Factorio Forums

Exasperation wrote:

Simcra wrote:all ontick functions have been surrounded with the appropriate associative_table_count check similaraly to digging_robots_manager(event).

This is a bad idea. Rather than an optimization, this is an anti-optimization.

Code: Select all

if associative_table_count(t) ~= 0 then
    for k, v in pairs(t) do
        --do some stuff
    end
end

has strictly worse performance than just

Code: Select all

for k, v in pairs(t) do
    --do some stuff
end

this is because the associative_table_count version is equivalent to

Code: Select all

function waste_some_time (t)
    local time_to_waste = 0
    for k, v in pairs(t) do
        time_to_waste = time_to_waste + 1
    end
    return time_to_waste ~= 0
end

if waste_some_time(t) then
    for k, v in pairs(t) do
        --do some stuff
    end
end

Note how if the table is empty, you're doing the same loop setup and termination check in either case, but have added the overhead of a function call, a variable assignment, and a comparison. On the other hand, if the table isn't empty, you've added the overhead of a function call, a comparison, and an additional complete loop through the entire table (with variable assignments at each step). And by doing all this extra work, you've gained... absolutely nothing in return.

TL;DR: only use associative_table_count if you absolutely need to know how many things are in the table. If you just need to check if it's empty, replace

Code: Select all

if associative_table_count(t) ~= 0 then

with

Code: Select all

if next(t) then

or

Code: Select all

if associative_table_count(t) == 0 then

with

Code: Select all

if not next(t) then

or ask yourself if checking for emptiness is even necessary in this case (for the use case in question, it's probably better to just let the loop terminate because there are no elements to loop through than to throw in a separate emptiness check).

Exasperation wrote:Calling a function isn't really bad, it's a very small amount of overhead. It's just that in this case, you're calling a function that you don't need to call, so you're doing a small amount of work just for the heck of it. The part that's potentially really painful is the case where you actually have a large number of elements in the table. Say you've selected a 100x100 area to be mined out and you call associative_table_count(global.marked_for_digging) ~= 0. Now, suddenly you've added 10,000 unnecessary count = count +1 assignments, as well as 10,000 unnecessary k,v = next(global.marked_for_digging, k) assignments, 10,000 unnecessary k ~= nil comparisons... this is a lot of overhead, and after you've done it you're just going to find that the table isn't empty and you have to loop through the table again to do the actual work.

associative_table_count isn't dangerous for performance because it's a function, but because it has a (potentially very large) loop inside of it.

Vas wrote:Is this multiplayer ready? I'd like to use it as a subway system.

The plan being, I drill into the ground at the base, and drill into the ground at a far away ore pocket, then I use the minimap/map underground to find where I dug a hole at and drill my way through the ground with the tunneling vehicle, and then I proceed to lay my tracks out and set up my ore to a conveyor that takes it underground and it then gets loaded onto the train.

Exasperation wrote:

Simcra wrote:all ontick functions have been surrounded with the appropriate associative_table_count check similaraly to digging_robots_manager(event).

This is a bad idea. Rather than an optimization, this is an anti-optimization.

Code: Select all

if associative_table_count(t) ~= 0 then
    for k, v in pairs(t) do
        --do some stuff
    end
end

has strictly worse performance than just

Code: Select all

for k, v in pairs(t) do
    --do some stuff
end

this is because the associative_table_count version is equivalent to

Code: Select all

function waste_some_time (t)
    local time_to_waste = 0
    for k, v in pairs(t) do
        time_to_waste = time_to_waste + 1
    end
    return time_to_waste ~= 0
end

if waste_some_time(t) then
    for k, v in pairs(t) do
        --do some stuff
    end
end

Note how if the table is empty, you're doing the same loop setup and termination check in either case, but have added the overhead of a function call, a variable assignment, and a comparison. On the other hand, if the table isn't empty, you've added the overhead of a function call, a comparison, and an additional complete loop through the entire table (with variable assignments at each step). And by doing all this extra work, you've gained... absolutely nothing in return.

TL;DR: only use associative_table_count if you absolutely need to know how many things are in the table. If you just need to check if it's empty, replace

Code: Select all

if associative_table_count(t) ~= 0 then

with

Code: Select all

if next(t) then

or

Code: Select all

if associative_table_count(t) == 0 then

with

Code: Select all

if not next(t) then

or ask yourself if checking for emptiness is even necessary in this case (for the use case in question, it's probably better to just let the loop terminate because there are no elements to loop through than to throw in a separate emptiness check).

function table_not_empty(table)
	if next(table) then
		return true
	else
		return false
	end
end

Simcra wrote: Ok, what I'm trying to achieve with that is testing whether or not the table is empty. I thought there was a better way to do it but was not sure how to go about it. So you're saying do this?

Code: Select all

function table_not_empty(table)
	if next(table) then
		return true
	else
		return false
	end
end

if next(table) then
    --the stuff in here will only be executed if the table is non-empty
end

for k, v in pairs(table) do
    --the stuff in here will only be executed if the table is non-empty
end

Vas wrote:Is this multiplayer ready? I'd like to use it as a subway system.

The plan being, I drill into the ground at the base, and drill into the ground at a far away ore pocket, then I use the minimap/map underground to find where I dug a hole at and drill my way through the ground with the tunneling vehicle, and then I proceed to lay my tracks out and set up my ore to a conveyor that takes it underground and it then gets loaded onto the train.

Exasperation wrote:

Simcra wrote: Ok, what I'm trying to achieve with that is testing whether or not the table is empty. I thought there was a better way to do it but was not sure how to go about it. So you're saying do this?

Code: Select all

function table_not_empty(table)
	if next(table) then
		return true
	else
		return false
	end
end

You could do that, or you could just do the following:

Code: Select all

if next(table) then
    --the stuff in here will only be executed if the table is non-empty
end

But if the operations you want to perform on the table are in a for...pairs loop, you might as well just do this:

Code: Select all

for k, v in pairs(table) do
    --the stuff in here will only be executed if the table is non-empty
end

and it will work out basically the same as if you had wrapped the loop in a "if next(table) then" conditional, since the first thing the loop will do is call next(table) and exit the loop without doing anything if the table was empty - the work you expend to check for emptiness is about the same as the work you save by not letting the loop do it (I think it's very slightly more efficient to do the check yourself if the table is empty, but it's certainly slightly less efficient to do it yourself if the table isn't empty, since the loop will then have to duplicate the same not-empty check unnecessarily).

Lutra wrote:i don't mean to steal your work, but i was planning on making a mod that uses surfaces in a similar way to this. what i can't understand(and i've checked the control.lua of your mod) is how to check when the player is standing next to the elevator, and then to teleport them. this is a great mod by the way-i use it a lot for smelting machines: ore and coal go in one end and plates come out the other, in the space of an assembling machine

Vas wrote:I much prefer the graphic with the pole in the center of the elevator rather than having two on the sides of the elevator where items can "noclip" into it. What I mean is this;


It's an acknowledged bug, not intended design.

Also, why is every single item 2 iron plates? I'm trying to balance out the recipes right now.

Vas wrote:EDIT: I fixed the issue with the enemy AI by commenting out the map-settings LUA in "data.lua".

StanFear wrote:

Lutra wrote:can you make a vent that takes pollution down a level? or is that too cheaty

do you want it just to get rid of the pollution to some surface you'll never go to ? or is there a real reason (and of so, which is it?)
If the answer is yes to the first, then I won't. if you can provide me with a good reason to have that, I'll think about it!

flabort wrote:It could be difficult to program a way to make drills/elevators different colors based on levels; perhaps possible, based on this person's skill, but hard. I would enjoy this as it would be a nice touch, though.

flabort wrote:I don't agree on limiting depth; no point. Realistically, you could make a mineshat hundreds of levels deep, even on earth, before the heat got too much to bear, and I'm 90% certain this planet is bigger.
I guess that serves as an argument against reducing the effectiveness of vents as you go down, too. Because even if you pump up the pollution and down air, it's already not going the whole way.

flabort wrote:Making lights more nessesary underground, yes I would want that too. Disabiling solar panels underground, if it's possible I'd want it.

flabort wrote:I don't think a "subsurface-enabled = false" flag is possible. According to what I've been told, any flags the game doesn't understand are ignored, and theres no way to script a way to make it understand them. The mod creator could possibly script a blacklist of items in the script which operates the sublevels (Im just snowballing here) and check each time the event for a player building something fires if that something was on the blacklist (and if it was in a sublevel, if it had to be a global script), and if it was remove it and put the item back in the players inventory. This means if you're building a modpack and want something not buildable underground youd have to add it to the blacklist yourself, but whatever.

Vas wrote:I much prefer the graphic with the pole in the center of the elevator rather than having two on the sides of the elevator where items can "noclip" into it.

Vas wrote:Also, why is every single item 2 iron plates? I'm trying to balance out the recipes right now.

Vas wrote:I'd also like to see a small version of this item elevator. Perhaps one that just takes two blocks of space max, where it has a one way path. Place one at the top end that points in a direction, and place one at the bottom flipped with the arrow pointing towards the belt. Basically it would be one belt and one underground belt, that would be the entire graphic. Same for a fluid transport, only a bit different. A small 1x1 sized buffer tank that stores 1/8th the MK1 tank with only one side with a pipe on it, though I've not used the fluid elevator yet so I don't know how it works.

Vas wrote: I do not know what some of these items do yet, so I do not know what they should cost. The items I wanted to change don't appear to exist in game yet.
These are: digging-planner, deploy-digging-robots, assemble-digging-robots, digging-robots-deployment-center

Vas wrote: This is what I got so far for recipes.

recipes.lua

Vas wrote: EDIT:
I can't understand the code used in this mod, so I am unable to find and make some changes myself.
1. Digging needs to take longer, could you put that in a config file?
DigDuration = x
2. Digging needs to take more power. Would you also put that in the config file?
DigPower = "50kW" (current takes 50)
I've set it to 500 myself. "energy_usage = "500kW"," in the entities file.
3. I am unable to find out how you rendered these entrances and elevators. I wanted to alter the tunnel entrance and exit to move the big power pole to the center again like in the image up top but I failed at that.

Vas wrote:Well, I did include a new recipe file for anyone who wants to make to cost more realistically

I feel like this is breaking the enemy AI though. I've been stuck at 0.000% evolution for 2 and a half hours so far. Enemies aren't evolving.

EDIT: I fixed the issue with the enemy AI by commenting out the map-settings LUA in "data.lua".

kinnom wrote:the item elevators don't work when rotated to the east/west http://imgur.com/yovj7Dr
also, item elevators, fluid elevators and tunnel entrances can destroy stuff on other levels

Vas wrote:I've noticed two things today. I accidentally hit my tunnel exit when in the mobile bore destroying it, causing me o permanently be stuck down here forever. The other thing is, if you build a drill in the sub surface, it works and makes a second level of subsurface.

A suggestion for fixing these is to build a craftable tunnel exit that can only be placed in the subsurface to go up one level of subsurface territory.

Vas wrote: Another suggestion is to make the second level subsurface a different texture, like the first one is dirt and rock, make the next one stone and rock.
A tier 3 subsurface could be darker and darker. Tier 5 could be molten rock and allow you to go no further.

Vas wrote: I'd also like to suggest that there is no light in a second level subsurface or deeper, that you require using lights to light the path.
Vents should be half as effective per level meaning at a Level 5, a vent will only work 3.125% as efficient.

Vas wrote: Also, disable solar panels from working underground. Or add a line that allows you to make structures unbuildable underground. "SubsurfaceEnabled = False" to items and then with anyone who wants, they can add that line to their items in any mod to stop it from being place-able underground.

Vas wrote: I've also created a new group for the items of your mod out of personal preference and moved all items there.

EDIT: Further idea,
This idea came mostly from a mod "Simcra" made,
Add a logistic request chest that goes up or down a level. Placing a passive provider chest as the receiving end. The request chest sends items to the passive provider chest on the other level. The chest can only be up, or down. The Up chest can not be placed on the surface. Also add the invert as well, where you place a passive provider chest that goes up or down, so you can place it from the surface and see where you are placing it instead of just blinding sticking it somewhere.

Vas wrote: One further idea I had is instead of forcing the structures in the way of an item to be deleted or destroyed, when placing an item on one surface or the other, is to give the player the item that needs to be placed on the other side in his inventory and place a ghost on the other side that lasts an infinite amount of time. Give it say 500 hours of life. If there is a structure in the way, or something blocking it, emit an error in the console and tell the player they must move their object. In the event that it is a drill, scan below where you want to place the other end at and check if it is buildable before the drill begins digging. If there is an object, don't let the drill dig and emit the same error.

I hope that my input and ideas have helped you plan out your next update to the mod.