|
It would be kind of nice if the blueprint structure had an option that just made it a 32x32 cube that had inputs where the belts were and outputs were the other belts are. For when you're doing really crazy big mega structures
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
Now you're getting into Minecraft Compact Machines territory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 02:44
|
|
|
I like how you have to plan ahead to hook everything up. It feels very consistent in game. Slows down the whole just plop an whole rear end factory instinct.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 03:21
|
|
|
oh my god i just clicked last page and they added blueprints?!
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 03:49
|
|
|
Hmmm, two bugs to avoid: 1. Don't use slashes or other characters that aren't filename safe in your BP names. A thing I tried naming "blabla over/under" came out as a folder named "blabla over" with BP files inside it". It worked during that session, but a quit & load made it disappear from the BP UI. 2. Don't build into the BP Designer using blueprints. One, it crashes the game when you hit the clear button. Two, it doesn't make a new BP successfully. The last instance of a BP you placed doesn't save into the BP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 05:03
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:People are already going whacko with the blueprints. Behold, 32 constructors: what sort of silly clipping or control tricks do i need to learn to be able to do stuff like this? i don't remember having learned any
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 06:23
|
|
|
Ciaphas posted:what sort of silly clipping or control tricks do i need to learn to be able to do stuff like this? i don't remember having learned any I'm just guessing that they started from the top and moved down. So a bunch of foundations to the maximum height you can place constructors, place them, remove foundations from the top until you can fit another, repeat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 08:10
|
|
|
I like the idea of insane blueprints like that because they'll allow you to quickly and compactly ramp up your infrastructure to get to high tier miners and conveyors, then they're easy to tear down to build your "real" factory. I never had any problem with manually building everything except for when it was stuff in the early/mid-game that I knew I was going to have to tear down anyway. I never saw a reason to build anything aesthetically pleasing since it was all pretty much temporary and then in all of my games, the "temporary" factory ended up getting so big that I lost interest in continuing when the time came to tear it all down and rebuild. This goes a long way toward solving that problem and I really hope they don't "fix" it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 11:43
|
|
|
Do blueprints save color changes? I can see it being helpful to like, mark a spot with a different color so I know where to connect other blueprints with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 16:15
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knrK1TbyTgs "uselessly small"
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 16:35
|
|
|
LifeSunDeath posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knrK1TbyTgs Build up stupid!
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 16:55
|
|
|
Ciaphas posted:what sort of silly clipping or control tricks do i need to learn to be able to do stuff like this? i don't remember having learned any The main clipping trick to know is that you can build foundations clipped into machines. So to build a solid cube of constructors do your first layer on the ground, then use 2 4m foundations to make a new floor. Then put another layer of constructors down. This is a lot easier than building downwards. Delete all the foundations at the end using mouse back button to dismantle only foundation. Consult the wiki to know the height of each building if you want to do stuff besides constructor. OTOH I don't think that constructor cube is a very good design in practice myself. The main thing is that changing the recipe for which product they're making is a pain when they're packed like that. Secondary thing is how every constructor has its own splitter & merger. That's pretty inefficient when a dense manifold could share them. Splitters and mergers are active objects running functions, so using 2x as many as you need isn't ideal in the long run. Mr Scumbag posted:This goes a long way toward solving that problem and I really hope they don't "fix" it. I don't think you need to worry about that. Many of the concerns the designers had with blueprints were stuff about individuality vs cookie-cutter design. The problem isn't that players can build too easily or progress too fast. The thing they want to avoid is "here's the standard ideal Motor Factory blueprint", which is a thing that the other factory game with blueprints kinda has going. They didn't want it to end up with everybody's stuff looking the same. (The second concern is that giving people a tool that makes building easier at scale means they will build at scale, which hits performance.) Thus, the 36m cube. It's just big enough to be useful, but way too small for a complete X Factory for any non-trivial item. Even the idea of blueprint libraries that you can snap together to make a bigger factory is gonna be difficult.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 17:02
|
|
|
LifeSunDeath posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knrK1TbyTgs To be honest, the guy makes some good points. The "We don't want to make it too easy to hit the object limit so we limited the size" excuse is pretty obvious BS when a tiny fraction of people will ever even come close to hitting the limit and those that will are insane people who will build unnecessarily large factories anyway simply because they can and want to push the game to its limits. The vast majority of people will never even know there's a technical hard limit. The other problem with that excuse, he mentions, is that if the object limit is even a concern, then why not give the players a way to do more with less, ie. more efficient machines so the we DON'T have to build so many entities. If they're really concerned about that, then they've come up with a very inefficient solution to a problem of their own making, so it's a bit like they're having their cake and eating it too. He doesn't seem to be arguing that they need to be huge (just bigger than they currently are), but he rightly points out that they are not particularly useful when applied to a lot of the larger machines, and the fact that power/pipes/belts won't connect between them further degrades their convenience. I haven't messed with blueprints yet myself. I think I'll largely be satisfied with them for reasons I mentioned a little earlier, but it's hard not to think that their current implementation is more "This might shut them up about blueprints, finally" than really delivering on the potential of such a system. Even just the power and belts etc. connecting automatically would go a really long way to improving their potential. I expect there to be some changes. Hopefully their usefulness can be expanded, even if only a little. Fake Edit: I'm not a huge fan of the "We don't want everyone to use the maximum efficiency blueprint" claim either. People who want to be creative will always be creative. People who don't care about aesthetics will continue to make spaghetti bowls, and people who want to be maximally efficient without making their own designs will continue watching Youtube tutorials, as content creators will continue to make those tutorials, because releasing a 3kb blueprint file is not as profitable to them as doing a 20 minute video with ads and sponsors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 17:37
|
|
|
Mr Scumbag posted:He doesn't seem to be arguing that they need to be huge (just bigger than they currently are), but he rightly points out that they are not particularly useful when applied to a lot of the larger machines, and the fact that power/pipes/belts won't connect between them further degrades their convenience. I mean when you are looking at something that has reduced between 25 to 100 clicks to a single click, then complaining that you still have to click 4-8 times to connect the two blueprints together seems petty to me? Like, auto-connecting belts between BPs would be cool if they can make it happen! But it also sounds hard. Mr Scumbag posted:The other problem with that excuse, he mentions, is that if the object limit is even a concern, then why not give the players a way to do more with less, ie. more efficient machines so the we DON'T have to build so many entities. Lowering the OC penalty is pretty much doing that. Mr Scumbag posted:Fake Edit: I'm not a huge fan of the "We don't want everyone to use the maximum efficiency blueprint" claim either. People who want to be creative will always be creative. People who don't care about aesthetics will continue to make spaghetti bowls, and people who want to be maximally efficient without making their own designs will continue watching Youtube tutorials, as content creators will continue to make those tutorials, because releasing a 3kb blueprint file is not as profitable to them as doing a 20 minute video with ads and sponsors. I dunno. Creative people will definitely be creative, but one thing that attracts creative people and gets them to buy your game is seeing lots of creativity. If a lot of the community content is about blueprints and made with blueprints, that has less power. I don't know where the tipping point is for blueprint power where there would be a switch over to reddit being full of blueprint-sourced factories. But it's a genie bottle situation where if you guess wrong it's very hard to go back. (Also spaghetti is another form of uniqueness. LGIO has sold tons of copies of the game. It's not just about being artistic and pretty, it's anything that someone sees and is impressed by.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 18:26
|
|
|
I think I'm going to pass on playing experimental for now; I just got past Phase 6 for like, the fourth time and I'd like to see this save game through. I've finally developed a building style that I genuinely like working with; and blueprints don't really appeal to me. Maybe if they let us do something with all these alien artifacts...
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 20:26
|
|
|
Klyith posted:Lowering the OC penalty is pretty much doing that. Nilaus didn't cover the OC changes in that video, but he did specifically call out using the object limit as an excuse while still requiring a shitload of objects for a useful factory. If you don't want me building 200 refineries, with accompanying pipes/belts/generators/etc, then give me a mk4 refinery and mk7 belts so I can just build ten of them for the same output. If the lack of those things is intentional because you want me to pave paradise that's cool too. The part that makes no sense is telling me to pave paradise and then trying to discourage it. Papering over the issue with a very limited (unless you're insane or cheating) resource and trying to constrain tools to make building big inconvenient are very weird solutions to a problem the game has created for itself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 07:07
|
|
|
Focusing on the object limit is a distraction. You don't need to get anywhere close to the object limit to complete the final shipment on the space elevator, even if you want to make it happen in an hour. AFAIK resident mega-builder NESG doesn't hit the object limit. I don't know why Nilaus is focused on the object limit, because for the developers general performance is a worry long before a player runs into the object limit. The devs generally don't care that much about the object limit -- they optimize for it when possible by reducing the number of uobjects a thing uses, but they've said they're never raising it. Reason being the vast majority of the audience, who don't have pro videogame streamer beef PCs, are hitting slideshow fps first. Anyways SMART still exists! If you just want to build 200 refineries in 10 minutes, SMART has you covered. edit: oh, Nilaus builds in a really spread-out way, and is completely OCD about placing everything in the exact center of foundations. He's complaining that there's no room to build the IO for manufacturers and refineries when there totally is. The guy is kinda a dope. Like, I got plenty of Gamer OCD of my own but it's super useful to occasionally look at yourself and say "oh, my ridiculous self-imposed rules for how I play are the problem, not the game". Klyith fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Nov 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
Klyith posted:I don't know why Nilaus is focused on the object limit That'd be because Coffee Stain brought it up as a negative aspect of blueprints. The implication (while not explicitly stated) being that they were saving players from themselves with the 32x32 grid because otherwise they'd hit a hard object limit. The fact that this was bullshit because hitting the object limit is insanely rare was part of Nilaus' video.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 17:13
|
|
|
Thanks for the thoughts. One thing in particular caught my attentionKlyith posted:Secondary thing is how every constructor has its own splitter & merger. That's pretty inefficient when a dense manifold could share them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 18:16
|
|
|
Mailer posted:That'd be because Coffee Stain brought it up as a negative aspect of blueprints. The implication (while not explicitly stated) being that they were saving players from themselves with the 32x32 grid because otherwise they'd hit a hard object limit. The fact that this was bullshit because hitting the object limit is insanely rare was part of Nilaus' video. Eh, if it's rare now, that doesn't mean it won't come up more if people are building blueprints with 50+ pieces in them at a time. It's still likely to not be an issue for most players, even on large collaborative maps, but I don't think it's an entirely fake concern.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 18:21
|
|
|
Klyith posted:Focusing on the object limit is a distraction. You don't need to get anywhere close to the object limit to complete the final shipment on the space elevator, even if you want to make it happen in an hour. AFAIK resident mega-builder NESG doesn't hit the object limit. I hit it once back in Update 3 building my ~96 ACU/min factory out in the desert. Had to edit my Unreal Engine config file to stop the game from crashing, haven't had any issues since then. Whether that's because it kept that edit between updates or they did a better job of optimizing the game I can't say, but I think I was getting single-digit FPS when I had to make that edit. Most people would probably stop playing on account of sluggish performance before they hit that point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
Klyith posted:edit: oh, Nilaus builds in a really spread-out way, and is completely OCD about placing everything in the exact center of foundations. He's complaining that there's no room to build the IO for manufacturers and refineries when there totally is. The guy is kinda a dope. Like, I got plenty of Gamer OCD of my own but it's super useful to occasionally look at yourself and say "oh, my ridiculous self-imposed rules for how I play are the problem, not the game".
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
The last time I played solo a few months ago I kind of chafed at finding new nodes and having to start fresh on early production stuff, so this blueprint update is very exciting. Might have to convince my gaming group to go to this next after we finished Grounded.Klyith posted:Like, I got plenty of Gamer OCD of my own but it's super useful to occasionally look at yourself and say "oh, my ridiculous self-imposed rules for how I play are the problem, not the game". Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying About Perfect Stealth and Love Dishonored.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 20:09
|
|
|
Ciaphas posted:Thanks for the thoughts. One thing in particular caught my attention A splitter / merger can do a pair of machines in a manifold (back to back or front to front). So like in that constructor cube image you could have the constructors share a single merger line down the center. The wiki has an illustration and calls it "double manifold". But you can go further -- here's what will probably be my standard for large blocks of constructors in the future:  1:1 ratio of constructors & M/S boxes, can't get better than that. How much does this really matter? Probably not a lot. But I'm pretty sure that M/S boxes consume more CPU than plain belts. OTOH the more efficiently you share mergers and splitters the faster you hit belt speed limits, so it's not like there are any perfect solutions. This is why, for me, this blueprint method is pretty ideal. Something like that is a bit more fiddly & time consuming to put together than a basic 2d manifold. Now it's easy. I care a lot about using space efficiently and making things look good, so now I can spend all this time making stuff just so and it's worth it. NoEyedSquareGuy posted:I hit it once back in Update 3 building my ~96 ACU/min factory out in the desert. Had to edit my Unreal Engine config file to stop the game from crashing, haven't had any issues since then. Whether that's because it kept that edit between updates or they did a better job of optimizing the game I can't say They've said that they've reduced the number of uobjects that many of the active buildings use over time, for ex constructors used to need 16 and now they're like half that. Some of that is their devs optimizing, some of that was a big engine update that allowed them to convert a bunch of stuff from uobjects to a different memory type that isn't limited.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 20:55
|
|
|
Deki posted:It's still likely to not be an issue for most players, even on large collaborative maps, but I don't think it's an entirely fake concern. Oh I don't mean to imply that it's a fake concern. It's a very real concern, if only because hitting that limit probably means the game is already running like a slideshow. Pointing to it as the reason for the tiny blueprint machine is what was being criticized.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 02:12
|
|
|
presumably the limit is a lot easier to hit on accident when you can place down 50 objects at a time instead of just 1
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 03:02
|
|
|
It's a real concern because hitting the uobject limit is an immediate game crash which is unfixable aside from editing the ini to raise the limit, which they've said can produce nasty side effects like save corruption in the past. A known crash bug is a pretty lovely thing to have in your game. Performance is a different sort of blame -- as long as most people are ok with how the game performs for them, it's ok to say you need a better PC to build that big. I do think that, for the devs, the object limit is fairly secondary to other concerns. It's a convenient one, because telling people "part of our ad budget is player creativity" is pretty impolitic. Though IIRC in the launch stream one of the devs did come pretty close, something like they want it to be limited to force more ideas. Also if you play around with how blueprints snap to each other, you see right away why it's a limited box. Like, 5x5x5 would also be fine, but I don't know if one more foundation would fix it for Nilaus. ... Totally separate from all that, today I discovered that the blueprint box is actually 37m tall. If you clip a foundation or something down into the floor of the build box, it works as long as it's just 1m. There's no warning or prevention for this, even if you go farther down. Anything that's too far just won't save in the blueprint. Also the "ground level" of the blueprint continues to be as normal, so if you have stuff that's clipped into the floor it'll also be clipped into whatever surface you're building onto. This turned out to be extremely convenient for making blueprints of my railway supports.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 05:14
|
|
|
Plus I'm pretty sure there'll be mods for the people who just want to Press Button, Receive HMF Factory, I Win
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 14:10
|
|
|
The box solution is the perfect compromise for this game between wholesale factorio blueprinting and the core 1st person factory building mechanics of satisfactory that the developers want to maintain. I don't really understand criticisms of the box being too small. It maintains that 1st person aspect and encourages modular standardizations. It owns. Besides, you can already (with some difficulty) do wholesale blueprinting it's just with an out of game tool that can be pretty finicky. Go copy/paste some giga factory there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 16:51
|
|
|
Some people will never be happy unless the devs cater to their specific and bespoke opinions on how their game should be made. They're often the loudest people around and it's like that in almost every sphere of life and it sucks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 18:30
|
|
|
Yea constraining the blueprint size feels like a good compromise. With DSP I found I ended up using massive 3rd party blueprints to terraform worlds and it felt like it took a lot of the charm out of the process. I know it's on me to not use them but it's so easy it feels like the obvious route to scale up operations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 18:55
|
|
|
Nukelear v.2 posted:Yea constraining the blueprint size feels like a good compromise. With DSP I found I ended up using massive 3rd party blueprints to terraform worlds and it felt like it took a lot of the charm out of the process. I know it's on me to not use them but it's so easy it feels like the obvious route to scale up operations. Even when making your own blueprints DSP gets kind of boring in the end game. Need more of something, open up the blueprint for a complete production line of that thing with automated inputs/outputs, set a bunch of them down on an empty planet then wait a few minutes while your construction drones assemble it all. Rinse and repeat for the next thing over and over until you don't feel like playing anymore. Not necessarily saying that DSP should adopt a similar limited approach but the Satisfactory devs have a point when they say that unlimited blueprints are "overpowered" in games like this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 19:07
|
|
|
I get the feeling that a "blueprint box 10x the size of the normal one" mod will be readily available very quickly
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 19:10
|
|
|
NoEyedSquareGuy posted:Not necessarily saying that DSP should adopt a similar limited approach but the Satisfactory devs have a point when they say that unlimited blueprints are "overpowered" in games like this. One thing that got brought up in the U7 explanation video was something like "the joy of building every piece by hand". Satisfactory always felt like a halfway point between building in No Man's Sky (cosmetic/manual) and Factorio (functional/automated) so you're going to have people who want to lean harder in either direction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 04:04
|
|
|
I'm pumped as gently caress for this blueprint functionality, I can just save a 4-smelter shack and slap one or two down between every Miner and where I want the Ingots to go?! I've done moderate-concept, moderate-size builds by the standards of our Satisfactory hero posters here and I feel like being able to blueprint-and-forget all of my most-common setups into a list of common unit inputs is going to let me actually push past that into some really demented poo poo that I've gotten ideas for but never had the gumption to point-and-click together.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 21:39
|
|
|
I'm not sure where I can fit blueprints into the actual mechanical side of my plans (though smelter shack seems like a good, generally applicable one) but it's sure going to make things pretty rail supports easier for me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 00:15
|
|
|
For anyone considering moving to or is already in experimental, there is a pretty major bug with smart / programmable splitters using the overflow rule. They can get jammed up somehow and stop overflowing. This may be a belt bug rather than in the splitter itself. I found that just replacing the splitter didn't fix things until I also replaced the belts it was connected to, which jives with other reports. If you have load-bearing smart splitters in your world this could be a real killer, like for fuel power production to sink excess polymer. Or even worse nukes. My home base factory is completely jammed up right now due to the crazy number of smart splitters there (it runs on a giant sushi belt). My turbofuel plant seems ok for now, but I'm nervous. relevant bug on the QA site to watch: https://questions.satisfactorygame.com/post/6373aecaca608e0803524779 Mailer posted:One thing that got brought up in the U7 explanation video was something like "the joy of building every piece by hand". Satisfactory always felt like a halfway point between building in No Man's Sky (cosmetic/manual) and Factorio (functional/automated) so you're going to have people who want to lean harder in either direction. They specifically called to Minecraft, in which people do large constructions that are both cosmetic & functional block by block. Think redstone, not just a house or whatever. The difference is that pretty much all redstone stuff is bespoke, with only a few small bits being universal & repeated (timers, flip-flops, etc). There's no equivalent to the constructor manifold that's super-repetitive. Even the minecraft mods that add conveyors and factory stuff generally don't need massive parallelism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 16:01
|
|
|
Klyith posted:They specifically called to Minecraft, in which people do large constructions that are both cosmetic & functional block by block. Think redstone, not just a house or whatever. I'm not the Minecraft demographic but I can see why it's a thing. Some people want the prettiest factory and some people want to make twice as many plates per minute. There's gray area but the guy trying to produce obscene amounts probably doesn't want to spend 300 hours carefully placing widgets. When the game attracts both and caters in one direction, you're going to get complaints. Not wrong complaints, just ones that aren't aligned with where CS wants to take the game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 17:08
|
|
|
If anybody is playing a modded game and having problems with recipies that involve fluids+solids (turbofuel, alumina solution), the mod that is causing the problems is Fluid Sink.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
I have not used experimental mode before. How does that sync up if I am using saved games from the stable version and when the experimental version goes live want to revert back to stable etc.?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 17:49
|
|
