Friday Facts #392 - Parametrised blueprints

[GottZ]

so.. I still need dozen of blueprints for individual items, to create train stops and the actual trains. that's a bit sad.
the parametric stuff is awesome. don't get me wrong there.. it's just only delivering 80% of what is required for trains to work.

It's especially funny, since the blog shows train station blueprints, but doesn't allow setting train station names.
I also noticed I can't set train station color within the parameters, and since it can't be set via circuit network either, this really feels like a 80% solution that was too hard to finish to 100%.

In essence, this makes me want to build a blueprint book via Lua instead of using the UI for parameters.

[SirSmuggler]

but doesn't allow setting train station names.

Mabye you can't sett the text-part of the name i BP-parameters, but you can sett the icon-part of a station name as a parameter. I have done this my self. I've got an generic ore-station BP and the train station gets the apropriate ore-icon from a parameter.

[GottZ]

Mabye you can't sett the text-part of the name i BP-parameters, but you can sett the icon-part of a station name as a parameter. I have done this my self. I've got an generic ore-station BP and the train station gets the apropriate ore-icon from a parameter.

oh you are right!

11-07-2024, 15-16-14.png (16.86 KiB) Viewed 2999 times

the train name is changed too, even though it's not listed!
that's a bug I guess.

[TheDeadFerryman]

Hi!
First I'd like to say that this feature is huge. I mean, HUGE.
I had an experience playing Bobs+Angels a while ago. I decided to go with modular train-oriented base (basically City Blocks) with trains orchestrated by LTN.
And I was really dried up fiddling with combinator settings for each and every new station, and then trying to catch errors due to some value set slightly incorrectly on one of the stations.
Now with this it would be much less irritating (not to mention that with new train features you wouldn't need LTN at all in most cases).

However, there is one feature I feel missing - detached intermediate variables. I mean, there's no way now to declare a variable that wouldn't be physically present in the blueprint (like in one of combinators). I'm currently building a modular rail station system and I need to squeeze in a constant combinator to hold these variables
that I only use in formulas. E.g. I need train length (wagon-wise) and wagon slots count as inputs, which I then use in a formula to specify the total train capacity.
These input values are not supposed to show up in any of the result combinators, but there's no way to do that. I tried to configure everything first in a constant combinator then delete it from the blueprint, but this also deletes the variables.
It's not like it is a big deal to have a constant combinator that does nothing once built in the world, it just feels... ugly

[Seppl1]

2) They are so complex that they are tantamount to doing real programming, but without the support of real programming tools, and real programming would actually be easier. This is where Enterprisey tools often end up. I've seen some horrific "no code" applications that would have been dramatically simpler if a few lines of Python had been allowed.

I cannot stress enough how true this is!

that I only use in formulas. E.g. I need train length (wagon-wise) and wagon slots count as inputs, which I then use in a formula to specify the total train capacity.
These input values are not supposed to show up in any of the result combinators, but there's no way to do that. I tried to configure everything first in a constant combinator then delete it from the blueprint, but this also deletes the variables.
It's not like it is a big deal to have a constant combinator that does nothing once built in the world, it just feels... ugly

Even accepting that there is an extraneous constant combinator, it's extremely tedious to set it up. You need to stuff it with signals that you can later use as variables. Single-letter variable names. "Did I use 'S' for 'Storage capacity', or 'C' for 'storage Capacity' here? What was 'W' again? Ok, use 'T' as 'Threshold'. Wait, I need an upper and lower threshold." And then you look at the parametrization GUI and still get confused by a list of meaningless letters and numbers.
You can give things longer names in the parametrization GUI, but you need to set up all signals before you get to that point, because you can't modify the contents of the blueprint (at least not in a useful way) once you create it. You've spent 10 minutes faffing about with the formulas and you realize that you forgot a variable? Or even just that something would be easier to think about if you extracted it out into a separate variable? Well tough luck, because now you need to throw away all of the work you already did, create a new blueprint (or select new contents for the existing one, which also deletes all of the parametrization) and start over.

I hope I don't come off as too negative. Parametrization already saves a ton of time, and I'm happy that it exists.
I'm just stuck in this frustrating middle-ground where I want to use the time saving for something but I don't want to go through the tedium of setting it up.