Snap to grid should default to relative again

[AntiElitz]

With the new interface, the absolute position is now the default for snap to grid.
Was this change intended? Relative snapping seems to be the much more common method to use it. Actually i don't think I personally used the absolute snapping ever while I use the relative one every few minutes. I'd recommend to change the default to relative again.

[Xoriun]

+1

[valneq]

+10
if I could

[seky16]

+1

[thuejk]

Relative, please!

[NotRexButCaesar]

^5 (so 250k now)

[SupplyDepoo]

I agree. Absolute snapping seems to be applicable to modular rail networks / city block megabase construction and not much else.

Relative snapping is useful for many things, maybe even more than non-snapping, which makes me thing that maybe relative snapping should be the default for all blueprints (including copy & paste)?

[brevven]

+1

Myself, I use relative all the time.

I never use absolute. I can imagine it being useful for cityblocks, or substation grids, but it's very specialize compared to relative which is useful in so many places.

[steinio]

No. this would break my workflow.

[foamy]

I find myself using relative snapping an awful lot more than absolute, yeah.

[Ajedi32]

I agree. Absolute snapping seems to be applicable to modular rail networks / city block megabase construction and not much else.

Relative snapping is useful for many things, maybe even more than non-snapping, which makes me thing that maybe relative snapping should be the default for all blueprints (including copy & paste)?

This. Relative snapping should be the default configuration even over "no snapping". Can't think of very many situations where I want to place two copies of a blueprint 1-tile offset from each other.

[NotRexButCaesar]

No. this would break my workflow.

Lol
Here is where it came from for anyone confused: https://xkcd.com/1172/

[NotRexButCaesar]

At the risk of being redundant, *bump*

[ssilk]

Still no need for double postings, AmericanPatriot!

[brevven]

Alternate idea:

Instead of a checkbox followed by 2 options, Snap to grid could simply have 3 options:
- None
- Relative
- Absolute

It would default to "None". Then either Relative or Absolute is a single click, and the standard grid-less behavior requires zero clicks as it currently does.

Edited to clarify.

[blazespinnaker]

I'm curious as to why this was changed. I assume there must have been a reason?

+1 for relative. I can't think of a scenario where I'd use None. maybe blueprint as paintbrush?

Absolute is very useful, but only required in rare circumstances.

[brevven]

I can't think of a scenario where I'd use None.

In my suggestion "None" is the current default blueprint behavior: no grid at all. It's what you use when you copy-paste or just blueprint without clicking the current checkbox to use a grid.

My suggestion simply removes the checkbox and therefore removes the need for devs to choose between "Relative" and "Absolute" as a default grid option, as either would require one click instead of two.

[Kyralessa]

My suggestion simply removes the checkbox and therefore removes the need for devs to choose between "Relative" and "Absolute" as a default grid option, as either would require one click instead of two.

So what you're saying is to take out a level? Something like this?

Currently

[x] Use grid

(*) Absolute
( ) Relative

Proposed

(*) No grid
( ) Grid, snap absolute
( ) Grid, snap relative

[blazespinnaker]

I think currently, he is saying that snap to grid is unchecked.

I can't think of a scenario that I've been happy that was true. I'm curious how folks use default none.

Snap to Grid - Relative should ideally be default, IMHO. Ajedi above also makes the same point.

Another proposal is to default to whatever the user's last decision was. I find this sort of thing useful though does make UX a bit more complicated. I really wish something like that existed for E / inventory / crafting and the window would go back to whatever state I left it when I dismissed it.

[brevven]

So what you're saying is to take out a level? Something like this?

Currently

[x] Use grid

(*) Absolute
( ) Relative

Proposed

(*) No grid
( ) Grid, snap absolute
( ) Grid, snap relative

Exactly what I'm suggesting! Thank you for sketching it out like that, Kyralessa.