[0.11.11+] FARL 0.2.8 (Rail Layer)

[Choumiko]

Place a station with a single track where you want the automatic track placer to end, name the station as you want it to be, start FARL and select the station by name or from a list, off yer go.
Position and orientation comes from the station as they have a direction when tracks are left/right of them.

However I'm not into LUA and not into the Factorio API so I'm not sure if this makes sense at all

That would mean you (the player) has to be at the goal right? Then you could just drive the FARL there by yourself

Would be great if you could click on the map and somehow get the position (or even just the chunk) into lua, but that's not possible i think. It then would only be a matter of choosing the FARL, activate pathfinding, opening the map, click once and off he goes

[dee-]

Place a station with a single track where you want the automatic track placer to end, name the station as you want it to be, start FARL and select the station by name or from a list, off yer go.
Position and orientation comes from the station as they have a direction when tracks are left/right of them.

However I'm not into LUA and not into the Factorio API so I'm not sure if this makes sense at all

That would mean you (the player) has to be at the goal right? Then you could just drive the FARL there by yourself

Hm, yeah

However you'd have to just run around, plopping stations and FARL would mind about finding a good route and doing the rest, without players driving into lakes and such (which I think would be my fate when driving FARL manually )

Maybe this could later be incorporated into a research tree: lvl1: manual FARL, lvl2: FARL goes to station (semi-auto), lvl3: FARL goes to a click (auto)

[XyLe]

i dont understand why you'd wanna have red/green wires there.

It's pretty clear to me, he has a mining/factory outpost connected by train to his main base and wants that outpost to work/not work depending on item amounts in his main base. Before starting this mod i wanted something similar (main base only prducing repair packs when different outposts are low on them) and abadoned the idea because of how dull the required work to connect them all was.
Have you been placing medium poles yet? It's a bit wastefull since the connection distance is uneven and the logic places them only at the first tile of rails, which leads to an even distance between them. Might be more efficient if i also enable small poles, since they have an even range and are cheaper.

yes i have. and there's a few things to note:

1} medium poles can be further apart. it's not a terrible waste but the game allows for 1 more tile in between the poles.
2} small poles too = good idea. also as i've suggested - consider priorities. Big poles , if there's none- medium poles, if there's none - small poles. or do you wanna have 10000 different settings eventually?
3} it shouldn't place lamps behind the poles. i think it should place them aside. Like the poles go on the right side of the train and the lamps go on the left side of the poles (with 1 tile in between poles and lamps). it would be better for double track systems.
4} there's some problems with placing rails/poles, i'm thinking about making a video to show it because it's hard to explain, but i'm also assuming you're aware of the issues.

[Choumiko]

1} medium poles can be further apart. it's not a terrible waste but the game allows for 1 more tile in between the poles.
2} small poles too = good idea. also as i've suggested - consider priorities. Big poles , if there's none- medium poles, if there's none - small poles. or do you wanna have 10000 different settings eventually?
3} it shouldn't place lamps behind the poles. i think it should place them aside. Like the poles go on the right side of the train and the lamps go on the left side of the poles (with 1 tile in between poles and lamps). it would be better for double track systems.
4} there's some problems with placing rails/poles, i'm thinking about making a video to show it because it's hard to explain, but i'm also assuming you're aware of the issues.

1) Yes, i'll address this once i get around to (re)doing the placement of poles/lamps properly, for now the reason is that poles get always placed like this (driving north)

Code: Select all

RR             and never like  RR P
RR P                           RR

(the 4 Rs representing 1 straight rail)
2) Prioritizing is actually trickier than choosing (at least for now)
As for the 10000 settings, i'm aware of that possibility. When the ui gets too full with options i'm going to move the more exotic ones (like e.g. weight for curved rails) into a settings file. That way it stays flexible without cluttering the interface.

3) you mean like this:

If i were to build a double track system it would probably look like this:


I guess it's all depending on how one likes to layout his train system. Some might want the poles directly next to the track or 1,2,3 tiles away. Lamps before/behind/left/right/diagonal/etc to poles, signals every x tiles. Configuration/flexibility hell at its best Once 1) is done it should be fairly simple to change

I wonder if i could make it so that FARL reads a blueprint that tells it how to place poles, lamps etc relative to tracks. That would eliminate quite a few settings and still allow a lot of flexibility

4) If the issue is that lamps sometimes get not placed when using medium poles then i'm aware of it, if not then i am not

However you'd have to just run around, plopping stations and FARL would mind about finding a good route and doing the rest, without players driving into lakes and such (which I think would be my fate when driving FARL manually )

Maybe this could later be incorporated into a research tree: lvl1: manual FARL, lvl2: FARL goes to station (semi-auto), lvl3: FARL goes to a click (auto)

If you use cruisecontrol while driving it doesn't drive faster than ~86km/h, which is slow enough to avoid water in most cases (unless your zoomed in all the way )
Yes, pathfinding will definitely get it's own research, at least to unlock it and maybe to increase it's operating range. That idea with the station is interesting at second thought. It could be used as some kind of reminder, when you're out in the wilderness and you find a resource patch, plop down a station and once you need it (and have the research) tell FARL to build there

[Urbs]

Anyway to force the train to put down poles and light on an already built rail network?

[cpy]

Do you plan to use custom graphics for FARL locomotive?

[Choumiko]

Anyway to force the train to put down poles and light on an already built rail network?

No, not at the moment. This would be some sort of maintenance mode, remove poles, lamps, signals in front, place new ones behind.

Do you plan to use custom graphics for FARL locomotive?

I would do it, but that would require me to be reborn with graphic skills Seriously, if i were to try making custom graphics, they would have to be really close in quality to the vanilla ones, else i wouldn't release them. And that level is way out of my league.

[XyLe]

1} medium poles can be further apart. it's not a terrible waste but the game allows for 1 more tile in between the poles.
2} small poles too = good idea. also as i've suggested - consider priorities. Big poles , if there's none- medium poles, if there's none - small poles. or do you wanna have 10000 different settings eventually?
3} it shouldn't place lamps behind the poles. i think it should place them aside. Like the poles go on the right side of the train and the lamps go on the left side of the poles (with 1 tile in between poles and lamps). it would be better for double track systems.
4} there's some problems with placing rails/poles, i'm thinking about making a video to show it because it's hard to explain, but i'm also assuming you're aware of the issues.

1) Yes, i'll address this once i get around to (re)doing the placement of poles/lamps properly, for now the reason is that poles get always placed like this (driving north)

Code: Select all

RR             and never like  RR P
RR P                           RR

(the 4 Rs representing 1 straight rail)
2) Prioritizing is actually trickier than choosing (at least for now)
As for the 10000 settings, i'm aware of that possibility. When the ui gets too full with options i'm going to move the more exotic ones (like e.g. weight for curved rails) into a settings file. That way it stays flexible without cluttering the interface.

3) you mean like this:

If i were to build a double track system it would probably look like this:


I guess it's all depending on how one likes to layout his train system. Some might want the poles directly next to the track or 1,2,3 tiles away. Lamps before/behind/left/right/diagonal/etc to poles, signals every x tiles. Configuration/flexibility hell at its best Once 1) is done it should be fairly simple to change

I wonder if i could make it so that FARL reads a blueprint that tells it how to place poles, lamps etc relative to tracks. That would eliminate quite a few settings and still allow a lot of flexibility

4) If the issue is that lamps sometimes get not placed when using medium poles then i'm aware of it, if not then i am not

1. Ah, i understand it now, you can't make an even number of tiles in between poles because rails are 2 tiles long i should have seen it before. Well, not a problem really, it takes quite a lot of poles anyways!

2. If prioritizing is unreasonably harder to make - it's not really necessary so i wouldn't bother with it for now too, so it's wise. imho

3. yes this is exactly what i meant, great picture, that way you can mirror the setup and then there would be 2 lamps and 1 pole in between rails (although maybe it should be possible to have no gap in between lamps and poles, could be useful too).

The way you'd build a double track system is not gonna be super-pretty if you would also use circles for junctions. But that's a personal preference. I just like things to line up perfectly.

4. I'll probably make a video to show what i meant because it's just too hard for me to explain it in a text msg. Basically that has to do with connecting tracks and placing poles/lamp on curved tracks. Sometimes doesn't connect properly.

[dee-]

So FARL can now write rail-words?

[Choumiko]

4. I'll probably make a video to show what i meant because it's just too hard for me to explain it in a text msg. Basically that has to do with connecting tracks and placing poles/lamp on curved tracks. Sometimes doesn't connect properly.

It's fine, i think i get it. Could be related to 1. It should only happen with medium poles i think. Will look at it.

So FARL can now write rail-words?

Damn, i forgot to thank you for the idea
Before releasing FARL i played with a similar idea:

Not as pretty but can be done with FARL

[ssilk]

I would do it, but that would require me to be reborn with graphic skills Seriously, if i were to try making custom graphics, they would have to be really close in quality to the vanilla ones, else i wouldn't release them. And that level is way out of my league.

Perhaps it is possible, under some circumstances, to use the loco from the old rail layer mod?

[cpy]

I would do it, but that would require me to be reborn with graphic skills Seriously, if i were to try making custom graphics, they would have to be really close in quality to the vanilla ones, else i wouldn't release them. And that level is way out of my league.

Perhaps it is possible, under some circumstances, to use the loco from the old rail layer mod?

I was implying this but you said it in open, not me.
Would be nice if you could use that.

[Choumiko]

New version: FARL 0.1.6

Changes:

• option to toggle minimal pole placement (On by the default, since that's how it worked from the start)
  option to connect poles with red/green wires
  localisation for gui

Difference between minimal and non-minimal placement

minimal.jpg (337.84 KiB) Viewed 10057 times

nonminimal.jpg (377.47 KiB) Viewed 10057 times

With non-minimal placement FARL only checks if the last pole it placed is still in range. Minimal placement checks if there is a closer pole other than the last one placed by FARL, and then uses that.
Non-minimal placement is used automatically if you choose to connect poles with red/green wires

I was implying this but you said it in open, not me.
Would be nice if you could use that.

I knew you were implying that You can simply rename the files from the old rail layer according to the ones in graphics/entity/farl and then overwrite them.

[XyLe]

i also vote for graphics of the old FARL, it looked much cooler and unique!

[ssilk]

It has a copyright, Kolli (author) needs to be asked...

I send him PM.
Last visited:
18 Dec 2014, 23:46

Could take a while...

[Wenihal]

option to connect poles with red/green wires

Thanks a lot! This is awesome

Edit: got this bug

[Choumiko]

New version: FARL 0.1.7

Changes:

• fixed inefficient placement of medium poles when traveling vertical/horizontal
  display message when unconnected pole is placed
  fixed error with red/green wires

[Choumiko]

It has a copyright, Kolli (author) needs to be asked...

I send him PM.
Last visited:
18 Dec 2014, 23:46

Could take a while...

Thanks ssilk. My dream graphic would be a bulkier/heavier looking version of the old one, ideally with one or two inserters on top, rotating (from the cargo wagon to the front) when rails are placed. Guess that's not possible though. Or like one of these: http://www.plassertheurer.com/en/machin ... 800-s.html

Playing around with blueprints to tell FARL where to place poles/lamps at the moment. It looks quite promising, would be really flexible without dozens of settings via the gui. It would probably make me unlock blueprints with rail signals (they are still only really usefull when construction robots are unlocked, so i guess it would be ok balance-wise).
If you where to use FARL without blueprint defined settings, it would create a simpler setup (poles always on the right/left side, one tile from the track, lamps directly behind poles).
Any thoughts/input is highly welcome as i'm not really sure yet how i want to do it.

[ssilk]

My idea to this: When the length of a given blueprint matches (in right direction), it will be placed.

I mean it really like so: "Length": The small side of a rectangle. A direction can be indicated by "weight": if the upper half of the blueprint includes more entities.

[Choumiko]

My idea to this: When the length of a given blueprint matches (in right direction), it will be placed.

I mean it really like so: "Length": The small side of a rectangle. A direction can be indicated by "weight": if the upper half of the blueprint includes more entities.

I don't fully understand what you mean, but perhaps my explanation how blueprints are used make it obsolete anyways

These 3 pieces, saved in a blueprint and then assigned to FARL would tell it: Use medium poles, place them 1 tile left of the track, place a lamp directly before a pole.
You will only need 1 blueprint, it will be applied for all 8 directions.
With the current version you're limited to 1 lamp per pole, with blueprints you could surround the pole with lamps, without me having to change one single line of code

Edit: i may understand what you mean. Different blueprints for 45°/90° curves and FARL chooses which one matches?
To be clear: it will not place blueprints, it just calculates the positions based on the blueprint. In my dev-version i have a blueprint in my toolbar, press a button and the settings are updated, that's it. Right now it's just a nicer way than typing numbers in an ugly gui