Factorio Forums

I looked up why this is not allowed and was entirely underwhelmed: it feels very wrong to be denied a feature just because of how some might use it

Furthermore, this is already possible, but in a super gimmicky way that won't get patched, so please just let us have it, pleading emoji

I want to make a flying doughnut, a flying infinity sign... the sky is the limit

You posted a thread where a developer already gave a clear answer to your proposal.
You did not bring a new argument.
You could have just as well replied the old topic.
There is already a way to achieve what you want even though it is hacky.
And you probably expect someone to take this suggestions seriously?

worph wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2026 3:24 pm You posted a thread where a developer already gave a clear answer to your proposal.
You did not bring a new argument.
You could have just as well replied the old topic.
There is already a way to achieve what you want even though it is hacky.
And you probably expect someone to take this suggestions seriously?

I understand neither your tone nor what you are saying: I've never asked for platform holes before

Note: In the latest experimental version of 2.1, you can set a circuit networked landmine to detonate and its really quite easy to make holes in ship because of it. just send landmine into space, place it somewhere on the ship you want a hole, then just set the condition to detonate when it is something = 0.

then you can fill it in to whatever shape you want.

need a bigger hole? place more landmines.

Almalexia wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2026 3:34 pm

worph wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2026 3:24 pm You posted a thread where a developer already gave a clear answer to your proposal.
You did not bring a new argument.
You could have just as well replied the old topic.
There is already a way to achieve what you want even though it is hacky.
And you probably expect someone to take this suggestions seriously?

I understand neither your tone nor what you are saying: I've never asked for platform holes before

There's an assumption that you can just be direct. In the best case you are right. In some cases it's murky. The worst case is two people who are, equally wrong because you have to explain to them how they just ended analyzing an idea.

On the one hand, you need to go further than saying "I've never asked for platform holes" because of the issues laid out here. This is a group effort. It's also in an environment where you could always expect someone to say you were wrong for any reason at all including the right ones.

On the other hand, the thread you posted demonstrated an exploit. The reason why a moderator can't come along, near as I can tell, and patch in "holes in space platforms" is that this is a feature request and not a request to prevent landmines from destroying foundation, that incidentally can allow that feature.

At this point, someone can still come along and ask if this feature makes life better. If it is only about "artistic license" a graphic design major can come in and say "Look, I have clients that do require things as crazy as 'the text must be done as a ribbon in a single stroke' and I can still draw an O". Do you have a technical reason why this would make the space platforms more or less awesome?

I have every reason to believe the developers discussed this, playtested it, and in this case had personal experience with the technical side of the idea (Earandel and Space Exploration). That's the bar you have to clear. If your presentation resonates, you'll get +1's. If not, you have to be satisfied that you contributed to development of a product. You're not always going to have good days as a volunteer.