No Fast Way To Quickly Set Up Train Signals?

[Wigbert FriggleShit]

I could have sworn there was a OpenTTD-esque feature that assisted with laying out signals precisely to the spacing that you desire, for example, to a 4-vehicle length spacing, and all you'd have to do was click and hold and run along the tracks and the game took care of the rest.
Is there actually a feature like this or do I have to rely on the ghost outline and manually lay out signals? Very tedious work

[Hurkyl]

You can do that with blueprints... at least for a straight track.

I forget exactly how, but when editing the blueprint, you can change the behavior of a click-and-drag, so that dragging snaps to a fixed distance relative to where you started dragging (or to snap to a global grid).

I think the default distance is so that you are laying copies of the blueprint as adjacent tiles. But you can also adjust the offset so that adjacent copies will overlap or have gaps.

Of course, you still have to wait for bots to place the signals. Or manually place the signals in the ghosts the blueprint makes.

[AlexMBrennan]

I think the default distance is so that you are laying copies of the blueprint as adjacent tiles. But you can also adjust the offset so that adjacent copies will overlap or have gaps.

No, blueprints do not have automatic snapping enabled; if you take a blueprint of a rail with a signal and drag it then it will fill all space with signals.

[Hedning]

Originally posted by AlexMBrennan:

I think the default distance is so that you are laying copies of the blueprint as adjacent tiles. But you can also adjust the offset so that adjacent copies will overlap or have gaps.

No, blueprints do not have automatic snapping enabled; if you take a blueprint of a rail with a signal and drag it then it will fill all space with signals.

It has both relative snapping where it will snap based on where the first was placed, or absolute where your rail has to be aligned to the same grid as the signals.

Best to just make a blueprint with both rail and signals and make it absolute grid snapping from the start.

[Hurkyl]

Originally posted by AlexMBrennan:

I think the default distance is so that you are laying copies of the blueprint as adjacent tiles. But you can also adjust the offset so that adjacent copies will overlap or have gaps.

No, blueprints do not have automatic snapping enabled; if you take a blueprint of a rail with a signal and drag it then it will fill all space with signals.

No, I was saying what the default width was when you turn on snapping.

[Wigbert FriggleShit]

Originally posted by Chindraba:

Have your tried Rail signal planner[mods.factorio.com]?

Yep, this does exactly what I need, actually MORE than I need, I somehow overlooked this mod when gathering together QoL stuff.
I don't really mind setting up chain signals on complicated junctions myself, that's satisfying work in many cases, but I think the devs really ought to consider a vanilla implementation of the signal spacing feature on straightaways, maybe using the upgrade planner or something which currently has no effect on rails anyway

[Morsk]

Originally posted by Wigbert FriggleShit:

I don't really mind setting up chain signals on complicated junctions myself, that's satisfying work in many cases, but I think the devs really ought to consider a vanilla implementation of the signal spacing feature on straightaways, maybe using the upgrade planner or something which currently has no effect on rails anyway

I agree. Manually counting train lengths is completely obnoxious. I like 3-8 trains, and I don't want to know how many times I've counted to 11 in Factorio.

[Maltsi]

Originally posted by Morsk:

Originally posted by Wigbert FriggleShit:

I don't really mind setting up chain signals on complicated junctions myself, that's satisfying work in many cases, but I think the devs really ought to consider a vanilla implementation of the signal spacing feature on straightaways, maybe using the upgrade planner or something which currently has no effect on rails anyway

I agree. Manually counting train lengths is completely obnoxious. I like 3-8 trains, and I don't want to know how many times I've counted to 11 in Factorio.

There is an in game setting to show train lengths up to 12 when placing signals. No need to count anything unless you go trains lengths above 12. That being said, it would be nice to just click and drag those signals and automatically placed them at the certain distances

[Maltsi]

Originally posted by Chindraba:

Another interesting mod, which won't do the signals automatically, and requires you to make a print (well a few prints) to use it is F.A.R.L.[mods.factorio.com] Fully automated rail layer. It can also be fun just to use it in "bulldozer mode." I liked that mod, just couldn't make it fit into the style I was playing at the time. Probably later though.

FARL does automatically place signals depending on what setting you use, at least for straight and curved rails (probably not for intersections). It does require you to do one straight rail bp and one curved, nothing too complicated, those only need to be 1 track long and contain power pole and both signals

[Hurkyl]

From what I recall, when the OpenTTD people were designing high-throughput rail networks, they would set very short distances between signals, so that trains could pack closer together.

The important thing is regularity. The idea being that if you have two trains, one following another, and they don't run into any obstacles, then signals should never cause the rear train to have to stop for a red signal.

E.g. if you had a pattern if having 4 car lengths between signals, and then had one block that was 5 car lengths long... that would cause a stop if the rear train happened to be following behind with a gap between 4 and 5 car lengths.

By avoiding this, you keep trains running, rather than losing a lot of throughput by having trains randomly stop and have to accelerate from zero, just because they coincidentally packed a little too closely together earlier up the line.

(OpenTTD had more tools to keep traffic flowing when the short signal spacing couldn't be observed, namely elevation and bridges/tunnels, so Factorio networks can't quite achieve the same level of efficiency that OpenTTD ones can)

The main specific thing that "one full train" spacing does is, when combined with the "regular signal immediately at the exit of an intersection" style, it guarantees that a train won't enter the intersection unless it can clear the intersection.

And if you want to guarantee behavior, I don't think that's the only solution. E.g. you could put a chain signal at the exit and then the normal signal afterwards, spaced far enough to ensure that the path doesn't open unless there is enough space to clear the intersection.

[Morsk]

Originally posted by Maltsi:

There is an in game setting to show train lengths up to 12 when placing signals. No need to count anything unless you go trains lengths above 12. That being said, it would be nice to just click and drag those signals and automatically placed them at the certain distances

Thanks but it's not enough imo; it should show a number on the last wagon highlight, not just 11 highlights, so I know it's really 11. I use it at intersections to decide whether to move a signal that's too close, especially in multiplayer where I didn't design everything myself. I can't tell if "11" isn't 10 or 9 without counting.

I know from multiplayer that it's much harder to get someone to measure exit blocks than "chain in, rail out" even though you will deadlock without it. I believe this is because the UI tools for doing it are so painful.

Originally posted by Chindraba:

As to the exit block from a junction, that must be a minimum of a full train, or deadlocks will happen. Perhaps rare, if your luck holds and traffic is light, but eventually it'll strike. (Unless there's only one train, and then you don't need signals anyway.) Signalling a junction has anti-deadlock as the top priority and throughput secondary. (Of course, a deadlock is the same as throughput of zero, so throughput's half-secondary?)

It is hard to get people to take this seriously. In multiplayer I would tell people that deadlock takes manual labor to fix, so it's against the spirit of the game. We are trying to make the factory run by itself. More recently I thought of the concept that signals only inform the front of the train, that trains don't know their length, the game in general has no way to talk about the full length of a train, and measuring the exit blocks is the only way to trick the game into doing it. I haven't tried telling it to anyone yet to see if it helps.

[Hedning]

Originally posted by Morsk:

Originally posted by Chindraba:

As to the exit block from a junction, that must be a minimum of a full train, or deadlocks will happen.

It is hard to get people to take this seriously. In multiplayer I would tell people that deadlock takes manual labor to fix, so it's against the spirit of the game. We are trying to make the factory run by itself. More recently I thought of the concept that signals only inform the front of the train, that trains don't know their length, the game in general has no way to talk about the full length of a train, and measuring the exit blocks is the only way to trick the game into doing it. I haven't tried telling it to anyone yet to see if it helps.

I disagree with this. Sure if your junction is close to another you need to follow this rule. Junctions that are close together should be treated as a single large junction.

If on the other hand there's a long straight after it is better to cram the trains closer by opening the way sooner, which you accomplish with a short exit block. Sure it is theoretically possible that it causes deadlocks, but if your trains are backed up all the way from wherever it starts to that junction there's another primary cause, and the deadlock just meant you found out about your error sooner.

[AlexMBrennan]

but if your trains are backed up all the way from wherever it starts to that junction there's another primary cause

The primary cause is that the lack of train bridges requires trains to stop at intersections. This forces the trains behind the stopped train to also stop. Ideally this should not block nearby intersections which is why the above rule exists.

[Morsk]

Originally posted by Hedning:

If on the other hand there's a long straight after it is better to cram the trains closer by opening the way sooner, which you accomplish with a short exit block. Sure it is theoretically possible that it causes deadlocks, but if your trains are backed up all the way from wherever it starts to that junction there's another primary cause, and the deadlock just meant you found out about your error sooner.

The exit block doesn't have to be in the middle of the track, if it disrupts close signals you like to have in long sections. You can have the train cross to the opposite side and wait in a separate exit block there, before merging.