[MOD 0.16] Stationary Fusion Reactors

[eradicator]

As for the API situation, I guess I could build something to automate that functionality

If you have an idea how to "properly" fix the mod to supporty every mod automatically i might even consider officially fixing it. But looking at the phrasing i'm not sure you really understand the problem. A cross-mod-interface is a possible workaround for things that can't be automated.

Well you and diego

Wtf, the only thing that idiot ever did was send me empty threads that "consequences" would happen if i refused to support his mod. Because i was stupid enough to initially reply to his request for support before i knew he was a lunatic. There was never any "collaboration" (though he constantly uses that word against my complaints), all the work was done by me.

I'll quote his post here in case he decides to (again) retroactively edit the original.

So: If you want to continue our collaboration, you're welcome and i'll be happy. :)
If you don't want :( : i'm not going to stop you, because it's your work and you can do what do you want with it, but i tell you that that will cause some consequences (i'm not going to tell you what). :?

[supernet2]

Pretty much just appreciate the fact that they made a universal stack of 5 new fusion reactors with just their own code. Gives variety. Appreciate your mod for the proof of concept for making a installable reactor, helped me understand how to do that myself if I wanna write a mod.

As for automating the updates, if I do so ill just make it universal to apply to any app but that in effect means i'd have to make a basic template for all mods to follow so the api would work correctly. I know this could be corrected but.. im not proficient enough to do that on my own. More so a lack of wanting to research it. I blame life. I only recently came back to factorio though and this is one of those mods I consider a essential to have with my mods. Im slowly updating all the mods I use now manually that have been abandoned or discontinued and then ill make it.

I'll need to look more into the api creation process as i'll more than likely create a visual basics application that does it for me. Toss in the mod that you want updated for compatibility support. Select the mod you are adding in, (one at a time), it would all have to already be unpacked from its .zip format. Might make it a patcher utility. Now that I think about it more, gotta think about the ui design and how i'd like to implement it. Why make a api if a universal patcher makes it so anyone who can follow basic instructions can do it? New ideas. Thanks for the idea, all because I just wanted this mod that got the wheels turning.

[eradicator]

I'll need to look more into the api creation process as i'll more than likely create a visual basics application that does it for me. Toss in the mod that you want updated for compatibility support. Select the mod you are adding in, (one at a time), it would all have to already be unpacked from its .zip format. Might make it a patcher utility. Now that I think about it more, gotta think about the ui design and how i'd like to implement it. Why make a api if a universal patcher makes it so anyone who can follow basic instructions can do it? New ideas. Thanks for the idea, all because I just wanted this mod that got the wheels turning.

That reads to me like you're describing how to manually add support for a few cherry-picked mods of your liking. That is already easily possible with the current mod architecture and requires only 1 or two lines of code for each supported reactor. I.e. you're totally overcomplicating the problem. If you want to go that path just dump all the equipment data at the end of data-final-fixes and auto-generate templates of config data that only need minimal manual tuning for the unknown constants (i.e. mainly reactor footprint size and graphic shift).

But none of that is "automatically works for *every* mod" - because that approach implies that you can not know anything about any of the other mods. There are only three methods i can think of that can achieve this: a) make other mod (authors) tell my mod the correct data, b) make all reactors same size/shape c) make reactor footprint equal to graphic size. b+c are ugly and a is unlikely to be widely enough adopted to be usable.

Also btw if you ever plan on publishing your results i'd appreciate if you chose a mod name that's completely different from mine ;).

[supernet2]

That reads to me like you're describing how to manually add support for a few cherry-picked mods of your liking. That is already easily possible with the current mod architecture and requires only 1 or two lines of code for each supported reactor. I.e. you're totally overcomplicating the problem. If you want to go that path just dump all the equipment data at the end of data-final-fixes and auto-generate templates of config data that only need minimal manual tuning for the unknown constants (i.e. mainly reactor footprint size and graphic shift).

But none of that is "automatically works for *every* mod" - because that approach implies that you can not know anything about any of the other mods. There are only three methods i can think of that can achieve this: a) make other mod (authors) tell my mod the correct data, b) make all reactors same size/shape c) make reactor footprint equal to graphic size. b+c are ugly and a is unlikely to be widely enough adopted to be usable.

Also btw if you ever plan on publishing your results i'd appreciate if you chose a mod name that's completely different from mine .

I was thinking option B, which is my original attempt as well as incorporating code or re-writing it entirely as a new mod. As for the api function I was actually going to create a visual basics application that uses the dll's i create, same as api but not on the web.

So inshort, for my own personal use i was going to write the vb app to look at the data for your mod and correct that. Gonna be a prototype and then from there, after getting the proof of concept done and operational then adapt that and tweak it to test with other apps.

Wasn't sure how to implement unpacking of the .zip of the files though and automating repacking, i think its the same as what I've used with 7zip but i might just do a dirty batch that runs after completion of the file. Yeah regarding the name change, already did a complete overhaul to all the file names, graphics and embedded some of my own code alongside giving credit to all parties who's code was adapted or gave ideas of proof of concept. being lazy with the file naming though and going with 01a-10f for naming instead of making it all messy at least to me.

[eradicator]

I was thinking option B, which is my original attempt as well as incorporating code or re-writing it entirely as a new mod. As for the api function I was actually going to create a visual basics application that uses the dll's i create, same as api but not on the web.

Options b/c do not require any cross mod interactions ("api"), they're what the mod already does minus a few lines of "make it look nicer" fixes that can't be automated. A vb app? dlls? unpacking? i officially have no clue what you're talking about. It sounds way too complicated, but i wish you good luck...

[supernet2]

I was thinking option B, which is my original attempt as well as incorporating code or re-writing it entirely as a new mod. As for the api function I was actually going to create a visual basics application that uses the dll's i create, same as api but not on the web.

Options b/c do not require any cross mod interactions ("api"), they're what the mod already does minus a few lines of "make it look nicer" fixes that can't be automated. A vb app? dlls? unpacking? i officially have no clue what you're talking about. It sounds way too complicated, but i wish you good luck...

Yeah attempted to automate the auto patching of mods with issues in them. Used Visual basics didn't work out to well. So i went the manual route of patching all mods and forcing compatability amongst all of my mods through severely modifying alot of the individual mods codes, then repacking them. Trying to figure out how to repack everything into one mega mod so its just one mod you enable, not a whole clusterfk of mods.

[supernet2]

Only here to say i've adopted the mod for maintenance only. If i get motivated enough to re-write the code to fix things im to lazy to do myself i will do it. All credit goes to the original concept designer though, Eradicator and the proof of concept that is this mod.

Didn't mean to come off as stealing it! If you want to re-take it over and maintain it im all for passing it back your way, i just did not want to see this mod abandoned out right and not working on a newer version of factorio. Since it was a mod to have for a variety of things (and when modified to support a variety of things including other gridable installables for power).

https://mods.factorio.com/mod/supernet2 ... n-reactors

Left response and notes in the discussion section of the question feel free to reach out to me if you want me to pull it, but if so please bring it back to version 1.0x and at least include what i've updated into it, i left all comments and what not inside the mod itself. Comments and all where i or others have worked and credit in the original source files.

Edit: To keep it less confusing ill create a fork off the original,and re-write the code where neccessary. Then continue forward with the MIT licensing so anyone can do whatever they want with the source to improve or otherwise adapt.

[eradicator]

@supernet2
Regarding the mod portal thread.

I don't know if Enligsh is your native language, it certainly isn't mine. So i try to write as neutral and precise as i can. In any case i generally find your posts very hard to follow because they are - to me - very unstructured and imprecise and drifting into unrelated stuff. Thus i ask questions, trying to better understand what you're saying. If you find that being asked questions is "arguing/gloating/insulting" and feel the need to close the whole thread... we've successfully managed to waste each others time. Great.

Try seeing things from my perspective: Someone copies your mod, changes a bunch of stuff that breaks other stuff, accuses your code of being responsible for the breakage because it's supposedly "hacky". And then finally that someone tells you right into the face that they don't even understand nor want to understand what the code they broke actually does.

That's how i percieve your appreance in that thread.