kovarex

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 TechnicalAnt5890

Any thoughts on swapping stack and bulk inserter name?

Originally posted by Nazeir

So this means busses now become more compact, my 4 lanes of iron on my bus is now just 1 lane of iron. This is a massive improvement for space platforms and when we are rebuilding bases on other planets, a river of iron plates and copper plates will be reduced to a more manageable smaller area.

Originally posted by Illiander

Can you give a link to the docs for that? I just spent 5 mins in the modding documentation and failed to find it.

Originally posted by Illiander

Just give us min/max/sqrt functions in the numeric field as well as basic math.

And give us stack size as a dependent variable.

Those would let us do everything needed to set up requester chests safely.

Originally posted by StanFear

Ok, amazing,

but can I make a blueprint where I chose the item it is gonna create, and the Requester chests asks for X times the ingredients ? (and mybe, if the number of items needed is huge, it is configured to only ask x/2 times the ingredients ?)

Originally posted by Herestheproof

It sounds pretty trivial to add a “and inventory empty” condition to the go to depot interrupt if you’re worried about that.

Originally posted by F_Carrod

Will there also be interrupt conditions like "train is currently at station X"?

Use case: Maybe I want my trains to stop by the refuel station only on their way from outpost to main hase, but not on the way to the outpost. Because e.g. my refuel station is better reachable on the way to the main base.

I don't know how this can be done if all interrupts are checked at each station (apart from "hacks" like "check if cargo is full").

Originally posted by Goranim

Does "global" in the context of train interrupts being global mean that they are the same for each train on the same planet or the same for each train on all planets?

Originally posted by AbyssalSolitude

We have been asked to do something like 'logistic trains' many times. Schedule interrupts provide a more generic system, where logistic trains is just one of the things you can build from it.

RIP native logistic trains, I guess.

I very much hope that we can generate interrupts automatically, because writing the same "if cargo = x, then go to x drop station" interrupt for every single cargo type in the game to make generic trains going sounds like the opposite of what Factorio is.

Originally posted by wheels405

Amazing update.

One concern about train limits being held until the train leaves the station: is it possible this will lead to deadlocks if a player tries having [sum of train limits] - 1 trains? If a train has no destination to go, and no trains can leave to take its spot, that seems like a deadlock. To avoid this, I feel like you would need to have no more trains than either [sum of loading limits] - 1 or [sum of dropoff limits] - 1, which could be significantly fewer trains.

Originally posted by punkbert

for not letting us have these things already.

I'm smoking some excellent hopium for a Factorio 1.5 beta christmas surprise release with all the QOL-features already described in recent FFFs.

It's a potent mixture.

Originally posted by Nicksaurus

Ah right, so it only places the undergrounds if the total width of the thing you're placing is short enough for a single connection to cover it?

Originally posted by I_am_a_fern

What else could happen ?
Same thing if for some reason your logistic network is out of undies.

Originally posted by seky16

Question: when super force building upgrade of an entity (eg. blue belt over red belt), do we get them marked for upgrade or marked for deconstruction and ghosted new ones?

If not, can we? That would be a great upgrade to the feature

Originally posted by Nicksaurus

If any developers read this - how complicated is the algorithm to automatically place underground belts? I can imagine there are some pathological cases where you would have to do some sort of complicated graph search to find a solution that keeps all the belts connected

Also, this mechanic makes me even more certain that we're getting swimming and/or flying biters in the expansion, otherwise you could just build a moat around your factory and never worry about attacks again

Originally posted by RedsToad

Oml all of these changes are so so wonderful. The gif of super forcing entities over belts brought so so much satisfaction I love you factorio team!

The one thing that mildly bothers me is belt preview being weird, seen here https://imgur.com/a/rJKjDO4

Originally posted by Mornar

I have one question. What does that mean for biters? We can now moat them off in vanilla. Surely, surely something will change about them?

Originally posted by thejakkle

Is there going to be an 'empty space' you can add to blueprints I wonder. The forced build is great but if it leaves a rogue belt or inserter because it didn't collide with the new blueprint that could cause havoc with what you've just built.