Friday Facts #382 - Logistic groups

[Cerberus]

By default you will multiply the contents by -1, not -2. You sum this with the required values, this means, only the positive values are the missing values (You need more than you have).
And the filter inserter, when configured to set filter based on circuit signals only works on positive values, so it only picks items that are needed.

The multiplication by -2 is used in a more advanced setup, where you only want to call the supply train when there is more than 1/2 of items missing, so it doesn't come for a single individual missing item.

That makes a lot of sense, thanks. It is actually a brilliant setup.
I think in this screenshot the train station will indeed only be called when half is missing from an item type. However, I think the filter inserter will also stop inserting when half of the items are loaded.
It could just be the screenshot is incomplete though and was only meant to showcase logistic groups applicable to constant combinators. In which case I will stop trying to analyze it

[computeraddict]

How did you calculate the numbers? Did you take into consideration legendary inserters AND logistic bots at the same time?

I stopped at legendary stack inserters moving chest to chest (in sufficiently long chains to reach labs/trains) with the assumption that the only thing being imported were 5 types of science pack (space and one for each of four other planets). Bots recharged by legendary roboports seemed like they would be faster but the spm that inserters could support was already so absurdly high that I didn't bother fleshing out that case. Especially once you consider that you could stick a landing pad and lab array on each of five surfaces, the throughput that could be achieved by inserters alone is far greater than can be produced by any mortal computer that I know of.

Unless you're hiding a multi-threaded engine in one of these upcoming FFF's...?

Edit: found the original:

[Math]

[SIGSTKFLT]

While you're reworking logistics, could you add the ability to re-order the rows? I often decide that I want to insert a row, but I can only append.
thanks <3

Look at the lines next to the trash can icons. Those are the drag-and-drop markings, showing that they are already possible to re-order.

the rows within the groups, not the groups themselves.

[Cerberus]

While you're reworking logistics, could you add the ability to re-order the rows? I often decide that I want to insert a row, but I can only append.
thanks <3

Look at the lines next to the trash can icons. Those are the drag-and-drop markings, showing that they are already possible to re-order.

the rows within the groups, not the groups themselves.

I also miss this feature right now. But at the same time, if I am dividing in rows, it is because I am making some kind of logical order. In the future, might as well use logistic groups to split this in logical parts, so no nead to reorder rows

[prince]

will cargo in train be the same way?

[Cerberus]

I have another idea for a feature request that sounds very useful in my humble opinion, and it follows logically from the new logistic group feature (and the new remote building):

With the new logistic groups, you can add a new group, for example "outpost building", manually add everything you would need like a few hundred walls and rails, belts, electric miners, pipes and flamethrowers etc. Then when you build a new outpost, you turn on this group, let the bots deliver everything, physically go to your outpost, build everything. Turn off the logistic group, go to your base and let everything auto-trash out of your inventory.
However this has as problem sometimes you have a bigger outpost (because for example two resource patches are very close) and you need to travel to the base again to get more material. It costs quite some time already.

So I would suggest this feature:

The ability to automatically fill your new logistic group with items from a rectangle you draw with your mouse (similar to blueprints). The exact amount of items.
You will never have too little and also you don't need to trash everything you don't need afterwards. And takes into account all specific things you need for the new outpost that others don't have for some reason. Takes enough oil pumps etc

So then you would simply use remote building (similar to sattelite view now in space exploration) and build the whole outpost as ghosts from the safety of your base.
Then, when ready, add a new logistic group, draw a rectangle with the mouse selection across your whole ghost-outpost, and the new logistic group contains all items you need in the exact amount. Bots deliver them.
Then you physically go to your outpost, let your personal roboport build everything to the last detail automatically.
And then your outpost is quickly finished. And you can discard the new logistic group.

[computeraddict]

Long

I think you could do that very cleanly by having the interaction be with blueprints, no special selector required. Something like clicking on a logistics group with blueprint in hand adds its contents to the group, or an option to create a group from a blueprint.

[Koub]

Long

I think you could do that very cleanly by having the interaction be with blueprints, no special selector required. Something like clicking on a logistics group with blueprint in hand adds its contents to the group, or an option to create a group from a blueprint.

Shameless self-promotion

[TheRaph]

Edit: sorry, I meant “or” inactive for five seconds. This also handles the case where it can’t fulfill a filter inserter’s requests so it skips back to the until full. It can lead to some unnecessary travel if it can’t load the needed items though.

As an aside, I deliver artillery shells with an artillery train since they stack way higher. But I know that was just an example and this situation could happen with basically any item.

Er ... yes. That "inactive for x seconds" thing is exactly how I prevent my outpost from jamming up.

But I had run into a very similar problem: fuel. I had done some mistakes with conditions.
I had a train witch loads sulfur at station A, deliver it to station B were it also unload empty barrels. Than load up filled barrels with sulfuric acid. This would be delivered to several uran mining outposts. There it also would retrieve empty barrels and turning back to station A. To avoid issues with empty barrels I've also use that inactive-condition in station B and outposts and as well A. But at A it was OR-ed to condition of maximum level of sulfur.
So at some point the system saturate with acid so that nearly nothing needs to be produced. And also sulfur wasn't needed anymore.
The loading time for sulfur was just an inserter-swing to get the train full of sulfur. Refilling fuel at the same station has also only one swing (of yellow inserter) time.
But this circumstances lead to this train empty out of fuel and eventually jamming up the complete system because it gets out of steam just on a heavy used crossing

So sometimes it's not a easy as it seems.

[TheRaph]

The previous post was moving the goalpost by adding several "buts!" to a simple concept of using something that WUBE is planning to have on the space platform to power rocket engines, which could have been re-used for space construction drones or not.

I made a mention of possibly using fuel for the space bots

The third post discusses "treating something as should not be introduced because of realism."

All the rest except the last paragraph is about construction bots and everything the devs would have to do to make their use on the platforms plausible all to accommodate half of the bots.
---
I was attempting to give you a good reason for not barring construction bots from being used as part of space platform construction as they are incapable of moving items for logistics in both scenarios: in space platform and on planets except given for moving object to be built on-site.

And still none of that is moving of goalposts:

unfairly alter the conditions or rules of a procedure during its course

I am afraid I have to disagree with you.

Hey.
I read your discussion and feel the solving of problem could even be more simple than bots.

In fact we know, devs don't like to have bots for transportation to have a belt-mess just for fun.
Also you figured out that there is no agreement if it is logical to have thrusted bots in some kind. Especially because there are no logistic chest in space to get the parts from.

I bet that they will go the easy way to transport all needed parts in underground and pop up a new building with some animation at some point.

But what if they decide to use a crane instead?
They already invented the long wormy arms to grab asteroids out of space.
It would imaginable to have such an arm attached to the hub to do all the building things.

In this case you do not need any bots and have an animation where you could see were the parts originate from.

I don't believe they will do it but it would be awesome - i think.

[Cerberus]

Long

I think you could do that very cleanly by having the interaction be with blueprints, no special selector required. Something like clicking on a logistics group with blueprint in hand adds its contents to the group, or an option to create a group from a blueprint.

That would definitely work, altough it is more clicks than a button on the logistic group to fill up its contents (and you could then click a blueprint or just draw a rectangle). Because you also need to delete the blueprint after. But yes, not that much more work, it would definitely be a good feature this way.

[computeraddict]

Long

I think you could do that very cleanly by having the interaction be with blueprints, no special selector required. Something like clicking on a logistics group with blueprint in hand adds its contents to the group, or an option to create a group from a blueprint.

That would definitely work, altough it is more clicks than a button on the logistic group to fill up its contents (and you could then click a blueprint or just draw a rectangle). Because you also need to delete the blueprint after. But yes, not that much more work, it would definitely be a good feature this way.

The ctrl+c/ctrl+v queue is blueprints that require no clicking to manage. Just ctrl c the build, ctrl v into logistics group.

[Cerberus]

Long

I think you could do that very cleanly by having the interaction be with blueprints, no special selector required. Something like clicking on a logistics group with blueprint in hand adds its contents to the group, or an option to create a group from a blueprint.

That would definitely work, altough it is more clicks than a button on the logistic group to fill up its contents (and you could then click a blueprint or just draw a rectangle). Because you also need to delete the blueprint after. But yes, not that much more work, it would definitely be a good feature this way.

The ctrl+c/ctrl+v queue is blueprints that require no clicking to manage. Just ctrl c the build, ctrl v into logistics group.

Sounds perfect to me

[Skellitor301]

why in Klonans example of a remote base has the passive supply chest have it's contents be multiplied by -2 in that network. Can someone explain what the purpose of doing that is vs just multiplying the signals by -1 and applying the constant combinator to that signal so if anything is below the amount required it'll send that as a negative signal?

It gives a bit of a buffer, so the train will only come when the items in the chest are less than half of what is needed, instead of sending the train just to resupply a single wall or turret

Ooooh, ok that makes much more sense

[Skellitor301]

This is such a great change! Though I am curious about something and trying to figure this out, even though I know it won't matter come 2.0 I'm still curious to know why. I am still figuring out how people do circuits and I have a basic grasp on how they work, but I for the life of me cannot figure out why in Klonans example of a remote base has the passive supply chest have it's contents be multiplied by -2 in that network. Can someone explain what the purpose of doing that is vs just multiplying the signals by -1 and applying the constant combinator to that signal so if anything is below the amount required it'll send that as a negative signal?

I invert things within an isolated resupply network with a -1. So I’m not sure why he would use -2 (my main thought is that he uses the “read train contents” option on his outposts). I’d have to play around with it, but I’m assuming if he does have the read train contents setup for some reason it would double the supplies, which would maybe necessitate the -2. However, he also mentions using the circuit to call the train (enable / disable the station). And I’m always just using any item is positive. And I think the -2 would make that not work.

Edit: my only other theory is that he is somehow adding that requester chest *and* the network contents (doesn’t look like this sample screenshot is hooked up to a roboport either) back in for some reason. Maybe to help offset when logistics bots pick something up the counts get messed up and the train adds more than it needs? But I don’t think that would fix that issue. But that brings me back to a request I’ve often had is that items bots are carrying are still calculated as “within network” until they are placed into the world. Currently, even if bots pick up some items to quickly shuffle them elsewhere in the network (for example, an ammo chest feeding turrets or a supply belt) they are “removed” from the network and the train then immediately replaces them. Not a huge deal for me, but for high-cost things, it could be.

But basically, if you have a remote outpost and setup a roboport network with a roboport set to display network contents (instead of bot stats) it will report everything available in the chests. You can then setup a constant combinator with all the stuff you want to have on hand in that network. You can invert that (with a -1) and send it to the inserter unloading a train. It will then only unload enough to bring those counts back to positive. You then know you have at least your desire restock count on hand.

Edit: sorry the description above was inverted. Hopefully this image explains it better. (More explanation: viewtopic.php?p=196162#p196162)

So I think, you’re doing the same thing I’m doing.

It’s actually a pretty simple circuit:


IMG_0867.png

Klonan explained the -2, essentially it calls the train when the chest is half empty, which I didn't consider and yeah that makes a ton of sense.

[Murzik]

I would like to express a bit of criticism of the planned changes as a long-term Factorio player. The main issue is that the vanilla game is already quite complex for an average gamer. Thus, adding new compulsory mechanics such as recycling and building space platforms does not make it any simpler.

First, I got an uneasy feeling when I discovered that most of the manufactured items should be recycled to get better quality items. It is hard to imagine a production process, where 99.99% of stuff goes to waste. But OK, I have not played it yet, so maybe it will be fine.

Secondly, after reading all the articles about the space platforms I still do not get their main purpose. Probably, I misunderstand it, but to me they look like glorified trains between planets. It begs the question, if I build a long rail track with an ordinary train on the same planet, why wouldn’t it bring me to a new area with rare resources and stuff? This would make travelling there and back to base a bit of a challenge, but conceptually it is not complicated. Building a space platform sounds grindy with no result in sight. Like a Leetcode programming challenge. And I would think twice before doing one of those.

And finally, the weight mechanic. I am aware that a good chunk of players love Space Exploration, Bob’s Mods etc., and I must admit that I find them complicated. It feels like a cache overflow, when the effort spent on learning the game no longer results in fun experience. Especially, if simultaneously playing some other game in spare time. I can imagine that introducing weight may result in many new and interesting challenges (gravity issues, train acceleration, etc.). However, doing this could irreversibly break the fragile balance between fun and tediousness of the gameplay. It might look better in the game code or something, but not necessarily a fun thing to balance by player. In my opinion, it is a bad idea.

I will, however, give the benefit of the doubt to the developers. Maybe all of this is needed. Maybe Factorio 2.0 will eventually turn into something big, with countless complex mechanics and paid subscriptions. But so far, the FFF posts remind me of Starfield, in which the cosmos is fake and there is not much interesting to do on its barren planets.

Anyway, regardless of how the 2.0 turns out, I appreciate having a well balanced vanilla game with plenty of mods.

[mcmase]

I would like to express a bit of criticism of the planned changes as a long-term Factorio player....

First, I got an uneasy feeling when I discovered that most of the manufactured items should be recycled to get better quality items. It is hard to imagine a production process, where 99.99% of stuff goes to waste. But OK, I have not played it yet, so maybe it will be fine.

Secondly, after reading all the articles about the space platforms I still do not get their main purpose....

And finally, the weight mechanic....

I will, however, give the benefit of the doubt to the developers. Maybe all of this is needed. Maybe Factorio 2.0 will eventually turn into something big, with countless complex mechanics and paid subscriptions. But so far, the FFF posts remind me of Starfield, in which the cosmos is fake and there is not much interesting to do on its barren planets.

Anyway, regardless of how the 2.0 turns out, I appreciate having a well balanced vanilla game with plenty of mods.

I want to add for context. In quality, it is not meant to be used for each item. And in fact, like you mentioned, recycling 99.99% of production would be a huge waste. So you will likely only want to get highest quality for specific, advanced items, or in later stages of the game where quality will definitely increase how far we can push things within a factory. Getting highest tier quality from the outset would be an insane strategy that would take ages and probably end up with you getting killed by biters or run out of resources before you made significant progress.

I think where we are now with announcements, space platforms and other planets have been kept under wraps. I think in the future we will know why other planets vary more than "travel far to get something new". Hopefully each planet brings unique challenges, as well as the challenge in getting there!

I agree on the weight mechanic, is seems contradictory to the rest of the game and very complex for very few uses that we know of. However, it does add a layer of problem that needs solving, which is what Factorio is all about, and like you said, benefit of the doubt to the dev team who has actually playtested this...

[XT-248]

Hey.
I read your discussion and feel the solving of problem could even be more simple than bots.

In fact we know, devs don't like to have bots for transportation to have a belt-mess just for fun.
Also you figured out that there is no agreement if it is logical to have thrusted bots in some kind. Especially because there are no logistic chest in space to get the parts from.

I bet that they will go the easy way to transport all needed parts in underground and pop up a new building with some animation at some point.

But what if they decide to use a crane instead?
They already invented the long wormy arms to grab asteroids out of space.
It would imaginable to have such an arm attached to the hub to do all the building things.

In this case you do not need any bots and have an animation where you could see were the parts originate from.

I don't believe they will do it but it would be awesome - i think.

I believe you messed up the quotation blocks a bit. Regardless, I can understand what you are saying.


Yeah, I wouldn't mind something inspired by CanadaArm2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Servicing_System) that moves on rail between locations.

A downside of going down this route is that multiple animations would have to be created (idling mode, picking up an item, moving from A to B in any direction, putting down items, construction animation for both building and platforms, scaling up to multiple arms as to not make players wait too long).

The closest thing I can think of that exists similarly to this concept is SpiderTron's legs (arm with multiple joints), and I am uncertain if it would be trivial to export code to a construction arm on the space platform.


Whereas construction bots already exist code-wise, a slight optional adjustment to 2D dimension spirit (for inventory if they are going this route), a slight quirk of jet to indicate that they are moving in space, adding a launch point for construction drones to the Space Platform Hub doors, and tweak the existing Roboport code over to Space Platform Hub (at the same time blocking logistic bots).

The latter seems the less laborious intensive route that WUBE can take.

[Qon]

But what if they decide to use a crane instead?
They already invented the long wormy arms to grab asteroids out of space.
It would imaginable to have such an arm attached to the hub to do all the building things.

In this case you do not need any bots and have an animation where you could see were the parts originate from.

I believe you messed up the quotation blocks a bit. Regardless, I can understand what you are saying.


Yeah, I wouldn't mind something inspired by CanadaArm2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Servicing_System) that moves on rail between locations.

A downside of going down this route is that multiple animations would have to be created (idling mode, picking up an item, moving from A to B in any direction, putting down items, construction animation for both building and platforms, scaling up to multiple arms as to not make players wait too long).

The closest thing I can think of that exists similarly to this concept is SpiderTron's legs (arm with multiple joints), and I am uncertain if it would be trivial to export code to a construction arm on the space platform.

Or inserter arm. Spidertron legs were inserter arms in the prototypes. And the base would just translate along a rail system that could also be a base for a new kind of transport system.

Would be cool with new types of logistics. Rail with turning radius similar to belts, with some kind of mining carts that drive without separate locomotive units. Would be used like a hybrid of belts and trains, slightly faster and smarter version of cars on belts and throughput between belts and rails. And the arm animation on the contruction wagons could be very simple.

But it seems like SA won't add any new logistics alternatives.

[XT-248]

Or inserter arm. Spidertron legs were inserter arms in the prototypes. And the base would just translate along a rail system that could also be a base for a new kind of transport system.

Would be cool with new types of logistics. Rail with turning radius similar to belts, with some kind of mining carts that drive without separate locomotive units. Would be used like a hybrid of belts and trains, slightly faster and smarter version of cars on belts and throughput between belts and rails. And the arm animation on the contruction wagons could be very simple.

But it seems like SA won't add any new logistics alternatives.

I believe you got a little carried away.

There are several constrictions to keep in mind: Space Age is an expansion with a limited time window before release, the most recent version of the space platform's construction animation feels wrong somehow for a Factory Simulation video game, and I am trying hard to come up with a suggestion that re-use existing codes/art to keep the time it takes to implement short.

Hence, the Space Construction-only Drone concept.


As cool as your suggestions are, it does run into multiple issues.

There is no zero-width (it would have to go between Space Platform buildings to get somewhere, and space/mass are at a premium) movement between tiles mechanic that I know of.

New art/animation for this 'hybrid of belt and train with a ConstructionArm attached' would have to be created partially from scratch for the final product.

Suppose a Space Platform is partially damaged and broken into pieces without any space platform physically connecting them. How would the ConstructionArm reach the disconnected platforms to re-purpose the space platform to repair the connections? A Space Construction Drone using air-less propulsion in space neatly bypasses this issue by going there directly and back to the Space Platform Hub.