Version 0.18.35

[FactorioBot]

Graphics

• High resolution power switch graphics.

Bugfixes

• Entities of other forces that are mined and brought back by undo are now set to have player force upon the undo application. (82243)
• Fixed a desync when unit group radius settings are changed.
• Fixed that the final health value in the entity damaged event was wrong. (86411)
• Fixed a performance problem with the production stats GUI. (86356)
• Fixed the double slider with discrete values functionality. (86417)
• Fix 'Train stop names' checkbox showing tooltip with no locale entry. (86448)
• Fixed rendering of pipe pictures and covers when fluid box compound covers some fluid boxes without pipe pictures or covers. (86475)

Gui

• Visual improvements to the bonuses GUI.
• Visual improvements to the tutorial list GUI.

Minor Features

• Gps tags are now surface aware.

Scripting

• Added on_player_clicked_gps_tag event.

Use the automatic updater if you can (check experimental updates in other settings) or download full installation at http://www.factorio.com/download/experimental.

[Seaish]

Slow day I guess. Power switch looks nice.

[badtouchatr]

Ok, either Steam's updater is broken, or factorio devs are forcing updates. I was on 0.18.24, and had that specifically set under Properties | Betas, and today it updated to the latest and "greatest." When I go back into properties, what is selected is not 0.18.35, not latest experimental, but "NONE - Opt out of all beta programs." This happened to me a couple of weeks ago when I was on 0.18.22, and it forced me to update to 0.18.24. That time, also, I had Properties | Betas on a specific version, 0.18.22, and it updated me. Now, it doesn't really matter to me, because I've been playing on standalone since that last time steam updated me without me saying, but I wanted to put this out there in case someone else is being updated when they want to stay on a particular version.

[Loewchen]

Ok, either Steam's updater is broken, or factorio devs are forcing updates.

Neither. The number of betas available is limited, so with new versions being released old versions need to be removed, dropping those installations back to stable. Anyone who needs a specific non stable version should download the standalone and not use steam.

[badtouchatr]

That's what I did (download the standalone and bypass steam), but that's just a crappy way to update, by forcing it back to stable. Why not set it to one of the other experimental versions, or even the latest experimental, but surely not to stable, when that's clearly not what the user wanted?

[5thHorseman]

That's what I did (download the standalone and bypass steam), but that's just a crappy way to update, by forcing it back to stable. Why not set it to one of the other experimental versions, or even the latest experimental, but surely not to stable, when that's clearly not what the user wanted?

The user clearly didn't want the latest experimental either.

The best solution (for Factorio devs) would be to have a "null" version that was similar to the real game in code, but when you load it it puts up a warning saying "Steam totally fucked you over. Go there and chose another version than whatever you had set because we had to remove it due to their ridiculous updating scheme. If you absolutely need the version you set, come on over to our website and download it, which we allow for free even though you bought it on Steam because unlike Steam, we are awesome."

That's just an example of what they could put. Marketing/PR may suggest some edits.

The best solution (for Steam) is to pull their heads out of their asses but I don't expect that to ever happen.

[badtouchatr]

That's what I did (download the standalone and bypass steam), but that's just a crappy way to update, by forcing it back to stable. Why not set it to one of the other experimental versions, or even the latest experimental, but surely not to stable, when that's clearly not what the user wanted?

The user clearly didn't want the latest experimental either.

The best solution (for Factorio devs) would be to have a "null" version that was similar to the real game in code, but when you load it it puts up a warning saying "Steam totally fucked you over. Go there and chose another version than whatever you had set because we had to remove it due to their ridiculous updating scheme. If you absolutely need the version you set, come on over to our website and download it, which we allow for free even though you bought it on Steam because unlike Steam, we are awesome."

That's just an example of what they could put. Marketing/PR may suggest some edits.

The best solution (for Steam) is to pull their heads out of their asses but I don't expect that to ever happen.

LOL I totally agree, but was afraid to post it with that language, for fear of being deleted.

[Jap2.0]

Is there a way to fallback one beta to another once it's removed, though? I feel like that's something that just might not be possible.

[5thHorseman]

Is there a way to fallback one beta to another once it's removed, though? I feel like that's something that just might not be possible.

In steam it's gone once it's gone. But IIRC all versions are on the website. I'll admit I don't know because I've not downloaded it directly in some time, and am on mobile so checking is a pain right now.

[Koub]

On the website, you can download :
- All minor releases from current major release
- All stable releases down to 0.6 stable
- All stable demos

So, for example, you can download 0.17.79 (last 0.17 stable), 0.17.69 (previous 0.17 stable), but not 0.17.12.

[posila]

I have no control over what Steam does with players that opted particular beta version when the beta is deleted. It just opts them out of betas.
It's also not possible to rename version, so I can't reuse 0.18.25 beta branch for 0.18.36 when that is released - so it is not possible for me to make it so people who selected 0.18.25 will be updated to 0.18.36.

I think we will keep doing updates this way for the last 5 weeks and then think about how to do unstable releases for post 1.0 updates, because I have some other problems with the current system.

It is not really explained anywhere (I am sure it is explained is some ancient FFF but I can't find it), then people who are not willing to deal with inconveniences of experimental releases opt-into them, and then complain about the inconveniences.

I see community telling newcomers to opt-into exerimental updates all the time.

And despite being call "experimetal", I have not felt freedom to experiment during there releases for past couple of years. The moment something new is released in experimental update it kind of becomes set in stone and changing it becomes pain, and removing it is almost out of the question.

I think it is important for us to provide a way to avoid updating to the latest version right away, as it is unreasonable to expect mods to adapt to the latest changes immediatelly, or simply, we might screw something up in the latest release to the point it is nearly unplayable. But staying on version that has been outdated for 10 weeks is undesirable for us, because it doesn't give us any useful information about stability of the latest release. Also it just hurts me to see bobingabout to update his mods to work with the latest graphical changes, and them to update them again to make them compatible with previous experimental versions also, because people just don't update the game to the latest experimental, but they do update mods they have installed. Mods maintaining compatiblity with old experimental builds just ... shouldn't be a thing.

[eradicator]

as it is unreasonable to expect mods to adapt to the latest changes immediatelly

That is pretty much what players expect mods authors to do though. As soon as experimental has any breaking changes and a single mod author updates to latest experimental the players start nagging at all the other mod authors that they "can't update" because "your mod isn't updated yet and i need it". Dear @Bilka even had 0.18 mod updates on the portal before it was even available to the public. Also normal people can't even just try experiemental and go back to stable if they don't like it because downgrading means losing the entire bp library.

I know there's people playing stable but as "core"-gamers (and especially people who make it to this forum) are chronically impatient, whatever the "latest" version is will become the standard. And the mod portal isn't even designed to deal with multiple mod branches. On second thought that's probably why other games have "closed beta" - so they can try stuff while keeping the backlash minimal.

And last but not least "experimental" never felt very experimental compared to what other companies release under that label. (Maybe you should leave some random unfixed crashes to make it less delicious.) Or maybe you need to introduce a third "unstable" branch that is only available via the website to limit the user base.

[5thHorseman]

And despite being call "experimetal", I have not felt freedom to experiment during there releases for past couple of years.

That's probably the saddest thing I've read today, and I've already done all my doomscrolling for the day.

[Bilka]

Dear @Bilka even had 0.18 mod updates on the portal before it was even available to the public.

Are you talking about a different Bilka than me? I was mostly away from work due to uni stuff from Jan 17th to Feb 17th, so I doubt I was early with my mod updates. For the mods that I have on github, the update date is all Jan 25, multiple days after 0.18.0 release.

[eradicator]

Dear @Bilka even had 0.18 mod updates on the portal before it was even available to the public.

Are you talking about a different Bilka than me? I was mostly away from work due to uni stuff from Jan 17th to Feb 17th, so I doubt I was early with my mod updates. For the mods that I have on github, the update date is all Jan 25, multiple days after 0.18.0 release.

Huh, guess my memory is shitty again. I am certain that there was *someone* pushing 0.18 mods before release. The mod portal doesn't show accurate release dates so i can't check. (Also i'm not trying to blame anyone, just for the record...)

[gGeorg]

think about how to do unstable releases for post 1.0 updates, because I have some other problems with the current system.

It is not really explained anywhere (I am sure it is explained is some ancient FFF but I can't find it), then people who are not willing to deal with inconveniences of experimental releases opt-into them, and then complain about the inconveniences.

I see community telling newcomers to opt-into exerimental updates all the time.

And despite being call "experimetal", I have not felt freedom to experiment during there releases for past couple of years. The moment something new is released in experimental update it kind of becomes set in stone and changing it becomes pain, and removing it is almost out of the question.

I guess Microsoft has same struggle. Therfore they renamed Fast ring/Slow ring to more descriptive Dev channel/Beta channel/Release preview. So they do 3 levels of beta and the Stable version.
You can find details here
https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperi ... -channels/
Perhaps you might mimic the model to get faster feedback from people who have skill to provide it, but also offer an preview version version for moders, so they can fix modes right before the release.
The question is, if a small company can afford such system which consume resources.