Chaining wires for 0.13

[Moosfet]

Seriously, I thought it was a new feature, or at least a resolution of an old annoyance, as I always do star topology connecting every item to a pole rather than to each other.

Inquiring minds want to know -- what are you doing when you do this?

Everything. Stuff needs to connect to the network, the network is on poles, so I connect all of the stuff to the poles. Aside from when two things merely need to connect to each other, or when I specifically need a signal to not connect to the network that's on the nearby poles (like in the case of intermediate signals), I always connect stuff to a nearby pole rather than merely to another nearby object on the same circuit network. I'm rather surprised to find anyone does it any other way.

[siggboy]

I'm rather surprised to find anyone does it any other way.

You'll probably also be rather surprised how inconvenient your approach is when you start building actually complicated circuits (that do more than just adding "light oil" + "heavy oil" and trigger a pump).

[Moosfet]

I'm rather surprised to find anyone does it any other way.

You'll probably also be rather surprised how inconvenient your approach is when you start building actually complicated circuits (that do more than just adding "light oil" + "heavy oil" and trigger a pump).

So it isn't just a matter of personal preference, or a matter of both chain topology and star topology having their uses, it's just that I'm a noob?

Well, FWIW, I have built "actually complicated circuits:"

an actually complicated circuit.jpg (929.63 KiB) Viewed 4858 times

Now, granted that isn't Factorio, but it does demonstrate that I'm not a total noob when it comes to building complex circuits with only two colors of wire.

[siggboy]

I always connect stuff to a nearby pole rather than merely to another nearby object on the same circuit network. I'm rather surprised to find anyone does it any other way.

So it isn't just a matter of personal preference, or a matter of both chain topology and star topology having their uses, it's just that I'm a noob?.

You certainly sounded like a noob. Why? Because first you say "I always do it this way" and you even said "I'm surprised another way is even considered". So you basically assume that you have found "the best way" and all the others are obviously misguided.

That's usually a sign of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which is a lot stronger in noobs than in experts.

So that's why I made that smug remark.

It has nothing to do with your abilities to create breadboard circuits IRL (the stuff in the picture looks neat and tidy, I'd never make snide comments about that).

[brunzenstein]

I'm rather surprised to find anyone does it any other way.

You'll probably also be rather surprised how inconvenient your approach is when you start building actually complicated circuits (that do more than just adding "light oil" + "heavy oil" and trigger a pump).

So it isn't just a matter of personal preference, or a matter of both chain topology and star topology having their uses, it's just that I'm a noob?

Well, FWIW, I have built "actually complicated circuits:"

an actually complicated circuit.jpg

Now, granted that isn't Factorio, but it does demonstrate that I'm not a total noob when it comes to building complex circuits with only two colors of wire.

I'm impressed

[provet]

In the future im sure I could've found a use for star wiring.. I'd love to see it as a shift+click or ctrl or another key that would work only while placing wires and therefore not intervene with normal keys used for the same thing. 0.14 maybe? I'm sure that a combination of the two placing options would ensure that the fastest wiring solution always were possible..

[MrGrim]

Seriously, I thought it was a new feature, or at least a resolution of an old annoyance, as I always do star topology connecting every item to a pole rather than to each other.

Inquiring minds want to know -- what are you doing when you do this?

Everything. Stuff needs to connect to the network, the network is on poles, so I connect all of the stuff to the poles. Aside from when two things merely need to connect to each other, or when I specifically need a signal to not connect to the network that's on the nearby poles (like in the case of intermediate signals), I always connect stuff to a nearby pole rather than merely to another nearby object on the same circuit network. I'm rather surprised to find anyone does it any other way.

This became an issue because everybody is just copying Madzuri's smart loader nowadays.

[siggboy]

This became an issue because everybody is just copying Madzuri's smart loader nowadays.

But then you connect all the chests to eachother, and all the inserters to eachother, instead of placing two power poles and then connecting everything to the power poles, respectively.

In which world would you rather live:

yeah_right.png (343.16 KiB) Viewed 4819 times

[brunzenstein]

This became an issue because everybody is just copying Madzuri's smart loader nowadays.

that is exactly the point

[Moosfet]

In the future im sure I could've found a use for star wiring.. I'd love to see it as a shift+click or ctrl or another key that would work only while placing wires and therefore not intervene with normal keys used for the same thing. 0.14 maybe? I'm sure that a combination of the two placing options would ensure that the fastest wiring solution always were possible..

Yes, I agree that having both options would be ideal and lead to the fastest wiring.

It's a pity no one seems to have noticed my suggestion for a building mechanism that would allow both options to co-exist simultaneously. Perhaps my suggestion wouldn't work for everyone, but if not, I'd like to hear why in order to try to refine it. It works for every purpose I'm aware of at the moment:

1. Running a wire along several poles.
2. Chaining multiple chests/inserters together in a line.
3. Connecting multiple chests/inserters directly to a single pole.

...and it does so without requiring the use of a modifier key. I'd like to see both options available without a modifier key if it's at all possible. This game already has so many modifier keys doing stuff that I keep hitting the wrong one half the time, and it's just a lame to use a modifier key if one isn't actually required to have both options.

Basically it would work like it does now, in that it wants to chain things together, but poles become "sticky" in that once you attach the wire to a pole, it remains stuck to that pole until you click on another pole. So if you want to chain things together, you first chain all of the non-pole entities together before finally connecting them to a pole to carry the signal elsewhere, but if you want star topology, you start by clicking on the pole, then click on all of the things you want connected to that pole, then click on other poles to carry the signal elsewhere.

...and the logic is dead simple:

Code: Select all

struct *a = "the first entity clicked on when attaching a wire";
struct *b = "the second entity clicked on when attaching a wire";
connect(a, b);
if (type(a) != POLE || type(b) == POLE) a = b;

So, would everyone be OK with this solution?

0.14 maybe?

No way. The change was as simple as removing a line of code much like that "a = b" but which probably involved some structures and pointers and junk, and then the fix was just putting that line back in. If all we need is a conditional in front of it like what I propose then what we're asking for is virtually no work as far as proposed features go.

You certainly sounded like a noob. Why? Because first you say "I always do it this way" and you even said "I'm surprised another way is even considered". So you basically assume that you have found "the best way" and all the others are obviously misguided.

No part of "I'm rather surprised to find anyone does it any other way" says "everyone is wrong to do it any other way." It had just never occurred to me to connect things like that and so I was surprised to see anyone was doing it.

[Case]

I could live with your solution

Yes to me it sounded as well a bit odd - the "I'm rather surprised..." line. I guess thats the problem, with a forum that has to deal with people from all over the world and there different view and understanding of the english language . Glad you cleared this

[MrGrim]

In which world would you rather live:

I see you, and I raise this!

[3hose]

DEFINITELY DEFINITELY DEFINITELY like this idea. I may be the only person playing Factorio that actually likes anchoring better. I like to go from pole to "other entity" for connections. I do this in order to see what is being sent down the wire since I use some pretty elaborate setups. It just helps to keep networks separated when needed and to ensure I am getting the result I am expecting. So, chaining for me is just cumbersome. I even programmed a button on my gaming mouse to release the wire from hand then select it again to make it easier to wire when chaining is in effect. I am not trying to get into a debate about what is better for you and your game play style, I am merely stating that chaining is not my preferred method. BUT, if there were a mix to where if you were coming from a pole to any other entity, the pole remains the anchor, if the origin is any other entity then it is a chaining effect and of course pole to pole chaining makes more sense. PLEASE devs consider this! Oh yeah and thanks for the great game. I have "hobbyed" around with making games and it is a LOT of work. Thanks for the great effort you guys give.

In the future im sure I could've found a use for star wiring.. I'd love to see it as a shift+click or ctrl or another key that would work only while placing wires and therefore not intervene with normal keys used for the same thing. 0.14 maybe? I'm sure that a combination of the two placing options would ensure that the fastest wiring solution always were possible..

Yes, I agree that having both options would be ideal and lead to the fastest wiring.

It's a pity no one seems to have noticed my suggestion for a building mechanism that would allow both options to co-exist simultaneously. Perhaps my suggestion wouldn't work for everyone, but if not, I'd like to hear why in order to try to refine it. It works for every purpose I'm aware of at the moment:

1. Running a wire along several poles.
2. Chaining multiple chests/inserters together in a line.
3. Connecting multiple chests/inserters directly to a single pole.

...and it does so without requiring the use of a modifier key. I'd like to see both options available without a modifier key if it's at all possible. This game already has so many modifier keys doing stuff that I keep hitting the wrong one half the time, and it's just a lame to use a modifier key if one isn't actually required to have both options.

Basically it would work like it does now, in that it wants to chain things together, but poles become "sticky" in that once you attach the wire to a pole, it remains stuck to that pole until you click on another pole. So if you want to chain things together, you first chain all of the non-pole entities together before finally connecting them to a pole to carry the signal elsewhere, but if you want star topology, you start by clicking on the pole, then click on all of the things you want connected to that pole, then click on other poles to carry the signal elsewhere.

...and the logic is dead simple:

Code: Select all

struct *a = "the first entity clicked on when attaching a wire";
struct *b = "the second entity clicked on when attaching a wire";
connect(a, b);
if (type(a) != POLE || type(b) == POLE) a = b;

So, would everyone be OK with this solution?

0.14 maybe?

No way. The change was as simple as removing a line of code much like that "a = b" but which probably involved some structures and pointers and junk, and then the fix was just putting that line back in. If all we need is a conditional in front of it like what I propose then what we're asking for is virtually no work as far as proposed features go.

You certainly sounded like a noob. Why? Because first you say "I always do it this way" and you even said "I'm surprised another way is even considered". So you basically assume that you have found "the best way" and all the others are obviously misguided.

No part of "I'm rather surprised to find anyone does it any other way" says "everyone is wrong to do it any other way." It had just never occurred to me to connect things like that and so I was surprised to see anyone was doing it.

[brunzenstein]

In which world would you rather live:

I see you, and I raise this!

Combinators setting please!?

[stellatedHex]

Ooh, I also second (third?) moosfet's suggestion. I don't usually use stars, but when I do I prefer Dos Equos I use poles. And a chain that alternates between poles and other objects is practically always more legible going from pole to pole with side trips.

[MrGrim]

Moosfet's idea is a pretty good one. I like it!

In which world would you rather live:

I see you, and I raise this!

Combinators setting please!?

It's nothing special, really. The problem is the mod Hard Crafting produces 4 items from miners. E.g. for iron it's iron ore, iron nuggets, gravel, and dirt. The two addition combinators on the far right take input from the chests. One adds iron ore to iron nuggets and outputs iron ore while the other adds gravel to dirt and also outputs iron ore. They both output to the dividing combinator which is the one you usually use in Madzuri's design that divides by the negative number of chests and outputs to each inserter.

The combinators above each inserter do the same for each chest/inserter pair. The chest connects to the input of each combinator. One adds ore and nuggets and outputs iron ore and the other adds gravel and dirt and outputs iron ore. The outputs of each connect to the inserter.

The inserter is the same as the vanilla design as well with a condition of "iron ore < 1".

[siggboy]

You can greatly reduce the amount of adders by doing "EACH + 0 => Iron Ore", that way you can add Ore, Nugget, Gravel and Dirt in a single combinator instead of two.

[MrGrim]

You can greatly reduce the amount of adders by doing "EACH + 0 => Iron Ore", that way you can add Ore, Nugget, Gravel and Dirt in a single combinator instead of two.

Thanks! I figured I was probably doing this horribly wrong.

[Moosfet]

Well, since 24 hours is an eternity on the internet, I went ahead and made this post to request that my algorithm be implemented.