Re: Version 2.0.34
Posted: Sat Feb 08, 2025 6:06 pm
I don't see an entry on recycling yet I get this message when loading a 2.0.33 save:
![Image](https://imgur.com/a/03pf43c)
Most likely it's due to 124333 Factoriopedia shows impossible recycling recipes.B4SK3 wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2025 6:06 pm I don't see an entry on recycling yet I get this message when loading a 2.0.33 save:
![]()
binaryDiv wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2025 4:45 pm I like what you did with the virtual signals, they look much nicer now.
However, I've noticed a (probably accidental) breaking change: The "ghost" virtual signal has been removed and there seems to be no migration to replace it with a different signal when loading a save game. All circuits using the ghost signal will therefore stop working after the update.
For example, if you have an inserter with the enable condition "[signal-ghost] > 0" and load this save game in 2.0.34, the configured signal will be removed, resulting in "[empty] > 0".
Was the ghost signal removed intentionally or simply forgot during the signal redesign?
I'm not sure what you mean, this is how it looks for me in 2.0.33:Hares wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2025 1:31 pm Can somebody confirm that before 2.0.34 the operation name for combs were centered?
02-09-2025, 16-31-49.png
Please, I beg to put this behind a setting. The vast majority of the time when I need to undo something it's because I have built one too many and want to undo just the one, and not the entire line of furnaces.FactorioBot wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2025 6:42 pm Changes
- Drag building produces one merge undo action per the whole drag, instead of the individual undo actions for every entity built.
I wondered why my Glebase died while I was chatting...Hares wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2025 1:24 pmbinaryDiv wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2025 4:45 pm I like what you did with the virtual signals, they look much nicer now.
However, I've noticed a (probably accidental) breaking change: The "ghost" virtual signal has been removed and there seems to be no migration to replace it with a different signal when loading a save game. All circuits using the ghost signal will therefore stop working after the update.
For example, if you have an inserter with the enable condition "[signal-ghost] > 0" and load this save game in 2.0.34, the configured signal will be removed, resulting in "[empty] > 0".
Was the ghost signal removed intentionally or simply forgot during the signal redesign?Is still there for me
Without adding a duplicate image, the results in stable 2.0.32 are the same (other than the symbol for each of course.)
For me personally, ∀ should be for "everything", ∃ for "anything", and something like → for "each"Chindraba wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2025 3:55 pm Lastly, the symbols for everything, each, and anything do seem like a nice switch. The anything, however, keeps feeling like an everything since the symbol is a mirror of the symbol for everything. I do get that ∃ is technically applicable for the context as well as being a pleasing balance, when stylised, to ∈ for everything. Perhaps, with the player base being less than 100% set theorists, you could get away with using ∀ for anything. Technically incorrect, yet the "A" shape would mesh with the anything better than a backwards rounded "E". I recognize that the 'a' in anything is an English language condition, and fails in many others. Yet I'd suspect that the set of non set theory aware users is much larger than the set of non-English aware users.
I'm curious, what was the blocker for LTO under gcc? Is this a bug in gcc?raiguard wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2025 6:47 pm A change that is not mentioned in the changelog is that Linux builds are now built with Clang instead of GCC, which has allowed us to re-enable link-time optimization on Linux builds. Linux players should see some performance improvements due to this.
When we enabled LTO on GCC we were getting "Undefined reference to main()" errors that we could not figure out how to fix. Bisecting resulted in a completely random commit related to trains that, when reverted, fixed the issue. But reverting was not an option because it fixed a critical bug.Omnifarious wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2025 11:34 am I'm curious, what was the blocker for LTO under gcc? Is this a bug in gcc?