Factorio Forums

saturn7 wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 22, 2023 6:48 pm

Did you ever consider removing the restriction that rails needed to be aligned to the 2x2 grid, so blueprints with rails could be moved by a single tile?

I guess, that would be hell. Imagine, you start two different independent rail networks, and then... they are off...

They look nicer.

I don't like wider curves. I feel stations already take too much space compared to the assembly lines they're serving, and that looks bad in its own way, even if the rails look nicer. But maybe the S-curves can save space in other places, and it was always weird to not have them, so overall I like this.

You devs are just junkies for this game. I love it. You've really got a labor of love here. Bravo. I'm so proud to have been a small $40 (?) part of this.

Saiph wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 22, 2023 3:02 pm

adam_bise wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 22, 2023 2:49 pm

..........
It doesn't split to 5, it splits to 2, then 3, then 2 again.

Ok, so you're splitting hairs. Fine. But does that make it any easier to manually drive a train through that junction? No.

I wonder if up/down could remain the same as forward/reverse, but when coming to any split rail, the path is highlighted, and you just tap left/right once to cycle through the options and then the highlight changes, respectively.

That'd be incredibly helpful, in either the current or new rail system. The game already does that anyway, obviously, so adding on a visual indicator would be trivial. But the cycling may require more difficult code...but probably still trivial for these devs.

BrainlessTeddy wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 23, 2023 10:46 am

coppercoil wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 23, 2023 10:08 am

May I ask for very large radius rail curves, for aesthetic purposes? They look more natural.

Also, current curves might require significant train slowdown, so large radii would be useful.

And I'd like to have very small radius curves (excl. half diagonals for simplicity), and trains would pass them super slowly.

Both of that is not really possible the way I understand it. They can have a rail segment only go in three directions maximum. Having different radius rails would increase the amount of directions to 5 or 7.

Sounds reasonable. Though, we are used to find solutions . There can be an express rail type. If you want full speed - go to different scale.

This is a common idea in the gameplay: better possibilities require some tradeoffs, so player needs to choose. Difficult solutions make gameplay interesting, and vice versa: if you can boost something (speed, quality, productivity etc) just by spending more bottles, this is too simple. Spending the money/resources works to some limited degree, because in a late postgame costs become insignificant.

I’m loving it.

BUT, with Factorio being an automation game I desire one additional thing for vanilla base expansion:

Locomotive equipment grid.

I want to be able to send out a builder train with roboports and construction bots in the loco to build its own outpost blueprint. Then I don’t have to run a segmented roboport wall to it or send spiders with it.

Yes, mods. But I want to be able to do this and keep normal achievements active. (especially since it now seems the achievements will be pushed WAAAAAY out with quality-related achievements)

An engineer can dream … even though he doesn’t ever seem to sleep.

Zaflis wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 23, 2023 6:01 am

FuryoftheStars wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 23, 2023 5:05 am

Saiph wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 22, 2023 2:46 pm

You briefly mentioned the problem of manual control when going through complex junctions. How would manual train control be implemented in the final graphic in your post, where one rail splits into five parallel tracks? I think it would be pretty difficult to manually select the correct line from the five options.

You'd have to be driving the train through there slowly, but otherwise it can be done with the current controls. Having the more than 3 split from the same end point, however, you really wouldn't be able to.

Not with controls but you can open train UI and Ctrl-click to tell it to drive there in automatic.

Yes, but that's no longer manual, which was the point.

Manual driving is a noob trap that causes crashes. It's only useful for 1) backing deadlocked trains out of intersections, and 2) driving forward while building new track. It's important that we can always select the correct path, as this could be necessary when backing a train out of an intersection, but it is okay if it takes a few tries to get it right.

morsk wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 23, 2023 1:16 pm

It's important that we can always select the correct path, as this could be necessary when backing a train out of an intersection, but it is okay if it takes a few tries to get it right.

Yes, exactly.

Very neat!

But now my "only build tracks on every third space" technique is obsoleted!

Alright guys, good work; now it's time to add mountains and non-euclidean caves and train tunnels.

Would be cool if concrete or bricks changed the texture of the rails by making the rails integrated into the concrete or brick. Kinda like city tram rails is burrowed into the asphalt

At the moment, every rail can connect to at most 3 directions - left, straight and right. Adding a special rail piece would either make curves incompatible with s-bends - you could only build one, not both on the same spot - which would be a technical limitation, unobvious to the player why.

There could be the simple rule only to allow 3 directions at all at any node. The displacement of the second (#2 and #4 rail) one node backwards will not change the value of such possibility as there is still the need for signal placement and space therefor. So why bother.

There are a few requests to trains and UI :

1. Please add in the Trains(O) menu at least after selecting a train just beside "Toggle centering on locomotive" a button "Toggle centering on PLAYER"! It helps enormously to find yourself for requesting trains to player position (construction trains e.G. after refilling mats).
2. Schedule parameter: Please add to the conditions list the parameter NOT like in "Passenger present" and "Passenger NOT present". The reason is simple, a train may not be FULL but also not Empty so you have to work with circuit conditions which is on scale sometimes a pain. (Built a vanilla LTS with combinators with a pulse signal for demand and sourcing staff where trains got called at a large depot ideally waiting there loaded full with goods to be delivered. Each train had to be set to check specificially there goods with their capacitiy --> NOT full get stuff much more easier!
3. Train stops: the lights indicating ready, disabled or occupied are such small nearly invisible. Therefor I use Lamps as indicators. Please add the funcionallity of the signals to this combo: Use colors "Checked" - "Anything > 0" - tada! Green - Yellow - Red - simple!
4. Temporary CTRL-Click Stop Condition - viewtopic.php?f=6&t=80164 - Switch to MANUAL or similar would be nice!

Thank you!

Dear developers, you forgot about an unpleasant problem. About the offset by 1 cell if we change the number of trains from 1 to 2

bragewizard wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 23, 2023 3:22 pm

Would be cool if concrete or bricks changed the texture of the rails by making the rails integrated into the concrete or brick. Kinda like city tram rails is burrowed into the asphalt

I agree, I've made a similar post a while back, I'm glad to see that I am not the only one
Embedded rails is something that I always wanted, the gravel on top of a concrete tile just doesn't look right.

Countdown until some wizard modder has made an auto rail upgrade planner

Baruk wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 23, 2023 3:28 pm

At the moment, every rail can connect to at most 3 directions - left, straight and right. Adding a special rail piece would either make curves incompatible with s-bends - you could only build one, not both on the same spot - which would be a technical limitation, unobvious to the player why.

There could be the simple rule only to allow 3 directions at all at any node.

I'm fairly sure this is pretty much exactly what the devs were meaning and that this is an unobvious technical limit. In other words, there will be constant bug reports about it.

--------------------------------

SnowZyDe wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 23, 2023 4:04 pm

Dear developers, you forgot about an unpleasant problem. About the offset by 1 cell if we change the number of trains from 1 to 2

I think this is because locomotives and wagons are actually 7 tiles in length (iirc), but the valid placement points for the train stops are every 2 tiles. The only way to fix this is to either allow train stop placement on every tile, or change the loco & car length by 1 tile.

But I'm not sure why this is a "problem"?

SnowZyDe wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 23, 2023 4:04 pm

Dear developers, you forgot about an unpleasant problem. About the offset by 1 cell if we change the number of trains from 1 to 2

You could just put the second locomotive at the end....
I would be careful not to call such things a "problem". They are smaller or bigger inconveniences depending on who you ask.
Engineering is about finding solutions despite of those technical limitations imposed on you. If these limitations rob you of the fun of the game, mods are the answer.

FuryoftheStars wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 23, 2023 5:44 pm

I'm fairly sure this is pretty much exactly what the devs were meaning and that this is an unobvious technical limit. In other words, there will be constant bug reports about it.

The issue would exist if the S-curve had been implemented. We get a single size of 13 tile radius curves instead.

YEAH!!!!! I love you guys!!!! There is the best rail system in comparison to each other rails-specific games ever! Thanks!!!!

Loewchen wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 23, 2023 6:16 pm

FuryoftheStars wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 23, 2023 5:44 pm

I'm fairly sure this is pretty much exactly what the devs were meaning and that this is an unobvious technical limit. In other words, there will be constant bug reports about it.

The issue would exist if the S-curve had been implemented. We get a single size of 13 tile radius curves instead.

Yes, I believe that is what I was trying to say.