Factorio Forums

gaelyte wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 7:59 am When will the 0.17.26 released to make angel's bio industries work again ?

Soon (TM)

Koub wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:38 am

gaelyte wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 7:59 am When will the 0.17.26 released to make angel's bio industries work again ?

Soon (TM)

I'd love that to be in the changelog.

Bugfixes:
* Made angel's bio industries work again.

5thHorseman wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:20 am

Koub wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:38 am

gaelyte wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 7:59 am When will the 0.17.26 released to make angel's bio industries work again ?

Soon (TM)

I'd love that to be in the changelog.

Bugfixes:
* Made angel's bio industries work again.

I WANT to see that !

Why this recipe from angelsbioprocessing is now out of order?
The bug you're already fixed in 0.17.25 is about multiple INPUT ingridients.Noone saying about OUTPUTS. But you kill both rabbits at one shot. Second was innocent.
Okay. But how we can now create the same mechanics with new rules when we need for example in output one product at 100% chance and with 5% chance double quanity of that same product?

P.s. stop freaking and laughing about offtopics

nastyslave wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:08 pm Why this recipe from angelsbioprocessing is now out of order?

Code: Select all

    ingredients ={
      {type="item", name="temperate-garden", amount=1},
      {type="item", name="solid-fertilizer", amount=2}, },
    results=
   {  {type="item", name="token-bio", amount=8, probability=0.25},
      {type="item", name="temperate-garden", amount=1},
      {type="item", name="temperate-garden", amount=1, probability=0.05},  },

The bug you're already fixed in 0.17.25 is about multiple INPUT ingridients.Noone saying about OUTPUTS. But you kill both rabbits at one shot. Second was innocent.
Okay. But how we can now create the same mechanics with new rules when we need for example in output one product at 100% chance and with 5% chance double quanity of that same product?

P.s. stop freaking and laughing about offtopics

That's why we asked for the 0.17.26, in this update, the second rabbit will be revived and the recipes that produces two times the same item will be allowed again

Airat9000 wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:32 pm

https://mods.factorio.com/mod/Yuoki/discussion + viewforum.php?f=70

SuperSandro2000 wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 6:13 am Well gameplay wise it is feature complete. Nothing planned there.

You are right that it feels like beta when viewed from outside. But there is no automatism there, there is no beta-switch hanging in Wubes office that measures the rate of new features and when it goes below some limit turns the development to beta

I'm not even sure Wube will ever "call out" a beta phase. The EA development model (with its huge supply of beta-(or should we call them alpha?)-testers over the whole development) makes it relatively easy to just release a 1.0 after the bug list got small enough.

Bilka wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:34 pm

Airat9000 wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:32 pm

https://mods.factorio.com/mod/Yuoki/discussion + viewforum.php?f=70

more mods is dead!!
changes - delete lines - recipes not work it

Airat9000 wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:37 pm

Bilka wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:34 pm

Airat9000 wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:32 pm

https://mods.factorio.com/mod/Yuoki/discussion + viewforum.php?f=70

more mods is dead!!
2019-04-05_17-35-54.png


changes - delete lines - recipes not work it

We know and it will be fixed in the next update, please read the rest of the topic...

Time to add some integration tests with mods? I don't mean Wube is responsible for broken mods, but at least lets say there should be something to ensure a bugfix/balance change does not make every mod user cry.

glee8e wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 6:13 pm Time to add some integration tests with mods? I don't mean Wube is responsible for broken mods, but at least lets say there should be something to ensure a bugfix/balance change does not make every mod user cry.

This is experimental branch, we all are integration testers

Shogal wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:27 pm

glee8e wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 6:13 pm Time to add some integration tests with mods? I don't mean Wube is responsible for broken mods, but at least lets say there should be something to ensure a bugfix/balance change does not make every mod user cry.

This is experimental branch, we all are integration testers

Integration tester typically don't punch the dev so hard as some of us do

A. I'm very, very drunk. I got a bad review at work and I should not be posting anything online at all in this condition.
B. I highly recommend Sambucca.

That wasn't very relevant, so let me try this...

If you want to ban multiples of a single ingredient (as input or as output,) in a recipe... isn't there some indicator of reagents? In Angel's bioprocessing, the original seed/garden is generally a reagent to replacing itself and potentially producing another. So could we maybe allow THAT and not generally having two of the same ingredient?'

Reminder: I've had about 6 ounces of hard liquor. If this message is in legible english, count that as a success.

nljr wrote: Sat Apr 06, 2019 3:14 am A. I'm very, very drunk. I got a bad review at work and I should not be posting anything online at all in this condition.
B. I highly recommend Sambucca.

That wasn't very relevant, so let me try this...

If you want to ban multiples of a single ingredient (as input or as output,) in a recipe... isn't there some indicator of reagents? In Angel's bioprocessing, the original seed/garden is generally a reagent to replacing itself and potentially producing another. So could we maybe allow THAT and not generally having two of the same ingredient?'

Reminder: I've had about 6 ounces of hard liquor. If this message is in legible english, count that as a success.

Very well stated. I didn't find any typos or grammatical mistakes in that post. And I read over it twice. Kudos!

badtouchatr wrote: Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:45 am

nljr wrote: Sat Apr 06, 2019 3:14 am A. I'm very, very drunk. I got a bad review at work and I should not be posting anything online at all in this condition.
B. I highly recommend Sambucca.

That wasn't very relevant, so let me try this...

If you want to ban multiples of a single ingredient (as input or as output,) in a recipe... isn't there some indicator of reagents? In Angel's bioprocessing, the original seed/garden is generally a reagent to replacing itself and potentially producing another. So could we maybe allow THAT and not generally having two of the same ingredient?'

Reminder: I've had about 6 ounces of hard liquor. If this message is in legible english, count that as a success.

Very well stated. I didn't find any typos or grammatical mistakes in that post. And I read over it twice. Kudos!

You didn't look careful enough then, I found three mistakes: the comma in "(as input or as output,)", the apostrophe after the question mark in "… and not generally having two of the same ingredient?'", and the lowercase "english" in the last sentence. Nevertheless, I agree that there are surprisingly few mistakes for a text written while "very, very drunk". I've seen texts by sober people (native speakers as well as others) that were much badder worse.

Pi-C wrote: Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:41 am I've seen texts by sober people (native speakers as well as others) that were much badder worse.

LOL you got me. Am I fired then, as a native speaker of English and proofreader?

badtouchatr wrote: Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:50 am

Pi-C wrote: Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:41 am I've seen texts by sober people (native speakers as well as others) that were much badder worse.

LOL you got me. Am I fired then, as a native speaker of English and proofreader?

Fire you? That would be too drastic! The thing is, in our profession (native speaker of German here, working as proofreader/editor for German and English texts) you can only lose: Even if you are good at your job, if you have found >99% of the mistakes in a PhD-thesis, a book, or a journal, nobody but your client will know that you've basically fixed hundreds of errors, and rephrased something in almost every other paragraph. But because the new text is almost flawless, other people will judge your work by the typo in a footnote on page 174 that you haven't noticed; and with any bad luck, your client will complain that you've charged too much for your work. No, firing you for missing some minor mistakes -- in a forum on the Internet, on a weekend, and not acting in a professional role -- is nothing I would seriously consider!

We have to accept that we are just humans, that we are way better at beautifying texts than machines, and perhaps even most other humans (otherwise, why should they hire us in the first place?), but that we are not perfect. Texts that are good to read, without any mistake -- in regard to spelling and grammar as well as factual or formal errors -- are definitely an ideal that we should strive for. However, there is no reason to give way to despair if we have only minimized the number of mistakes as far as possible, without reducing it to zero.

Koub wrote: Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:48 am [Koub] Kind reminder : there's a serious off-topic drift, please stay on-topic

Sorry, didn't see your post while writing my reply -- no offence meant!