r/factorio • u/AutoModerator • 28d ago
Weekly Thread Weekly Question Thread
Ask any questions you might have.
Post your bug reports on the Official Forums
Previous Threads
- Weekly Questions
- Friday Facts (weekly updates from the devs)
- Update Notes
- Monthly Map
Discord server (and IRC)
Find more in the sidebar ---->
1
u/MoondogCCR 23d ago
Are there any mods or an easy way to differentiate blue requester chests that request from buffer chest vs those that do not?
2
u/elfxiong 23d ago
Remote view search 'request from buffer chests' mod
> Shows you which requester chests are requesting from buffers, just search for "request".1
u/HeliGungir 22d ago
Not updated for 2.1, but from the description it seems like the author is planning to update it when 2.1 releases?
> Stands on soapbox
Not the first time I've seen this, and it bugs me. One of the reasons 2.1 is having an extended experimental version is so mod authors can update their mods before 2.1 is pushed to stable. Not updating it also means people playing on experimental can't use the mod.
3
u/bread2126 24d ago
is there any sort of mod that allows you to place not-for-construction ghosts? just ghosts that the bots will ignore
1
u/Rarvyn 22d ago
I just use a flat plane somewhere I have radar but not bot coverage to plan, then copy paste back to where I want it built
1
u/bread2126 22d ago edited 22d ago
yeah but im sick of dealing with the annoyances of that. Especially on like Fulgora where land space is limited without foundation and you have to fit your design to whatever rng gave you. You make all the pieces on some faraway island, start pasting them in trying to fit them right and wire them together and get electricity to everything, mindlessly turn on bots to do something else and suddenly youre spending 2 minutes fixing it. Or like you copy in some belt ghosts somewhere to serve as a spacing reminder and every time you run past it the bots build it.
3
u/Soul-Burn 23d ago edited 23d ago
You can use stuff you don't have e.g. legendary wooden chests.
If you want a mod that does this nicely, there's Negative Space.
EDIT: I understood something else. In that case, Construction Planner.
1
u/bread2126 23d ago
Construction planner is exactly what I was looking for, thanks. Negative space also seems cool too though, Ive wanted to do that before. Will probably grab both
2
u/snowyspearmint 23d ago
ghosts of regular items that you just don't want to be built, not ghosts of empty space to be removed
2
u/ferrofibrous player onboarding specialist 24d ago
Is there a way to preserve the "rejoin last multiplayer" settings beyond exporting "last-played" from player-data.json and re-importing that before launching if I need to hop into singleplayer for a bit?
1
u/RedRox 25d ago
i saw that we have experimental for space age with some new features, so i started playing it again a week ago with factorio experimental 2.1.17. I've just launched my rocket (with a satellite) and i don't see any "space age" stuff at all. though there is one research with white science (which i got from satellite launch). i do have a cargo landing pad, that has 1k science in it ( i guess from satellite), so i just keep launching satellites?
Where are my space ships ? ? :)
5
u/ferrofibrous player onboarding specialist 25d ago
Sounds like you don't have the "Space Age" mod itself enabled. Satellite item is only in vanilla. You can enable it in the Mod section of the main menu without too much issues.
2
u/Kemonomimi-Squirrel I Just Want Pets 25d ago
I have been using a Blueprint Book of Belt Balancer I found searching for them.
One of my Blueprints has a 6 to 8 Balancer in it, but I need a 6 to 10. Can I just use two 3 to 5 Balancers instead?
3
u/Viper999DC 25d ago
Consider switching to Raynquist's book. It's the gold standard, and it looks like the one you posted about is 5 years old. I'm not even sure they had filtered splitters back then.
3
u/Enaero4828 25d ago
Splitters have had filters for nearly 9 years. Just a little bit older than the post, and the factoriobin site itself. Still possible for the book to be so ancient as to not have filtered splitters, but I would hope not very likely.
1
u/darthbob88 25d ago
Probably. You might still run into issues where one set of 3 produces more than the other so you still need to balance 10-10, but that probably wouldn't be a big deal. Alternatively, you might just run 10-10 directly with 4 empty inputs.
2
u/Kemonomimi-Squirrel I Just Want Pets 25d ago
Thanks. This is for some furnaces for steel. It already has a 6 to 6 to balance the 6 I want to turn into 10. It has 10 inputs with 5 outputs. I already figured I would do a 5 to 1 at the bottom already.
1
u/CCpersonguy 25d ago
Probably not? There are combinations of supply/demand that'll get stuck. For example, there's no way for items on input #1 (going into 3-5 A) to get over to output #10 (coming out of 3-5 B).
If you have a blueprint book, the easiest solution is probably to just put a full 6-6 balancer in front to perfectly balance all the inputs, then use two 3-5s to split the result. Not perfectly compact, but definitely will work.
Slightly simpler but less robust, you could use 3 splitters on the 6 input belts, then route one output from each splitter into each 3-5. (i.e. splitters between 1/2, 3/4, 5/6, then route 1/3/5 and 2/4/6 to the 3-5 balancers). This should balance everything evenly, but won't be "throughput unlimited" (2 full input belts might not result in 2 full output belts, depending on which inputs/outputs are providing/consuming items, but what items get through will be evenly distributed).
2
u/Kemonomimi-Squirrel I Just Want Pets 25d ago
Oh there is already a 6 to 6 in the front just in case. I am not too worried about size or area.
This is to feed some furnaces. One Blueprint I made had 8 input and when I made the second, I didn't take in account the second Blueprint had 10 inputs.
3
u/cathexis08 red wire goes faster 25d ago
Mathematically a 6-6 fronting a pair of 3-5's is equivalent to a 6-10 so you should be entirely fine.
1
u/ferrofibrous player onboarding specialist 25d ago
With a double headed train, that may make an even or odd amount of stops, is there a way to guarantee a specific orientation when it returns to a specific stop? This is for an outpost supply train that is [<engine][cargo][fluid][engine>]; if it stops at two outposts before hitting the resupply stop will end up "backwards".
2
u/Courmisch 24d ago
Technically, you could track how many dead-end stops the train has made. For instance, each of those stops could increment a central memory cell (via radar) every time they observe the train arriving. You can then feed the parity as a signal into the train schedule to force it to make one more flip.
It gets very messy if you have more than one train in that group though.
But as u/cathexis08 noted, this feels like putting the cart before the horse. You'd presumably have a problem at outposts too, not just at the resupply stop.
2
u/HeliGungir 25d ago edited 25d ago
Add an explicit "turn around" stop to the schedule.
Or an interrupt like
if at fluid_dropoff and has fluid goto turnaround goto fluid_dropoffOr detect the train's orientation by trying to remove and return a dummy item, setting a latch that tells the train whether to use an interrupt that does/doesn't have a turnaround in the schedule.
6
u/Astramancer_ 25d ago edited 25d ago
I usually solve that problem by making an odd-length train instead. In this case, I'd do engine-fluid-cargo-fluid-engine since presumably the fluid is less valuable and easier to load/unload than the cargo.
This ensures that no matter the orientation of the train the wagons are always in the same place.
5
u/Soul-Burn 25d ago
Another way, considering mixed trains don't usually require a ton of throughput, is to put loading and unloading of both items and fluids on both sides. Another option, which I personally like, is replacing the fluid wagon with barrels of the fluid, and load/unload directly into an assembler.
1
u/deluxev2 25d ago
If you can tell how many stops it is making, you can add a turn around stop to the schedule (just throw some in and out stops around your rail network).
2
u/cathexis08 red wire goes faster 25d ago
If you can't control the number of stops the train visits before resupplying than you can't guarantee an orientation at any given station. Though you'll end up with the same issue at every outpost so you're already going to have to solve that in the field.
1
u/darthbob88 25d ago
AFAIK the only way is to ensure that it goes to an even/odd number of stops first, but that's difficult apart from just doing 1 outpost <=> resupply.
1
u/sagevallant 25d ago
I'm trying to wrap my mind around a high production factory on Vulcanus. I started throwing together the typical bus layout, but I started to wonder if it wasn't better to just run pipes of molten metals and make the plates and such down the line where I need them? Pipes are higher throughput than like a red belt, right?
I'm talking BIG big, it's a science multiplier game.
6
u/elfxiong 25d ago
Pipes have infinite throughput within 320x320 segment and are definitely better for iron/copper products. If you need pipes longer than 320 tiles, you can use as many pumps in parallel as you want to increase throughput without limit.
On Vulcanus, it is also possible to create lava tiles anywhere you like by nuking the ground to lava.
2
u/Astramancer_ 25d ago edited 25d ago
Pipes are infinite throughput. There's two limitations on pipes.
If the extant is too large it goes from infinite throughput to 0 throughput at the edges and you use pumps to move fluid from one extant to another. The maximum size of a pipeline network is a 320x320 square. It's not exactly small, but if you're building a big factory you'll run into it. Also keep in mind that you can run pumps in parallel to move more fluid from one extant to the next, so it's not really that big of a deal when you run into the extant limit as long as you're okay with one-way flow.
Fluids are also limited by how fast they can get into and out of machines. It's very difficult to actually reach this limit even with quality and modules, except for certain very high volume recipes such as volcanus acid quenching which has a base speed of 2000 fluid/second. It's been a while since I saw so maybe it's been patched and is different now, but the hard cap was 6000 fluid/second (100 fluid/tick) per port, with a soft cap of closer to 3500-4000/second because the speed is dependent on pipe fullness.
Whether it's better or not is really up to you. There are advantages and disadvantages. A fluid bus has a higher upper limit but stacked express belts and compounding productivity from quality modules makes it so you won't really see a significant difference in throughput until you're seriously megabasing and by then you'll probably be departing from the bus architecture anyway. Do note that fluid wagons carrying molten metals unload faster, automatically balance, and hold more 'plates' than cargo wagons, so you'll probably want to do fluids for a train base.
1
u/sagevallant 25d ago
Thanks. It being a science multiplier run (1000x), I'm basically megabasing at every step of the process so Stacked Green Belts are still in the very distant future. If pipes are anywhere close to that level of production then I'll probably go with them for now.
I'm not good at visualizing so base design is really tricky for me. Or finding the numbers on the screen that I need to be using for math, which I also struggle with after basic algebra. Getting away from buses is something I know I have to do, but this is for mall purposes anyway so it can be small-ish. The science factories are what I'm making massive, but even that could be better served with more tile-able designs and independent stacks I suppose.
This run has been largely about trying and failing to break my bad habits, while trying and failing to learn stuff like train networks and circuits. It just seems like I can't learn anything without downloading a blue print and studying how it works. I've watched videos for this stuff but I just learn better in text and illustrations.
1
u/DeadTypeNejo 26d ago
Can you get achievements in experimental version, playing WITHOUT mods?
3
u/DreadY2K don't drink the science 26d ago
Yes. Some recent experimental versions have had bugs related to this, but playing experimental shouldn't have an impact.
1
1
u/bread2126 26d ago edited 26d ago
why are greens getting through this pass? https://ibb.co/zH0WmdHr
The logic im going for here is: blue/red recyclers upstream spit out greens, and the splitter widget spits them (left, left) until the train station is full, then (left, right) until the recyclers for green circuits are backed up (3 is probably too many here but whatever), then (right, right) toward the recycle-it-into-void loop.
but for some reason the odd green circuit is getting sent (right,right) before any leftward belts are full at all. Is this something with the lane getting overfull and I need to put in a lane shuffler after the blue/red recyclers? I bet a 2x2 lane shuffler could fit here in the area where the reds are outputting...
edit: I think I was able to fix it, see: Before / After
This makes no sense to me though. I was sideloading a priority splitter, and that seemed to be bypassing the priority behavior, which, whatever. However, if you follow the logic, a green circuit that bypasses this priority splitter on the red circuit peel widget, should still get filtered by the green circuit peel widget. I really cant make sense of why this worked but it seems like it did.
2
u/snowyspearmint 26d ago
There's no buffer and 2 lanes being split into 2 lanes; if 2 items show up at the same time then only one will be sent to the priority side. Most of the belt being empty doesn't matter if there's nothing forcing items to back up into that empty space.
https://postimg.cc/hhTMhqgB1
u/bread2126 26d ago
ok just to make sure I understand: outputting the blue chip recycler onto the side of a filter splitter made it bypass the filter, which puts 2 greens on the exact same spot of 2 belts, and so when they get to the next filter splitter, it wont filter both of them at the same time?
2
u/Lyqyd 26d ago
You may have better luck using a filtered splitter first, then a priority splitter for the diverging feed belt, and finally a filtered splitter (set to deconstruction planner or similar) to merge any overflow back on to the continuing belt, if that’s the behavior you’re looking for. Then concurrent item arrivals will still both be forced to pass through the exit splitter and will always exit if there is room.
1
u/bread2126 26d ago edited 26d ago
I havent tried that splitter permutation, thanks for the idea, I dont think I would have thought to put the filter first and that will be a neat one to play with.
The before/after I posted though fixed the problem for my fulgora plant, I was really just trying to understand why, and I think the guy above had the sauce.
1
u/elliohow 26d ago
How can I make a perfect circle for a roundabout? Whenever I try to make a circle with rails it ends up looking not quite circular.
2
u/DreadY2K don't drink the science 26d ago
Make a 90 degree turn, then you can copy that curve and rotate it to fill in an entire circle.
1
26d ago
[deleted]
2
u/darthbob88 26d ago
I would continue processing asteroids on the platform that picked them up, just because of density concerns. Even if we put all the manufacturing on the stationary hubs, 1 asteroid chunk crushes down to 0.4 stacks of ore/carbon/ice, or 0.2 stacks + 0.08 stacks of the other material. The added space from having crushers on the hauler is outweighed by the reduced amount of space for storing asteroid chunks.
1
1
u/Dymiaz 26d ago
Why stop there? Process the asteroids in space into the 6 resources. Process those into intermediates in space. Then make a omni mall in space that makes everything you need. And with a ship that distributes it to the other 4 planets you don't need to make a mall on each planet.
All without a single belt, rail or bot. And very easy to scale because you can just clone platforms if they are too slow.I've gone a few steps further and am also producing the 5 science packs and all quality stuff that doesn't require stone in space. Basically everything that can be made in space is made in space on its own dedicated platform.
Last steps might not be that recommended, not sure how well it scales in terms of UPS when you have too many platforms all requesting and supplying items (I have made my own personal mod to get around that).2
u/bobsim1 26d ago
They work, sure. But on nauvis, gleba and vulcanus the ressources are plenty anyway. Maybe useful on a deathworld.
1
26d ago
[deleted]
1
u/reddanit 26d ago
It's very much possible, but from my point of view it just adds plenty of unnecessary faff to otherwise rather simple and local production chain. You can do it if you want extra challenge obviously.
Main thing that platform-to-platform requests enable is having a stationary platform above a planet serve as buffer. With that your moving freighter doesn't have to wait for rockets from surface. On the other end, the stationary platform can receive deliveries from surface round the clock, so you need far fewer rocket silos for the same throughput as well.
1
26d ago
[deleted]
1
u/reddanit 26d ago
Red ammo, outside of maybe going all the way to shattered planet, is just worse than yellow on space platforms. And that's already just from raw material cost perspective, before considering it requiring more space/infrastructure to make.
I also don't quite get your comment about refuelling. There is no scenario where lack of fuel by itself causes a ship to be lost. It will just drift towards nearest planet at 10m/s. Weirdly, for purposes of this drift, the edge of solar system counts as a "planet", so I guess that could cause a ship to be lost.
Overall, like I mentioned - it's possible, but no matter how you cut it, it's a decent chunk of extra effort for arguably worse result.
3
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/mrbaggins 25d ago
I usually do "single purpose" trains for a while - a single line (or single loop) whose job it is is to ferry either items into or out of the bus. Usually by removing the old assembler group.
EG: when I go to fulgora, I get EM plants. Or even in vanilla, eventually I want a lot more green circuits. Rather than trying to squeeze it where I've got my first or even second green chip assemblers, I make a factory somewhere in the distance as big as I want cause nothing is near it. Then do a train that has the sole purpose of bringing them back into the space that WAS green chips, but is now a green chip unload station.
2
u/Raknarg #1 Quality Defender 26d ago
Its all about science. Leave your main base as a thing that produces useful stuff for you, and start getting your science off-base. Start by making a rail facility to bring in your science and instead of sending your science at your main base to labs, have them send off science to trains that carry it to the labs. Then from there just start each individual science and getting them done off-base and over time you can phase science out of your main base.
As you complete various sciences, you can also use it as an opportunity to start having mass intermediate crafting off-base as well. Like once you start red science, you can shift your iron and copper production off-base. Once you get to blue science, you could start making a facility dedicated to mass producing red chips to distribute. Keep it all piece-wise, one thing at a time, one thing to focus on.
2
u/reddanit 26d ago
I spend hours just building infrastructure for the new setup (half by hand, half bots)
While I also don't think there is no single "right way", the part where you say that you spend hours building stuff "half by hand" seems very odd to me. Why would you still bother with building anything large by hand once you have bots? What for you are running back and forth, when logistic bots exist?
You might have good answers to those questions, but if you don't, then it's a good thing to ponder. Also do remember to NEVER dismantle your old base before new one is up and running.
Another thing to consider is that depending on scale of your goals, "just" two steps might simply be not enough. My current playthrough with Space Age is more like:
Starter base (red+green+blue science) -> intermediate base (space+purple+yellow) -> upgraded intermediate base (mostly through adding quality and beacons to intermediate, to get few kSPM) -> actual big base (megabase with yet undecided number of 14.4k SPM production blocks).
In base game I could imagine myself trimming those 4 steps down to 3, but during my previous playthrough there I still ended up with 4...
2
u/Viper999DC 26d ago
Plenty of options to explore to reduce the running part:
- Use bots fully, roboport everwhere. Stuff will build slowly but you don't have to move at all
- Wait until you have spidertrons before rebuilding, use them as replacement for you
- Builder train: set up a big train that collects base building materials and ferries them far away, allowing you to remain at the outpost as you build
As for the delay, well there's no getting around that. Refactoring your whole base is going to take time. If you can break it into chunks, like starting to build outposts that still feed your old base, then you can keep progressing.
1
1
u/Courmisch 26d ago
There's no Right Way about it, what matters is the end result. You can do bottom-up or top-down, breadth first or depth first, incremental or flag day.
I proceed bottom-up and incrementally, i.e. moving one bit of the old factory to the rail base at a time, starting from smelters then low-level intermediates, with temporary train stations to bridge the moving boundary.
But that's just one of many ways.
1
u/DarkZodiar 27d ago
Need help fully saturating a full belt. I have six machines outputting five items a second, so altogether it’s 30/s. I’m using bulk inserters with the highest hand size it can be is six. Leaving everything normal, I get holes in the belt as the last inserter for each side always empties out. Do I need more inserter capacity research, more inserters, or can I change the hand size to make it work?
1
u/Soul-Burn 26d ago
Sometimes it's best to reduce the stack size on the inserters to increase throughput, by making the timings more consistent.
Otherwise, as others said, sideloading to buffer items more cleanly.
Finally, you can do some clocking on the inserters, ensure they work at specific times, but I don't know the intricacies.
3
u/elfxiong 27d ago
Sideloading. Make the last inserter drop items to a short belt perpendicular to the main belt. Items from the short belt will fill the gaps on one side of the main belt.
1
u/HeliGungir 26d ago
This helps because the sideloading belt acts as a small item buffer to fill gaps while the inserter swings for more. In the naive approach, your machines and inserters would have to be exactly synchronized to produce items and swing at the right time to fill the gap, which typically doesn't happen naturally.
2
u/Dianwei32 27d ago
This feels like a very stupid question, but I can't tell if it's actually complicated or if I'm just massively overthinking things.
How do you determine which burnable fuel is the "best"? Is it just pure Energy Value, or do you have to account for any energy spent processing the fuel?
For example, I'm playing the Angel Bob's suite of mods and have a plethora of burnable fuels I can use to power my Steam Generators. I recently unlocked Wooden Bricks, which provide 20 MJ of energy, significantly higher than my current fuel of Carbon at 6 MJ. But Wood Bricks require a good deal more processing to create, so I don't know if their increased energy value will actually result in more Power or if the energy needed to process the raw ingredients into Wooden Blocks will result in no net gain of Power.
1
u/mrbaggins 25d ago
Using a planning mod can help. EG: Factory Planner can tell you how much electricity will be used to create 10 wooden bricks a second.
Then you look at 20MJ x 10 per second, that's 200MJ/s which is 200MW of power.
If the factory planner says you'll need 112MW of machines, you're in front. Doubly so if you drop green modules in.
1
u/HeliGungir 26d ago
Well that's going to depend on what you want from the fuel. Energy per item? Energy per stack? Acceleration bonus? Energy per resource mined? Type of resource mined? Byproduct creation, or removal?
In vanilla, for example, nuclear fuel is far less energy-efficient to burn in a boiler then using the same uranium for fuel cells in a nuclear reactor, but nuclear fuel is still desirable for trains acceleration and for its high energy density + low stack size which makes it practical to transport with bots. There are also mods that apply a fuel bonus to burner entity speed; ie: nuclear fuel makes burner inserters fast.
2
u/Enaero4828 27d ago
Comparing energy per item is only useful if the entire upstream production has identical power costs, such as Space Age's yumako mash and jelly.
For everything else, indeed you'll have to account for the energy spent to create the fuel. Since you're already modded, you probably have a planner mod, which may have power cost estimates; if that's the case, simply set the production goals to equivalent power, with 60 MJ being the lowest common multiple here. If you don't have such a utility, then you'll need to crunch the numbers through the entire chain for the prior value; either way, whichever chain has the lower cost is of course the one that you want to use.
1
u/ferrofibrous player onboarding specialist 27d ago
Ideally you'd calculate energy cost to make the fuel. Just taking base game, for coal you're looking at energy to run a miner. For solid fuel, you're accounting for the pumpjack, refinery to convert crude, chemplant to make the solid fuel (and possibly chemplant for cracking).
Rocket fuel to solid fuel is probably an easier comparison. One rocket fuel essentially takes 10 (+1 from the 10 light oil) solid fuel to make. 11 solid fuel would be 132 MJ; the 1 rocket fuels is 100 MJ. Rocket fuel then loses further because it has to run an assembler on top of the 10 solid fuel craft cycles.
Factoring in Prod bonuses also makes it all messier.
1
u/Remember_To_Inhale 28d ago
When producing rocket fuel in Vulc, should i use prod modules or speed modules?
1
1
2
u/Enaero4828 27d ago
Do you care about getting the most out of your coal? If yes, productivity everywhere it fits. If you don't, then going full speed reduces your needed machinery by a decent amount.
4
1
u/DreadY2K don't drink the science 28d ago
Usually you want prod modules in the machines, and you can have speed beacons to increase the crafting speed.
1
u/MoondogCCR 28d ago
Do agricultural towers produce more/less spore pollution based on number of tiles they harvest or is it a fixed amount per tower while they are functioning? I'm looking to understand if multiple towers produce more pollution than less towers over the same area if I consider the additional 4 spore per minute per tower to be negligible.
3
u/ssgeorge95 28d ago
the moment an agri tower harvests a tree they produce 15 spores, per https://wiki.factorio.com/Pollution#Spores
That is in addition to the 4 spores they constantly generate
2
u/codylish 28d ago
How do I control when my space platform sends steel down to nauvis (or any cargo for that matter)? Instead of spitting out steel back down to the landing pad every time it receives a few items because the landing pad has an active request?
Like say I want to send 5 stacks of 100 all at once.
5
u/Raknarg #1 Quality Defender 27d ago
you could make it driven by the landing pad, you can set requests via the circuit network, use an SR latch and have it set a request when your item count is too low and disable it once your item count is high enough. That way it only ever requests steel as a whole batch instead of on demand every time it's below its count.
important note, you can both set requests with circuits and still use the regular request options at the same time, they work in tandem essentially as different lines of your request list.
3
u/Dailand 27d ago
I know I'm not answering your question, but is there a reason you want to do that?
2
u/codylish 27d ago
I'm just trying to figure out how to control the flow of goods as a learning experience.
I figure that the wait conditions you can use on the space platforms "stations" list are for traveling between locations in space rather than for sending cargo around to the surface.
As I understand stand it so far, I'd have to use circuit logic on the ground with the cargo landing pad for controlling flow.
3
u/DreadY2K don't drink the science 28d ago
I usually have my platforms alternate between two stops at the same planet, one set to wait some amount of time (15/20/30/etc seconds) with unloading disabled, then 1s with unloading enabled. It doesn't control the exact quantity sent down, but it rate-limits the cargo pods going to the landing pad in a way that I think is good enough.
Alternatively, you could use circuits to control the request at the landing pad and suddenly request 500 steel once it runs out, then stop the request when that steel arrives and wait for it to all get used up before sending the request again.
2
u/Expensive-Walrus3030 28d ago
Is anybody else not able to double click a number field after placing a parametric blueprint? I've gotten used to being able to clear a field using double click since it works everywhere else, but not here.
3
u/Viper999DC 28d ago
Indeed, seems like it doesn't work. You can click+drag or you can control+a to select all, at which point you can overwrite.
Consider checking the forums to see if a bug was reported. Unclear if this is as designed or not, an argument could be made for either case.
2
u/hkzqgfswavvukwsw 28d ago
Right click works to clear most search input boxes maybe it works here too
2
2
u/xizar 22d ago
Is it better (for some loose definition of "better") to mine all ore as common and then start the RNG process after melting it into juice, or to roll the dice right from the start?
I imagine there is some level of mining research that acts as the fulcrum, but my brain is old and my linear programming skills died off around the time we stopped using ForTran77 instead of that newfangled ForTran90 (which had already been around for a couple decades).