Conveyor Belt Auto-Direction

[Nemoricus]

Currently, when you lay down conveyor belts, they are oriented in exactly one direction: the direction they had when you first started placing them down. This means that if you want to introduce a bend, you have to stop placing the belts, rotate them, and then start placing them again.

Since putting bends in a conveyor belt is such a common task, it would streamline the gameplay if they automatically changed direction if the player starts running them in a new direction. For example, you want to run a belt from north to south that then goes east to west:

1. Rotate the starting belt so that it runs north to south.
2. Drag the belt as far south as desired.
3. At the bend point, start dragging the belt to the west. It will automatically switch the orientation of the belt segments to east to west.

What if you wanted to do the reverse, where you begin at the end of the line and work your way back to its starting point? Simple:

1. Rotate the belt so that it faces east to west.
2. Drag the belt as far east as desired.
3. At the bend point, start dragging it north. Since you working in the opposite direction of the belt's orientation, it automatically rotate the belt so that it faces north to south.

[quinor]

What if you want the belt being placed direction it was heading, not direction you're dragging/running?

[ssilk]

It makes sometimes a lot of sense to place belts orthogonal, for example the trick to move spitters to your towers by placing belts. See psorek's question.

I try to see this in a bigger context:

I think, that is the same type of task, as
- laying rails from A to B
- building a train station with all the inserter positions, chests etc.
- building an standardized outpost
- building standardized mining
- placing poles from A to B
- cover area with roboports
....

I believe, that this are just more or less complex lua programs, that can create a blueprint.

This makes sense, cause in v0.12 the character will be able to BE a roboport. That enables endless possibilities, if the player can use predefined blueprints. Until that level I can think, that there are "helpers", like special key combo (Ctrl and place) that can do that, but I believe, that this won't be used by many.

(What I really would like to see is a command like shift R, rotate left, but that's off-topic)

[Nemoricus]

What if you want the belt being placed direction it was heading, not direction you're dragging/running?

You can click once for each belt you want to place like this. How often does it come up that you want to place a bunch of parallel belts, all adjacent to each other, and not a long single belt? Also, if you're dragging in a direction orthogonal to to the direction of the belt, I suppose it would make sense that it would put down the belts parallel to the original direction...

While I'll agree that this is like laying down rails, placing poles, and covering space with roboports, I don't see how it's equivalent to the other items on that list, ssilk. Putting bends in a belt is something you do for just about everything in the game, and not something you can blueprint except as part of a finished. Train stations, outposts, and mining set ups, on the other hand, are complete designs.

[ssilk]

Putting bends in a belt is something you do for just about everything in the game

You might not believe me, but I have really not a problem with placing belts. In practical usage I doubt, that I would use an automatic placing very often, cause when I place the belts, I need most time full control, because I need to place the belts precisely.

I really think a full automation would be hindering.

Train stations, outposts, and mining set ups, on the other hand, are complete designs.

Belt designs are most times the most complex things in Factorio.

I didn't say, it makes no sense, but I think you overestimate the usefulness of this a lot.

[bobingabout]

There are quite some weird and wonderful belt configurations that would become extremely hard to craft if your sugestion was implemented.

Don't get me wrong, I understand where you're coming from with this, but from my perspective (having played since version 0.9.8), pressing R a few times to change orientation when changing the direction I want my belt to go is far easier than the issues I'd get if the belt tried to decide what direction it wants to go for me.

By the fact that you're sugesting this, I'd guess you're at the 90% lines of belts, and 10% weird stuff stage. most of the rest of us that seem to be disagreeing with you are probably closer to the 50% lines, and 50% weird stuff stage.

Perhaps there could be an alt-placing mode key that auto-rotates for you, EG, holding Shift when running and placing belts lets them automatically change direction.


Probably the biggest issue with implementing this is... you've just run a line and now change direction, that last peice you've placed is now facing the wrong direction. Should it be rotated to the new direction? Adding in the logic to check that may cause other issues.

There's also the possibillity that you've made the destination point first, and are running a belt starting with it's end point(which I use just as often as often as start to end), with your sugestion, simply by running a belt with the hold LMB and run thing, it would automatically turn the belt to face the wrong way. Should end to start belt building be automatic too? (would actually be easier on the game because it wouldn't need to rootate that "Previous peice" when making a bend.)

[tobsimon]

Are there really so many situations where you want to click-hold-drag/move and expect belts to be parallel? Well I guess when building parallel belts maybe, but in this case i would do it lane by lane.

I really like the idea and don't think it will get in the way of complex setups, since the initial piece of belt will always be built as it is now. Auto-direction only kicks in with click-hold-drag/move.

As initially suggested, building in and in opposite direction is both possible.

• The process is like that:
  1. Rotate the ghost piece as desired.
  2. Click to build it.
  3. Hold and drag or move to built auto-directing subsequent tiles.
    - If you move forward (in direction of belt) to the next tile, you initiate forward building.
    - If you move elsewhere (backwards, left or right), you initiate backwards building.

This makes sense, because as it is now, the destination of a belt tile is definitive, while it's source is optional and even changes dynamicly depending on neighbours.

In the bigger context, this behaviour is consistent with the minimal connection feature already implemented for electric poles. There, when you click-hold-drag/move a electric pole is only built just before loosing the connection to the network.

Similarily click-hold-drag/move should:
- Only build connected pieces of railroad and insert curves when appropriate.
- Build connected underground pipes with max distance.
- Build drills, so that their catchment areas cover the ground (not right next to each other).
- Same with roboports.

Alternatively this behaviour could tied to holding the shift-key. But I don't think this is necessary.

[Koub]

- Only build connected pieces of railroad and insert curves when appropriate.

Already many suggestions for that, I think it's more or less int the devs' to-do list

- Build connected underground pipes with max distance.

Already many suggestions for that

- Build drills, so that their catchment areas cover the ground (not right next to each other).

Just no : there is an interest to have drills overlap their areas : throughput. The more you squeeze the drills, the faster the deopsit will be mined.

- Same with roboports.

Really ? autoplace a roboport every 50 tiles while running ? is it really a needed feature ?

[tobsimon]

I'm aware that most stuff in the bigger context is many times suggested elsewhere. It was more to ilustrate, that this behaviour would be consistent with other desired features.

You have a point with the drills. Also the problem to decide when to place the next drill so not to miss a tile gets surprisingly tricky, when not in a rectangular layout. So let's just drop that. Roboports too. Not really needed like you said.

For the rails, as pointed out here https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... 091#p64075 auto-replacing curves is actually not as easy, if you haven't got any information about intent. The click-hold-drag/move mode provides that intent.

[bobingabout]

- Same with roboports.

Really ? autoplace a roboport every 50 tiles while running ? is it really a needed feature ?

Very, I do this with Roboports almost as often as I do with Power poles. I have Roboports everywhere.

[ssilk]

You know, that for the construction-network purpose you need to place only every second port. Like a checkerboard.