[kovarex][2.0.11] Super Force Building Over Belts Forces Incorrect Belt Orientation

[GeneralTso]

The super force build function which moves belts underground forces incorrect orientation on belts when super force building things such as a balancer on top of existing belts.

Screenshot (14).png (1.57 MiB) Viewed 1633 times

The above graphic illustrates the issue. When using super force build to rebalance an existing set of belts, belts are moved underground (as the feature intends when force building objects) but such that the blueprint is not respected and the balancer belt orientation breaks.



What did you do?

I attempted to force build a balancer on top of a belt.

What happened?

Some of my existing belts were moved underground rather than leaving their current orientation or being rewritten by new belts in the same orientation, breaking the balancer. Specifically belts labeled 'A' and 'D' were moved underground breaking the balancer.

What did you expect to happen instead? It might be obvious to you, but do it anyway!

I expected the belts to be overwritten by new belts (in the same orientation) when using super force build.

Does it happen always, once, or sometimes?

Always


I imagine a reasonably quick solve for this may be to just allow a keybinding to offer 'dumb' super force build to use the mechanics original design reported here https://www.factorio.com/blog/post/fff-383, and not trigger the helper function moving the belts underground.

[Asquil]

I am seconding this bug report - the same thing happened to me too, on 2.0.13. With the same blueprint, just without the iron chests. This is unexpected behavior, and I think should be changed.

[Loewchen]

Ref.: 117452

[kovarex]

I originally thought about these weird cases to be something too complex to consider.
But I looked at it again, and it seems that I just had to add 1 relatively simple rule to make this work as expected.
The rule is, that perpendicular belt (to the one existing on the tile already) will force the underground traverse *only* when there is no connection to the belt in the same blueprint.
I added tests of this and all other super force building requirement tests passed, so it seems to safe enough to push it.

This means, that the example with the balancer and chests pushed over existing 4 straight belt line work as you woudl expect now.
The only remaining thing to make this perfect would be to make some "empty space request" in the blueprint, so the chests aren't needed, but that is for another time

[Hares]

That's a great change! Thank you!

[Brathahn]

i know its already fixed but my workaround for this was to just super force build it twice to get the correct result

[Hares]

i know its already fixed but my workaround for this was to just super force build it twice to get the correct result

That won't work if your balancer design has undergrounds inside it.

[Araeos]

Even though this case with the iron chest will get fixed in the next update, why wouldn't a simple rule of the like "don't place undergrounds when the blueprint (that is being super-force built) has an entity in the same exact location". The existing belt turning into an underground would make sense if and only if the blueprint does have an empty space in that spot open in order to "avoid collision".
I'm probably missing something

[Locane]

Even though this case with the iron chest will get fixed in the next update, why wouldn't a simple rule of the like "don't place undergrounds when the blueprint (that is being super-force built) has an entity in the same exact location". The existing belt turning into an underground would make sense if and only if the blueprint does have an empty space in that spot open in order to "avoid collision".
I'm probably missing something

I second this logic too, not sure why it's not this simple

[kovarex]

Hmm, yes that actually might be enough, my case is just more specific to minimze the probability I randomly break something, but if there are more cases where the proposed rule would fix it, while the old rule doesn't work, I can consider changing it.