Verliezer

I found the solution my self. I guess this forum is completely dead ...........

Hi, Hope anybody can help me. In the LUA examples from NQ in using Toggle Buttons on a screen, the creation of the Toggle Buttons is hard coded (fixed). Like this exampleA = Toggle(rx / 7 * 4, ry / 5 - rx / 40, rx / 20, rx / 20, false, "Example Toggle A (Linked)", font) exampleA:draw(exampleLayer) This works very wel. However I would like it to be a bit more flexible for script re-use purposes. I would like to create the Toggle Buttons based on aKindOfList. For each item in that list a Toggle Button should get created. I created something like this: if not init then init = true listofbuttons = {} For i, id in pairs (aKindOfToggleButtonList) do listofbuttons[#listofbuttons + 1] = Toggle(rx / 7 * 4, ry / 5 - rx / 40, rx / 20, rx / 20, false, "Example Toggle A (Linked)", font) end end For i, button in pairs(listofbuttons) do button:draw(exampleLayer) end This does not work. It doesn't give any error messages at all. From a coding perspective there seems nothing wrong. This made me wonder if it is possible at all to initiate objects and store them in a Array? Good to mention that I validated the for looping if it actually is going into the loop, it all works fine. It just does not seems to store the Toggle object created into the array. Is there anybody who can help (maybe NQ_LIGO)? ps NQ_ligo created the example on github: 03 - Lua Screen Widgets Objects render_toggle.lua

Great update and thank you! I kinda miss an update on the schema's. NQ-Ligo hinted on some new features that could related to maybe schema changes? Quote: "it just may take some time or wait for the integration of other features (like for example the known issue of remainingSchematics that will be solved with the integration of another feature soon)."

Is there a way to capture industry errors like "Unknown Error" in your industry? There are a few errors which are worthwhile getting notifications on, but which aren't officially documented. Maybe there is a "other then known" category?

Am I right that the State output of the API getElementIndustryInfoById(localId) is not capable of returning multiple industry errors? It only returns the lowest error in array rank?

Congratz and welcome back

Only one solution ... depleting ore pools ....... - More ore pools which deplete - gives scanning a more permanent and less frustrating job (because more decent pools), there is a reason for more frequent (short stay) scanning. Just like the good old days when we had mega nodes. - it gives EVERYBODY a fair change at any moment in the games lifecycle (for both starter as experienced players) - No single org domination - NQ can add unlimited planets at the moment the ore pools dry-out

How good is it to have more planets? It is nice to have more variation however .......... the player base is small and the ore prices will collapse when adding more planets with ore on them. The amount of available ore is currently ok(-isch) is my feeling. Having an overkill on ore will not do the game any good. The fact the not everybody has access to all ores is a good thing. Adding mo re planets will bring dis-balance the universe .........

Good to hear, I am a happy man Can you tell a bit more on when we might expect the fix for the remainingSchema's, schema checking is such a painful hassle and I would love to hear a bit more on the feature where it is integrated with. 🙏

Answer is probably no .......

LOL, I have over a thousand scans on Allioth and ZERO limestone ..... you have a long way to go my friend. Maybe we should open a poll on most dissatisfying 'jobs' : - Scanning (by far the most horrible thing to do due to the low hit potential on having a result). - Calibration (at least it gives a result compare to scanning) - Schema creation - Schema checking on industry - Market price adjustments But also a poll of the nice things to do ..... - Building Ships (voxel building is awesome!!!) - Building Static structures - Industry - Mining an astroid in pvp space (thrilling these days :))

It is all quite on the LUA development. No news, no clear future plan, no new development, no bug fixing ...... (when will the RemainingSchemas status get fixed?). I am worrying a bit due to the silence ........

Does it still exist, a PST server where NQ could collect feedback on newly to be implemented features? Look at the debacle around the recycling feature, that could have been easily prevented by having some community feedback of a PST server.

Sry I was referring to the "How the recycling could have being implemented" and not how it IS implemented. We do agree on the same

I was hoping on getting a percentage of the Ore cost back (25% or so). Getting a random product back is a really terrible refund. After re-setting up my industry I always struggle to get the'old factory' products back into the productionline of my new factory. Now I am getting random products back and it is becomming a day job to put them back into my production lines LOL. I rather delete them then then have another tedious job to do. The recycling could have been: - Industry recycler with input and output container - Start recycling, takes some time .... - Output is random ore (one or more ores that was required in the original production process) and then a percentage of the original value. - Create talents on the industry time and output generated. Then you can also start trading and selling broken elements as well to people who are talented recyclers :). For scavangers this is a nice reward as well.