Originally posted by 19wolf

so we can actually finish everything in time

In time for when?!

Originally posted by buyutec

Yes but you could do that in 1.1 as well. What I’d want is, after hitting, say 100spm for all sciences, increasing only the red science production to 200 to be useful so I get some benefits before I increase all else to 200.

Thanks for the answer!

Originally posted by cube1234567890

How consistently will we have to name train stops? Will we have the ability to provide a signal to a train stop to determine its purpose, such as a positive value for an item signal making it a "pickup" station and a negative value making it a "dropoff" station? It's how I imagine you'd be able to make stops that want or supply different items without enforcing a naming convention from on high. Maybe we want Train stop is full of bees to supply our iron :3

That way you could use some clever circuitry to request different trains too...

Originally posted by Steeljaw72

I am very curious to see what scale you think the new bases are going to be in 2.0. I have found that scale is something the community struggles with when discussing the game. Some players think 100 trains on a rail network is huge while others would think 1k trains is barely entering the mid game.

In my modular train bases, 1.5-3k trains is pretty normal. In my centralized bases, 1-1.5k is not unheard of.

Just from everything that has been said in the FFF, it sounds like you (the devs) expect bases to be way larger than what we are doing now. How many trains do you expect we will use at megabase level in 2.0? What size are your bases now (in 1.1) and how large are they in the current 2.0 build?

Originally posted by Ekgladiator

Elevated rails..... Is there a fff I can read more about this because it sounds interesting 🤔

Originally posted by buyutec

Did you slowly build up to 10K or planned for it? My biggest gripe with 1.0 is that you hit a certain SPM and you can't slowly increase from there (as increasing production of only 1 science is not useful), you have to plan the entire thing to hit a higher SPM. Does that change in 2.0?

Originally posted by Fisherman_56

Were you considering integrating purely visual mods into base game?

Disco Science and Bullet Trails, while not changing anything gameplay-wise, make Labs and Gun Turrets look so much better.

Originally posted by subjectivelyimproved

Are you planning to precalculate the routes for trains as part of building rails and scheduling trains, instead of pathfinding on-the-spot?

Or are you referring to collision checks?

Consider me teased either way

Originally posted by JimmyDean82

600 trains was ages ago for me. And my base is only 1/5th done. Think I’m at almost 2k trains.

Originally posted by Professional_Goat185

This implies that the overall train traffic gets increased a lot, so the quality of intersections and the train network as a whole stops being just theoretical problem

uh, it definitely is not a theoretical problem now, with megabases people are building.

Also does that mean that the expansion will require significantly bigger production than vanilla, or are those (and belt/inserter) changes for sake of the mods ?

Originally posted by captainserafinowicz

Oh My God trains in 2.0 are gonna be so much fun to use

Originally posted by BengiPrimeLOL

I don't know if Factorio actually uses it, but there's a system called symantic versioning that is often used and very useful in software, and even when it's not formally used, the fundamental principles are loosely adhered to. Simply, symver says you have 3 basic numbers in your versioning, XX.YY.ZZ (ie 1.2.73) that are defined as such, with possible implications for a game like factorio:

XX - Backward Incompatible Features. major changes _that break previous compatibility_. Changes like this would likely see mods break completely, saves may not carry over or require big conversions that may break some aspects of the save.

YY - New, Backward Compatible Features. minor changes or feature additions that do not break any backward compatibility. Mods would likely work, but mod makers may want to add bits to their mods to tie into new features. Save files would likely be safe.

ZZ - Minor bug fixes. Generally no new features, mods & saves would likely...

Read more

Originally posted by Alfonse215

I agree with this. Except for this:

adding the updated internal name will allow mods to switch over earlier

That's the thing: should they actually change the internal name? Like, ever?

That would break a lot of mods, and it's not like there could be a period where the entity has two internal names as a grace period. Every mod that deals with stack inserters would instantly break with whatever version they change that internal name on. And it would be difficult (but not impossible) for individual mods to have their own version with a grace period, where they work with both the old name and the new name depending on which version of Factorio they're running on.

It would be better for them to keep the internal names the same forever. Yes, it's confusing for mod makers, but most Factorio players aren't mod makers and really don't care about the internal name. But they do care that a bunch of their favorite mo...

Read more

Originally posted by No_Object446

Is this circuit connection limited to assemblers, or does it also work with chemical plants, refineries, centrifuges, etc.