Factorio Forums

MeduSalem wrote:
Also I agree that there are worlds colliding currently and that probably there should be a blackbox environment for complex stuff for those who really need it, altough it somehow would be a little bit against the "what you see is what you get"-feeling of factorio where each item that is doing something is somehow physically present on the map and where the transformation from input to output is transparent to the user.

We don't have a direct visual access to the containers, as well as train schedule, yet we have to make few clicks to see what's there. The black box wouldn't be very different from that. Don't you agree?

hitzu wrote:

MeduSalem wrote:
Also I agree that there are worlds colliding currently and that probably there should be a blackbox environment for complex stuff for those who really need it, altough it somehow would be a little bit against the "what you see is what you get"-feeling of factorio where each item that is doing something is somehow physically present on the map and where the transformation from input to output is transparent to the user.

We don't have a direct visual access to the containers, as well as train schedule, yet we have to make few clicks to see what's there. The black box wouldn't be very different from that. Don't you agree?

Well, I wouldn't have that much of a problem with a blackbox... would be a lot cleaner and less of a mess in the map. Also more functionality crammed into the same space without becoming too confusing, which is always something I am favoring.

That said I think that the "what you see is what you get"-thing I mentioned is basically what the Devs are intending to do... or otherwise they would have implemented the Circuit Network Logic stuff directly into a blackbox right from the beginning.

MeduSalem wrote:

hitzu wrote:

MeduSalem wrote:
Also I agree that there are worlds colliding currently and that probably there should be a blackbox environment for complex stuff for those who really need it, altough it somehow would be a little bit against the "what you see is what you get"-feeling of factorio where each item that is doing something is somehow physically present on the map and where the transformation from input to output is transparent to the user.

We don't have a direct visual access to the containers, as well as train schedule, yet we have to make few clicks to see what's there. The black box wouldn't be very different from that. Don't you agree?

Well, I wouldn't have that much of a problem with a blackbox... would be a lot cleaner and less of a mess in the map. Also more functionality crammed into the same space, which is always something I am favoring.

That said I think that the "what you see is what you get"-thing I mentioned is basically what the Devs are intending to do... or otherwise they would have implemented the Circuit Network Logic stuff directly into a blackbox right from the beginning.

For small and simple contraptions it's purely useless to put them in a box. It is mostly needed for large and messy ones that need a lot of debugging at first and a lot of room and order.

hitzu wrote:For small and simple contraptions it's purely useless to put them in a box. It is mostly needed for large and messy ones that need a lot of debugging at first and a lot of room and order.

Well if it's just one simple condition or something like that you want to check upon you are right. Then it probably would be a little bit tedious to go inside the blackbox and set it up for just that one thing.

But then again I don't really know what people are expecting when they say they want to have a blackbox... if they want it to be once again a conceptual mess where only an expert finds his way around or if they want to make that somewhat accessible as well, almost like Visual Scripting tools or something like that. Because otherwise it's just moving mess from one place to another... out of sight, out of mind. Might as well throw a big blanket over the combinator mess in the map then... would be almost as good.

MeduSalem wrote:remember when they used to say "we don't want to convolute/clutter the crafting menu with unnecessary items that only serve one special purpose"... but that's basically what they have been doing (or had to do) for quite a while now, especially with the Combinator stuff and recently with the increased amount of special inserters as well as some other things... and yet all of these features are still quirky and fiddly or lack much needed functionality.

You make it sound worse than it is, but the devs need to be very careful that they don't walk into the wrong direction here.

There is already room for cleanup. Red/green wires should not exist as a thing, they should pop out of the combinators on demand. Iron stick is ridiculous. Half of the "combat" tab is useless. We do not need three different boxes, one box with 50 slots would be enough.

Stuff like that. Needs cleaning up.

MeduSalem wrote:But then again I don't really know what people are expecting when they say they want to have a blackbox... if they want it to be once again a conceptual mess

Well, I can only voice my own opinion, I do not know what others want.

I would already be happy if the "blackbox" did use the same combinators that we have right now, just in a clean visual (schematic) layout, with autorouting for the wires, automatic layouting if you want it, the ability to single-step/simulate, some test inputs/outputs, etc. And modability, so that all the missing stuff could be modded in.

THEN we can think about what kind of "combinator" we actually want in such an environment. What you're asking for is for Twinsen to invent an amazing visual programming language that will make everybody happy (not going to happen), as if that was in any way easy. All I want is a sane environment to develop in, with no unnecessary quirks, such as "zero" not being a value, or not having a "not equals" operator.

The combinators that we have are not THAT bad, a few changes would greatly improve the usability already, there's no need to throw it all away and design something new from scratch.

you're missing the option for customizing vehicles and turrets like you can with power armor.

You've missed reading the title of this thread, which is "Circuit network features for 0.14.

(BTW word is on the street that the vehicles will get an equipment grid like armor.)

MeduSalem wrote:

aeros1 wrote:

• Same with disabling station - you may already sorta disable by making correct setup with circuit network and checking stocks. Seems unnecessary simplification but if intent to simplify game for more casual{/list]

You can't really disable a station. Trains will still go there (if the station is free that is or if there's just no other free one around) even if you don't want them to. Yeah, the trains may wait there forever if you set the right conditions for leaving, but some people don't want trains to unnecessarily go to such stations in the first place if all they are going to do there is wait. In the end you only need more trains than necessary because a lot of them will be just waiting somewhere instead of going to where they are really needed.

Good point.

MeduSalem wrote:

aeros1 wrote:

• Radar ideas - ideas are not that bad. Though don't see how it could be used, but same with circuit network someone might find it useful

To avoid having to lay 10 miles of circuit network wire to the outposts... because it is really annyoing.

More ment amount of biters.

MeduSalem wrote:

aeros1 wrote:

• Assembly machine set recipe - Please no. The game is already beatable with pretty small factory now. With this I may even beat game using teoretically 1 assembler of each type(by refeading recently crafted ingredients(although circuit logic would be fun if we could only have short pole for more visibility in network)). I wouldn't be against opening it for modding, but if the reason to encourage large factories it is counter productive as lots of things especially not urgent now can be crafted by omnifab

But what's more important is that you wouldn't have to use it if you don't like it, just like a lot of stuff in the game isn't really necessary to win the game or just a matter of taste. I for example never use Solar Power because I think it's boring and lacks serious downsides that make the feature "challenging", but if most other people are fine with it who am I to continue arguing about it. I used to but recently I came to the conclusion there's no point in it and if I don't like something I just don't have to use it. I don't have to ruin the "fun" for everyone else, even if I don't really understand what's really that "fun" about Solar Power in my case.

Yeah you could beat the game with one assembler of each type but it would take forever due to the assemblers having to do everything sequentially. It would be comparable to handcrafting speed (okay maybe a bit faster especially with AM3, but not by much), so you would eventually have to have multiple such smart assembling setups or otherwise it would be tedious. So in my opinion you are pretty overexaggerating the negative effect it would have. On top of that you would have to implement a lot of circuit network stuff around the assembler anyways to make the recipe switch for that many recipes even possible. And that's a lot of work too.

Not really once you have bluprints of blocks. And yes I overaxagerrated, but assemblers of all kinds are even now not most high on demand production. Now you short out for all conditional stuff you don't need huge quantities of. (Pipes, special belts, special kind of ammo, inserters, rails. In fact you don't need killer numbers of most things except (science, ammo, rocket parts) those likely to have own production line. Than there could be added long cycle for belts rails, pass signals, solar batteries and accumulators, robots. And really high cycle ones for all stuff you need little off. And indeed I ovexarated, but still it is more compact and polution friendly way. Like idea sounds fun and curious to play around yet somehow against main concept of game, that's why I am all for to make it possible and negative for it being present in main game.

MeduSalem wrote:

aeros1 wrote:

• Other operators - Really we have already all analogue logic operators which can be used as such *OR* is "+", *AND* is "*" *NOT* is "=0" output 1. This is even enough to write memory cell which can read and write information. What would be severly more useful is actually have counter. Not like it is impossible to write with memory cell though in fact if you don't normalize memory cell you get counter. And other operators are not required XOR is !(A==B) XNOR is A==B. Bitwise combinators are closer to useful, an selector ones would be at least somewhat usefull and preform unique option

[/list]

For example if you want to compare if both any amount of Iron Ore AND Copper Ore exist (meaning both could be any number greater than 0) you are out of luck though. Then you have to use the cumbersome approach of first scaling both signals down to either being "0" (if it doesn't exist) or "1" (if amount of ore is greater 0) using deciders so that they can be compared and then with a third decider compare if both signals in sum are >1. And for OR you basically have to do the same, just that you'd check if both signals in sum > 0.

So it renders certain contraptions really an overcomplicated mess because you have to use 3 combinators where one with an appropriate "AND" comparison (or "OR" respectively) would completely suffice. On top of that you have to start using virtual signals since you can't compare the original values directly, which makes things more complicated for the average user. And for people not that much into programming that's an issue because the game is not about showing off your math or programming skills... a fact many of the circuit network gurus seem to forget steadily.

It's something I have been stressing ever since the major overhaul of the Circuit Network introduced back with 0.12... that Factorio's approach to the issue may be unique, but in certain aspects way too fundamental, as if it was designed for a bunch of assembler programmers instead of gamers. It's an accessibility problem and a reason why a lot of people avoid getting into Circuit Network stuff because it seems overly complicated for anything more than just turning on/off some pumps in your refinery (the only real application as many deem).

If dedicated AND/OR comparisons would treat a signal value as "true" as long as it's anything BUT zero it would help with some contraptions greatly and it would be something that most people, even the ones who are not that much into programming would understand without having to look it up somewhere.

[/quote]
Nope just A*B would work great. If copper doesn't exist then 0*B=0 If iron doesn't exist than A*0=0 if both well 0*0=0 and A*B>0 for both. and it is reason for them to exist. I wish wiring would be allowed to be more clear like low ground based wiring under correct angles with thick enough wires to see, and severul visual busses per square to track(3 to 5). I just don't see reason as no reason for new belt types. IF you want compact game things why not use programator. Small ingame lua script programer that controls everything possible with circuit and logistic network. Much smaller setup. Not saying most likely you turn on and off machinery already, and such machinery has it's own decider which you may use in the end for free. Plus this way I am not limited to some proper logic and may create my own math rules if it would be required. Let's say this idea doesn't bring new and impacting as let's say logic train stops.

Edit1: XOR is digital logic operator so idepends how you define it. Though it is sane to define if one is 0 other >0. So yes normalization required.
Edit2: If somone doesn't like to use arithmentic combinator, you may use normal circuit logic
-o-o- is AND where"o" are deciders
/o\
\o/ is for OR
Edit3: 0 is value in factorio. If it not shown in your output it doesn't meen it doesn not exist. oil=0 is still valid expression even if you network not connected to any oil tanks what so ever (And always true in this case.) Though having to bypass A!=B operator with (A<B)&&(A>B) expression sometimes annoying. More annoying then implementing >= and <= with existing deciders(which can be in some cases just A<B+1 and A>B-1, or in same way as !=)

aeros1 wrote:Edit2: If somone doesn't like to use arithmentic combinator, you may use normal circuit logic
-o-o- is AND where"o" are deciders

The main problem is that you cannot use arithmetic in entities other than the arithmetic combinator. So if you want to make an AND/OR comparison inside, for example, an inserter, then you need an additional combinator.

Edit3: 0 is value in factorio. If it not shown in your output it doesn't meen it doesn not exist. oil=0 is still valid expression even if you network not connected to any oil tanks what so ever (And always true in this case.)

You cannot store "0" as a value together with a signal type, and you cannot transmit a specific signal with value "0" on a wire.

So it's definitely not a first-class value in Factorio. "Zero" and "undef" ("NULL") are the same, and it's a problem in some cases.

It also yields some funny, very unintuitive behaviour, for example the condition "Everything > 0" is always true if there are no inputs. (According to what you said it would be "false" because if there is no input, then "everything" is equal to zero). However, since there's no distinction between "zero" and "undef", something such as "everything = 0?" is really hard to define for an empty wire/input.

For example you cannot multiply by zero, unless zero happens to be a constant that you specify directly. It's not possible to have a signal with value "0", and multiply by that; but it would be useful.

siggboy wrote:You make it sound worse than it is, but the devs need to be very careful that they don't walk into the wrong direction here.

There is already room for cleanup. Red/green wires should not exist as a thing, they should pop out of the combinators on demand. Iron stick is ridiculous. Half of the "combat" tab is useless. We do not need three different boxes, one box with 50 slots would be enough.

Stuff like that. Needs cleaning up.

Well it wasn't my intention to make it sound worse than it is, sorry if I did. I just wanted to point out that there are some areas still needing improvement even if they have been improved like 5 times already, and also some unnecessary redundancy.

But well that list of things where I think there is reduncancy or where I had some ideas how they could be improved upon spans probably 50-60% of the items found in the crafting menu, but that's where most people would say I'm crazy because it's like saying "change or remove half of the game when the finish line is almost in sight" just to slipstream features into more "universal" ones, which is not really going to happen anyways.

Just to take the route further down a little bit even it's not really part of the thread topic... Infrastructure stuff like 7 different Inserters (while their stats only differ in minor ways), 4 different Logistic-Chests, 3 Regular Chests, 3 Types of Furnaces, 3 Assemblers at different speeds, a set of Belts/UnderGround/Splitters for 3 different Belt Speeds... Most of them I would have slipstreamed into one single item and if you want a faster version then use Modules, because let's not forget we have an entire array of Modules that change behaviour too. I also suggested having a Module that tells a machine if it is supposed to run on Fuel or Elecricity, which would have merged several Burner/Electric items into one, and also opened the possibility to run your entire factory (including assemblers etc) on coal if you want to. But whenever I suggested that some of it could be slipstreamed it always seemed like some people went all haywire, even the suggestions were meant for their good too.

I also agree with the Iron Stick as "Intermediate Product" (which would imply using it in a lot of recipes, but how many items do actually use it? 3? Axes, Lamps and Rail?)... and about the Combat tab... urgh I don't even want to look at it because that's the most overloaded tab of them all and it keeps on growing and growing and yet it still boils down to using the same 4-5 items out of the entire tab since the rest is only valid for a short period of time (often not even long enough to justify going for it in the first place) during a playthrough after which it can be dumped and never looked upon again. Some of it could be dealt with the major combat rebalance the devs have been postponing for quite some time already.

Overall that's not really meant negatively... the game is still in development... so it's normal that a lot of stuff just grows organically and may or may not lose the purpose or could be replaced with a more "universal" solution instead of having a lot of ad-hoc ones.

siggboy wrote:Well, I can only voice my own opinion, I do not know what others want.

I would already be happy if the "blackbox" did use the same combinators that we have right now, just in a clean visual (schematic) layout, with autorouting for the wires, automatic layouting if you want it, the ability to single-step/simulate, some test inputs/outputs, etc. And modability, so that all the missing stuff could be modded in.

THEN we can think about what kind of "combinator" we actually want in such an environment. What you're asking for is for Twinsen to invent an amazing visual programming language that will make everybody happy (not going to happen), as if that was in any way easy. All I want is a sane environment to develop in, with no unnecessary quirks, such as "zero" not being a value, or not having a "not equals" operator.

The combinators that we have are not THAT bad, a few changes would greatly improve the usability already, there's no need to throw it all away and design something new from scratch.

Well I didn't ask anyone to implement an amazing visual programming language or anything alike, because in my opinion that would go far beyond the scope of Factorio anyways since Factorio is about building a Factory and not really about software programming or electrical engineering where such things may have their place.

It's just that recently people are often talking about a blackbox item, but whenever it's mentioned they are mostly pretty vague about what they actually would like to see if such a feature would be really a thing.

Probably we can agree on the fact that if it's just banning whatever contraption one would place in the map into a sub menu without some additional "tools for convenience" (like the autorouting or step-by-step-testing you mention for example) then it wouldn't really be any better than not having it.

aeros1 wrote:Not really once you have bluprints of blocks. And yes I overaxagerrated, but assemblers of all kinds are even now not most high on demand production. Now you short out for all conditional stuff you don't need huge quantities of. (Pipes, special belts, special kind of ammo, inserters, rails. In fact you don't need killer numbers of most things except (science, ammo, rocket parts) those likely to have own production line. Than there could be added long cycle for belts rails, pass signals, solar batteries and accumulators, robots. And really high cycle ones for all stuff you need little off. And indeed I ovexarated, but still it is more compact and polution friendly way. Like idea sounds fun and curious to play around yet somehow against main concept of game, that's why I am all for to make it possible and negative for it being present in main game.

I think with blueprints of blocks nothing really matters anymore. Not even if you have to build dedicated setups for each single item in the game. Just blueprint it and be done with it, especially if you are using a Robot-based factory anyways.

aeros1 wrote:Nope just A*B would work great. If copper doesn't exist then 0*B=0 If iron doesn't exist than A*0=0 if both well 0*0=0 and A*B>0 for both. and it is reason for them to exist. I wish wiring would be allowed to be more clear like low ground based wiring under correct angles with thick enough wires to see, and severul visual busses per square to track(3 to 5). I just don't see reason as no reason for new belt types. IF you want compact game things why not use programator. Small ingame lua script programer that controls everything possible with circuit and logistic network. Much smaller setup. Not saying most likely you turn on and off machinery already, and such machinery has it's own decider which you may use in the end for free. Plus this way I am not limited to some proper logic and may create my own math rules if it would be required. Let's say this idea doesn't bring new and impacting as let's say logic train stops.

Like I replied to siggboy already... BlakeMW pointed out why the arithmetic methods of A*B, A+B etc are problematic in some cases:

BlakeMW wrote:There's a big limitation of * = AND, + = OR

Taking how "or" works in most programming languages, if you say:

a or b

Then if a is truthy you get the value of a, if b is truthy you get the value of b

The distinction between A * B and A AND B, would be that when you use A AND B you can get the unmodified value of A or B for the output, when using * you get the multiplied value out and you have to renormalize the value to get the original value, for example you'd have to take the value of A*B then divide it by B to get A, or have previously normalized B to 0/1.

So AND/OR can actually work in subtly different ways than arithmetic operations. I would actually favor having AND/OR as decider combinator options and working like in scripting languages (i.e. more pragmatic than strictly boolean)

Because of the way Factorio implements it currently you have to do extra work either before or after the comparison to renormalize/get back the values you want to continue working with. Sorry that it wasn't that clear that I meant this kind of behaviour in my own post.

Primarily I want a blackbox for these main reasons:

1) I want visually better environment where I can place combinators in non-space-optimized layouts for better readability without any penalty for that.

2) I want an exclusive ability to move combinators without breaking everything apart.

3) I want a black box would provide better connections between entities instead of the wiring mess. I want room to lay down cables orthogonally and in order. I want more color options for them.

4) I want the time would not count when managing with combinators there. I want the step-by-step debug mode when I can see signals travel and change.

Can a potential sounder, as mentioned in the blog post, be quite low level with samples read in and then played on instruction when as many samples as desired are loaded, as well as simpler midi like note signals? Circuit networks seem as if they could easily produce triangle waves for example.

This may require a faster than 60 per second option for circuit networks to make this work, like 10,000 per second, to make this not take forever.

If the rate of updating is variable on them, perhaps a slower option too, like once per second, for more passive parts of the network to be less demanding on compute.

Toggle mode and pulse mode for constant combinator

Do I understand correctly that this is a way to implement a button?

To prevent confusion, the devs may want to update this thread to reference version 0.15 now, since 0.14 is out with only the MP updates.

Rockstar04 wrote:To prevent confusion, the devs may want to update this thread to reference version 0.15 now, since 0.14 is out with only the MP updates.

+1

A better way than implement new Combinators were, if you can place notes on the current combinators or a way to better arrange them or make the wiring more visible and easier to understand.

Because its completely possible to put logic gates ,timers, and whatnot with current combinators, the problem is understanding them even if you built them. If you invent new types, this problem persists and makes the whole thing just more complicated.

One example is ,that you build some logic by inventing various helper signals A or B or a Fish signal by a constant combinator that go to say any decider combinator. And the same is done to a complex arrangement to form anything, and later you have a problem to understand what A signal from one of the combinators was for exactly. Because any of these combinators look so similar. And the wiring is often on top of each other, its sometimes impossible to read.

If you could place notes or visible cues that would certainly be more helpful. Open a constant combinator, and be able to write notes on it. Like simply giving it a name.

And to improve on combinators, something like the mod factorissimo solely for combinators would be golden. You can fit the logic for a timer into a bigger or visual distinct object. Create its inputs and outputs. Essentiall you then can do an AND gate combinator, but its made out of current stuff, and its user created and users can share it, optimize it and build more stuff with it.

As for me making white rock, or ceramic plating on ground like currently bricks and concrette work. It is not necessary to give extra movement speed as long as it is cheap enough. Than have instead of poles(still functionality should remain.) Low data-ports and thicker wires, pretty much same poles for circuit network. The problem is height of pole and combinators usually is different so offset of cables and shadows are so distracting. I think there is mod on mod portal which adds thicker cables and low profile dataport. Looks pretty ok.

A useful thing that I don't see in the poll would be a sunlight detector which would output the percentage of sunlight into the circuit.

Almalexia wrote:A useful thing that I don't see in the poll would be a sunlight detector which would output the percentage of sunlight into the circuit.

It should be simple to have connected solar panels output their current performance in kW.

I dont know if other people have this idea, they probably do. How about having the train stations being able to read the logistics network so that they can turn the stations on and off depending on how many items are in storage. Really I would like the train to be able to stay at its loading station until it can unload. If this has to be within the logistics network to be able to do so, how about having a logistics range extender purely for going along rail tracks that will extend the network but not accept robot interaction? That way the trains will stay out of the way until needed and storage wouldnt get overloaded by too many ores for instance