Factorio Forums

PFQNiet wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:53 pm Should be fairly straightforward.

Code: Select all

local function process(recipe)
  if recipe.result == "processing-unit" then
    recipe.result = nil
    recipe.results = {type="item", name="processing-unit", amount=recipe.result_count or 1}
    recipe.result_count = nil
  end
  if recipe.results then
    for i,result in pairs(recipe.results) do
      if result.type == "item" and result.name == "processing-unit" then		--------lua:9
        table.remove(recipe.results,i)
        table.insert(recipe.results, {type="item", name="iron-plate", amount=2*result.amount})
        table.insert(recipe.results, {type="item", name="copper-plate", amount=2*result.amount})
      end
    end
  end
end

for _,recipe in pairs(data.raw.recipe) do
  if recipe.normal or recipe.expensive then
    if recipe.normal then process(recipe.normal) end		--------lua:20
    if recipe.expensive then process(recipe.expensive) end
  else
    process(recipe)
  end
end

That should replace any processing-unit results in all recipes with 2 iron + 2 copper plates. I haven't tested, but I assume the game engine just adds together duplicate result entries, so it won't cause issues if iron or copper plates are also results of the recipe.

If you want, you can use similar code for replacing the ingredients as well as the results.

[..]lua:9:attempt to index local "result" (a number value)

stack traceback:
lua:9: in function "process"
lua:20:in main chunk

local function process(recipe)
    if recipe.result == "processing-unit" and recipe.name ~= "processing-unit" then	--------Added check name not equal (~=) to avoid original recipe being messed up
    recipe.result = nil
    recipe.results = {type="item", name="processing-unit", amount=recipe.result_count or 1}
    recipe.result_count = nil
  end
  if recipe.results then
    for i,result in pairs(recipe.results) do
      if recipe.results and recipe.name ~= "processing-unit" then			--------Added check name not equal (~=) to avoid original recipe being messed up
        table.remove(recipe.results,i)
        table.insert(recipe.results, {type="item", name="iron-plate", amount=2*result.amount})
        table.insert(recipe.results, {type="item", name="copper-plate", amount=2*result.amount})
      end
    end
  end
end

for _,recipe in pairs(data.raw.recipe) do
    process(recipe)
end

oldskoolmatt wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 1:30 pm

PFQNiet wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:53 pm Should be fairly straightforward.

  if recipe.results then
    local name, amount, amount_min, amount_max, probability, catalyst_amount
    for i,result in pairs(recipe.results) do
      -- Long version, may also take other properties like amount_min or probability!
      if   result.type and result.type == "item" and result.name == "processing-unit" then
        name = result.name
        amount = result.amount
        amount_min = result.amount_min
        amount_max = result.amount_max
        probability = result.probability_amount
      -- Short version
      elseif not result.type and result[1] == "processing-unit" then
        name = result[1]
        amount = result[2]
      -- Result is not a processing-unit
      else
        name = nil
      end

      if name then
        table.remove(recipe.results,i)
        table.insert(recipe.results, {type="item", name="iron-plate", amount=2*amount, amount_min = amount_min, amount_max = amount_max, probability = probability, catalyst_amount = catalyst_amount})
        table.insert(recipe.results, {type="item", name="copper-plate", amount=2*amount, amount_min = amount_min, amount_max = amount_max, probability = probability, catalyst_amount = catalyst_amount})
      end
    end
  end
end

results =
	  {
	  {type = "item", name = "iron-plate", amount = 2},
	  {type = "item", name = "copper-plate", amount = 2},
	  {type = "item", name = "iron-plate", amount = 4},
	  {type = "item", name = "copper-plate", amount = 4} 
	  },

Pi-C wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:15 pm I'm not sure (and can't check right now -- not at home) if this will work. Will the game automatically add the 2 iron-plates from the original recipe to the 4 iron-plates from the new result? Will {type = "item", name = "iron-plate", amount = 4} overwrite {type = "item", name = "iron-plate", amount = 2}? In this case, you'd have to go over the other results that are not replaced, check if any of them has the same name as the new results, add the amounts, and remove both of the old results.

Recipes may look simple, but having a "should be straightforward" attitude about them spells T-R-O-U-B-L-E according to my book.

Deadlock989 wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:21 pm

Pi-C wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:15 pm I'm not sure (and can't check right now -- not at home) if this will work. Will the game automatically add the 2 iron-plates from the original recipe to the 4 iron-plates from the new result? Will {type = "item", name = "iron-plate", amount = 4} overwrite {type = "item", name = "iron-plate", amount = 2}? In this case, you'd have to go over the other results that are not replaced, check if any of them has the same name as the new results, add the amounts, and remove both of the old results.

Strangely enough the game does allow it (from memory the same isn't true for ingredients). I guess it's useful for flexibility with results that have probabilities, so e.g. you can guarantee 1 result and then have an arbitrary probability of a second.

Without probabilities you end up with things like this though, which is ugly:

All of the given advice so far also fails to take normal and expensive recipe data into account. The best way to handle it would be to look in root, normal and expensive, build a table indexed by ingredient name, add your new results to any existing ones or create a new entry if not, then overwrite the results in each of the three possible properties.

Pi-C wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:15 pm

oldskoolmatt wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 1:30 pm

PFQNiet wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:53 pm Should be fairly straightforward.

Not quite. This will work for a recipe that you have just defined. But don't take for granted that it will work when other mods have had a chance to mess with it!

The problem is, recipe.results is expected to be a table of ProductPrototype. recipe.results.type is an optional property and will default to "item" if not set. So you can't rely on it being present.

I'd make the code more flexible:

Code: Select all

  if recipe.results then
    local name, amount, amount_min, amount_max, probability, catalyst_amount
    for i,result in pairs(recipe.results) do
      -- Long version, may also take other properties like amount_min or probability!
      if   result.type and result.type == "item" and result.name == "processing-unit" then
        name = result.name
        amount = result.amount
        amount_min = result.amount_min
        amount_max = result.amount_max
        probability = result.probability_amount
      -- Short version
      elseif not result.type and result[1] == "processing-unit" then
        name = result[1]
        amount = result[2]
      -- Result is not a processing-unit
      else
        name = nil
      end

      if name then
        table.remove(recipe.results,i)
        table.insert(recipe.results, {type="item", name="iron-plate", amount=2*amount, amount_min = amount_min, amount_max = amount_max, probability = probability, catalyst_amount = catalyst_amount})
        table.insert(recipe.results, {type="item", name="copper-plate", amount=2*amount, amount_min = amount_min, amount_max = amount_max, probability = probability, catalyst_amount = catalyst_amount})
      end
    end
  end
end

Also, looking at what oldskoolmatt expects as new results:

Code: Select all

results =
	  {
	  {type = "item", name = "iron-plate", amount = 2},
	  {type = "item", name = "copper-plate", amount = 2},
	  {type = "item", name = "iron-plate", amount = 4},
	  {type = "item", name = "copper-plate", amount = 4} 
	  },

I'm not sure (and can't check right now -- not at home) if this will work. Will the game automatically add the 2 iron-plates from the original recipe to the 4 iron-plates from the new result? Will {type = "item", name = "iron-plate", amount = 4} overwrite {type = "item", name = "iron-plate", amount = 2}? In this case, you'd have to go over the other results that are not replaced, check if any of them has the same name as the new results, add the amounts, and remove both of the old results.

Recipes may look simple, but having a "should be straightforward" attitude about them spells T-R-O-U-B-L-E according to my book.

Pi-C wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:31 pm PFQNiet had a small loop where normal/expensive variants were checked -- right at the bottom of the posting I quoted. That's why I didn't mention these again.

oldskoolmatt wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:56 pm Now i'm stuck with the last of problems which is merely cosmetic, though the code works pretty well, the recipes are now ugly AF, they show both 2x iron plate and 4x iron plate rather than six altogether as i originally thought, any way of merging the output without going onto data-final-fixes?

Deadlock989 wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:59 pm

oldskoolmatt wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:56 pm Now i'm stuck with the last of problems which is merely cosmetic, though the code works pretty well, the recipes are now ugly AF, they show both 2x iron plate and 4x iron plate rather than six altogether as i originally thought, any way of merging the output without going onto data-final-fixes?

You've got no option but to loop through the whole results table (in any one or more of the three different difficulty locations) and merge duplicated results together, taking both the simple and long form of result data into account and preserving everything like probabilities, amount_min/max etc. The way I would do that is to read all the ingredients into a new table indexed by ingredient name so you can add things together easily and then overwrite the results (for that difficulty), but there are multiple ways of going about it.

oldskoolmatt wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:11 pm Pardon mate but on this game i'm kinda noob when it comes to modding (and LUA), can you be more clear please?