suggest a fuel drone, something like a long distance drone that will carry 1 stack of fuel to a train that has run out. The awesome solution would be something like these IRL long-distance drones that deliver medical supplies to remote locations in Africa. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t30taY9a3ZM

They are literally launched with a catapult! I'd love to see a catapult mechanism in the game sitting atop a supply chest that would request both fuel and drones to be loaded in!

The easy solution would be a regular logi bot, or a purpose-built bot. A chest could be like one we've seen in several modpacks the "bot chest", which charges bots at the fraction of the size of a roboport.

The drones could be one-time use, or maybe they limp back to the base if they are designed to be reusable.

Anyway, it would alleviate headaches with coming back from another planet just to fuel a train.

Anyway, awesome job with the improvements, am so excited about 2.0!!!!

Edit: I apparently missed one of the FFFs where bots will refuel the trains. Regardless, the catapulted drone seems kinda awesome to put in the game

[Doorknob]

Blog 7? D-isn't this the one I read? Let's check it out...

"Players can push locomotives with their feet, flintstone style".

GRAND TRAIN!!

FLEENSTONES?! Awwwgh...

Grand Train... Grand Train?!

WHAT THE F***?! GRAND TRAIN?! GRAND TRAIN!

What the s***! Grand Train...

[Kyparos]

I think the ultimate thing for making remote control of your factory while you are away is a drone hub cart for trains. Just think of it, it already possible to spread your logistics network by placing new drone posts on the edge of it, but it would make process simply annoying to reach distant ore patch.
With a drone hub cart you can easily build station for providing supply for new outpost and initial drone post and then develop outpost in a usual way. Railway fixes also would be easier when you are away with this feature.

You have just described a spidertron.

That said, a "roboport wagon" could be interesting.

Kinda, spidetron doesn’t allow to automate thinks rather then just make manual additions. And spidetron is an endgame content, I think there would mid-game solution

[Kyparos]

I think the ultimate thing for making remote control of your factory while you are away is a drone hub cart for trains. Just think of it, it already possible to spread your logistics network by placing new drone posts on the edge of it, but it would make process simply annoying to reach distant ore patch.
With a drone hub cart you can easily build station for providing supply for new outpost and initial drone post and then develop outpost in a usual way. Railway fixes also would be easier when you are away with this feature.

Allowing trains with a drone cart to build route on a ghost rails and stop’n’go whenever end of build track is reached would make building rails roads much more streamlined process. Here also comes new system of interrupts, when there are not enough of rails go back and get some. This would require a double headed train and something like a crisscross lane change (if you use right-/lefthanded rail system), but still sounds like a new interesting task on a way of global automation.

Absolutely, yes, please! I suppose as someone else just mentioned there are spidertrons, but I still feel an actual train would be more fitting (if the pathfinder can be setup to work for this, of course).

But it may be more fitting to have it as a special locomotive vs a special wagon. The construction bots would need recharging in some way and I feel allowing a nuclear reactor into an equipment grid which you then can't use to power the train would be wrong. Instead the bots should probably get their energy straight from the locomotive(s), burning through fuel faster, and thus the need for more fuel slots may be relevant. As an offset, too, so these don't become the defacto locomotives with just all around better capabilities (or as a wagon, a defacto inclusion to any train), they should probably have a much lower top speed (like half, at least).

Of course, for them to be really useful, there'd have to be some way for them to automatically detect damage/breakage in the rails lines and automatically dispatch to repair.

---------------------------------------------------

[*]It would be a lot easier if the "HOLD [ctrl+]shift" for rail planner [with obstacle avoidance] was replaced with "press shift/ctrl to TOGGLE", as it would also help in resolving the above issue.

Going further, if it is a toggle, then there's no need to even use modifier keys. There are other keys bound to contextual actions make no sense while placing rails, and thus can be reused while in rail placement mode. For example, F or G. F is already overloaded for different contexts (pick up items on ground, flip blueprint); might as well add another special context to its binding.

This would avoid issues where Shift+R is used to reverse rotation, but Shift also toggles rail placement mode. A developer can try to smooth over the rough edges of that situation, but it's never perfect. For example, I might press Shift in preparation to rotate, but then I change my mind. I release Shift and now I've toggled my placement mode. That has annoyed me in numerous applications/games in the past.

I support this!

---------------------------------------------------

Will we be able to drive the trains backwards from remote if they are in a deadlock and just have one locomotive?

Considering we can drive them backwards manually anyway, why wouldn't we be able to with remote?

---------------------------------------------------

What if you run out of fuel on a bridge, and there's another stopped train in front of you? Does pushing push that one too, or damage it, or are you still stuck?

I'd imagine it does the same thing now when you're not out of fuel. That said, if the one in front of you is out of fuel, too, it sounds like you have a pretty major problem. But, you can also always couple the trains together....

---------------------------------------------------

Flintstone mode seems... silly and breaks any semblance of physics (inertia is not something so easy to overcome). Why not just add sidewalks to rail bridges instead, allowing the player to walk to the stuck train and refuel it?

My guess would be because of the way the game engine is written (remember: this is actually a 2D game with some faking for 3D looks). The devs have already mentioned that the ramps are as long as they are because of multiple trickery affects with the layer system that has to be done to allow trains to work on the elevated rails. Allowing players, and thus biters, on these would probably make things even more complex (especially when you consider you now have to somehow allow the player to path within and back out of the bounding box from the ends, but not from the sides).

Maybe, but wouldn’t be a cart with modules grid be a better solution? Some things like train pumps could be added to dis-/charge the cart, and we getting accumulator cart and laser turret cart as a bonus. Not saying that module grid is a already working framework for transport (so potentially there shouldn’t be that much of a trouble implementing it ) so adding new modules in the future would add even more possibilities, not saying about mods.

But why not locomotive u could ask. Well, for me it’s about keeping things simple. Locomotive is already doing a lot of stuff, and factorio as I see it provide us with simple unit objects so we can build our own complicated mechanism. If you are concerned about signal length, other parts of the train could be tanmiters of roboport signal, two carts in each direction max will do for conventional one locomotive train, if you need more, just add more carts.