|
super fart shooter posted:Although I'd add one addendum, which is that when you use production mods in science labs, the game considers each research to be a separate "item," so you lose all your bonus production meters when you switch research. So you may not get very good value out of them until you're doing late game/infinite research that costs thousands of cycles
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
Ceyton posted:Just finished my first game in 0.16 Counterpoint https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDLIkfSLTmU ToxicSlurpee posted:Only one rocket? 'splain. I'm about getting to one rocket on my first playthough. What are some fun scenarios?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 13:31
|
|
|
Canuckistan posted:'splain. I'm about getting to one rocket on my first playthough. What are some fun scenarios? Automating rockets to get space science and barrel down infinite research. A mega factory that launches a rocket every minute is a thing of beauty. Believe it or not but automating rockets is actually a whole different challenge from just launching one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 13:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:a long and wise post Thanks for the good advice. I've changed up how I play taking what you said into account. Going to abandon the concept of a global main bus for now and invest more into multiple localised busses using the materials relevant to that bases particular input/output. Having played angel & bobs for a bit now I can summarise any advice into one sentence: "Abandon hope all ye who enter here".
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 13:38
|
|
|
There's a bunch of stuff that doesn't actually have many uses so even if you have a main bus for iron/copper etc you probably won't bother for say, tin/lead because they're mostly only used for solder and making other stuff like bronze. I would say once you get to the smelting setup, you want to have a mixed ingot bus from which your induction furnaces can just pick stuff off depending on what they need, because there's a crapton of mixed metal approaches to making stuff. For example iron can be made by smelting iron ingots, but you can also make mixed iron/silicon and iron/nickel/cobalt, so rather than trying to make dedicated lines I've just made a big looped bus that all the ingots get dumped onto, and then splitting them back off for the dedicated production runs but putting the mixed furnaces ahead of them in the bus, and picking the stuff straight off the belt first. You'll want to do this because refining stuff a lot makes a crapton of rarer stuff that you'll probably want to use up by smelting it back into basic stuff like iron. I don't need silicon/nickel/cobalt for anything really but I'm producing it anyway so I fold it back into iron.  OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Apr 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 14:30
|
|
|
I really need to make a big bertha. Or maybe a small bertha because my current game doesn't have enough resources to feed something like that. But drat that looks like a fun way to clear a region. I have a tough time not smiling when I got three cannons unleashing fury on a biter nest. Watching those yellow dots is all fun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 16:09
|
|
|
Productivity all day, every day. Speed only in beacons. Speed modules are obsolete before they are researched, by assemblers. You can double the output of an assembler (or anything else, for that matter) by simply building another assembler. You can double the output of a chain of chem plants by building a second chain! Easy peasy. Productivity is the only module that gives you something you can't get any other way: free resources. So the assembler slows down a bit, so what? Build more. Put Prods in those. Extend the chain until a blue belt can't feed them all, and you're done. Or link a second blue belt to it and double it again, that's cool too! Exceptions: -Oil pumpjacks, speed wins every day -Miners, jamming 3 Effect1's into them makes them not pollute at all so you don't have to bother with defense  (also they can be powered on site with a dozen solars)-Speed Beacons make the assemblers faster, giving you more 'effective' assemblers (a +50% speed beacon that touches 4 assemblers is as good as 2 extra assemblers!) Reducing the number of prod mods needed to fill all assemblers. Evilreaver fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Apr 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
Evilreaver posted:-Speed Beacons make the assemblers faster, giving you more 'effective' assemblers (a +50% speed beacon that touches 4 assemblers is as good as 2 extra assemblers!) Reducing the number of prod mods needed to fill all assemblers. This is a really important part because Level 3 modules are really expensive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
Spotted on reddit: I'm aware it's not the efficient way to do it because of the stack size issue but I never would have thought of something like this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 19:19
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Spotted on reddit: lmao I love it Factorio: Just Because I Can
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
You also run into the issue of the miners shutting off when there's no train, since they have nowhere to put their ore. It's a very inefficient design...but that doesn't stop it from being neat as hell and something I kind of want to try out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
Speed modules can be handy if you need to squeeze more throughput out of stuff you built a while ago and now don't have the space to expand. Its a stopgap but a lot of stuff you make in factorio is a temporary solution anyway. For angels/bobs games Long Reach and Factorisimo have both been a super helpful. And Bottleneck is a wonderful mod for everything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
Slime posted:You also run into the issue of the miners shutting off when there's no train, since they have nowhere to put their ore. It's a very inefficient design...but that doesn't stop it from being neat as hell and something I kind of want to try out. What we need are ore chutes, they function like chests in terms of inventory for drills to insert into, but when a train drives underneath a hatch opens and pours it all in a few seconds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
There's a mod for that: https://mods.factorio.com/mod/railloader
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
Evilreaver posted:-Miners, jamming 3 Effect1's into them makes them not pollute at all so you don't have to bother with defense This isn't actually true; modules can only reduce to a minimum of 20% of the machines' base energy usage. A pair of Efficiency 2s is enough for any machine not otherwise affected by modules to hit that 20% cap. This also means that there's no way to completely elimination mining and production pollution, although because of the way pollution dispersal works an 80% reduction will certainly eliminate most if not all of the spread if you don't have other pollution sources nearby.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
Also, the higher-level speed modules are better for efficiency than efficiency modules, because they increase production speed more than they increase energy consumption, so you save on energy and CPU with speed-moduled assemblers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:Bot power usage could scale in proportion to speed and carried load like real air vehicles do, so as you improve bot capabilities, they start to crowd out your base with more roboports to charge 'em all. Tesla was right posted:Also, the higher-level speed modules are better for efficiency than efficiency modules, because they increase production speed more than they increase energy consumption, so you save on energy and CPU with speed-moduled assemblers. Not in vanilla, at least absent productivity modules.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
Speed modules because if you think 4x prod3s are awesome, speed modules in beacons mean you get the free stuff that much faster.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
Alright, Goons, I've got a question about multiplayer. We've got a map we're playing 3- or 4-player, and we're getting in to the dozens of hours range. We've launched over 200 rockets and are starting to get our rail network out into the "full-minute-to-commute-between-main-base-and-expansion" range, even with Nuclear Fuel. My computer simply can't take it. I'm running on the same CPU as the dedicated server we're hosting on, but admittedly those CPUs are old compared to the computers of my friends. The server seems to be handling the game fine, and all my friends connected to the server have had zero issues, but I've been having buffering problems. Pressing the F4 menu and turning on "multiplayer statistics" lets me see that the buffer (which is typically 2/0/0 for my friends) on occasion gets stuck climbing for me. If it's anything below 16/x/x, my game runs normally, but once it hits 16+, I start lagging and rubber-banding back into place. On some occasions, it's climbed as high as 130 before it creeps its way back down, and I'm able to continue playing... but other times, it's skyrocketed as high as 600/x/x and at that point I simply disconnect in frustration. The theory I've got is that my computer can't process what the server is doing fast enough, and so I'm falling behind the simulation. Does that sound accurate? Has anyone else had multiplayer issues with huge maps? What can I do so that I don't have to walk away from this hours-deep save?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
The server is simulating the game faster than your computer can, so you're constantly falling behind. You can set factorio to a higher cpu priority/turn off background tasks or use cheats to slow down the simulation until you cam keep up. "/c game.speed = 0.9" is the command to slow down to 90% speed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 02:26
|
|
|
Thank you. That definitely made a difference.  I'm going to have to upgrade my poor computer over the summer!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 02:45
|
|
|
Olesh posted:This isn't actually true; modules can only reduce to a minimum of 20% of the machines' base energy usage. A pair of Efficiency 2s is enough for any machine not otherwise affected by modules to hit that 20% cap. This also means that there's no way to completely elimination mining and production pollution, although because of the way pollution dispersal works an 80% reduction will certainly eliminate most if not all of the spread if you don't have other pollution sources nearby. Tesla was right posted:Also, the higher-level speed modules are better for efficiency than efficiency modules, because they increase production speed more than they increase energy consumption, so you save on energy and CPU with speed-moduled assemblers. 1) The "embedded pollution" makes it most important to put your productivity modules in things with lots of components, especially the faster ones (rockets, labs, yellow science, blue circuits...but eventually your entire base except smelters and mining drills). 2) It's most important to get to the 80% efficiency cap 3) Once capped, add speed and you have less pollution because the machine is running less. Consider the zero beacon difference between an assembly machine with (2x efficiency 2) vs (3x efficiency 3 and 1x speed 3). Both are capped at "max efficiency", but the latter uses 2/3 the power and pollution per unit produced because it works 50% faster. Pollution and power consumption are per "second running", which is why 4x productivity modules without any corresponding speed or efficiency uses a lot of power and pollution due to their speed penalty. ShadowHawk fucked around with this message at 09:01 on Apr 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 08:58
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:You're both right. I'm the sort of person who has a spreadsheet of how to module my base as I play. If you're trying to minimize pollution: Yeah, this is also why adding speed modules to things with productivity paradoxically generates significantly less pollution. Fundamentally, though, in a vanilla game this is something that isn't really all that meaningful unless you're operating under some self-imposed restrictions, such as "no artillery" or "must minimize all pollution". Artillery provides an effective and efficient solution to creating a no-biter zone that is simple to expand out as your pollution expands - compared to the 0.15 solution of creating a giant wall outside your pollution cloud and stocking it with turrets, making little artillery outposts to clear large areas of biters is way more efficient in terms of both time and effort spent. Also, I've never really sat down and tried to figure out the combination of modules necessary to run "efficient" beaconed setups - the beacons themselves don't generate any pollution (aside from, potentially, what's generated to power them if you're not running off solar). Just doing some back of the napkin math here, four productivity modules increase energy consumption by +320% (and reduces speed by 60%). For a row of assemblers, you can get a maximum of 8 beacons in range of each assembler. To get the maximum "efficiency" boost, you'd need all your beacons to have a pair of Efficiency 3 modules in them (for a grand total of 400% reduced energy consumption) and you'd have no room for Speed modules. If you swap to 3 productivity modules and 1 speed module instead, you vastly increase your output (90% speed vs 40%) at a modest cost of 130% productivity vs the maximum 140%, and dramatically reduce the pollution generated per item (because items are crafted 2.25x as fast). However, this is ludicrously expensive in modules, only increases your assembler output by about 1/6th (vs non-moduled assemblers), and doesn't allow you to use the maximum amount of productivity. Considering the power requirements of beacons and the manufacturing requirements of all of these modules, what sort of time scale would you have to be operating on for this to be worth it vs just using 3xEfficiency3 and 1xSpeed3 in all your assemblers?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 10:24
|
|
|
Olesh posted:This isn't actually true; modules can only reduce to a minimum of 20% of the machines' base energy usage. A pair of Efficiency 2s is enough for any machine not otherwise affected by modules to hit that 20% cap. This also means that there's no way to completely elimination mining and production pollution, although because of the way pollution dispersal works an 80% reduction will certainly eliminate most if not all of the spread if you don't have other pollution sources nearby. Three 1s hit the cap a whole lot cheaper than two 2s
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 13:26
|
|
|
Are remote railroad tracks and electrical poles safe from biters? Is it just stuff that makes noise or pollution that they attack? Stuff like Belts and pipes(?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 15:05
|
|
|
Solid objects can interrupt their pathing in large groups and cause them to eat random electrical poles. It's seemingly rare except for when it's not. Otherwise they only aggro on stuff from the military tab or at pollution maxima.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 15:22
|
|
|
Away all Goats posted:Are remote railroad tracks and electrical poles safe from biters? Biters don't go out of their way to attack remote poles and tracks/signals, but if those objects happen to block their path to wherever or migration in any way they'll chew them down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 15:23
|
|
|
Away all Goats posted:Are remote railroad tracks and electrical poles safe from biters? Biters have their preferences for what they'll attack but they'll eat anything that blocks their path. So if they want to eat your coal plant but run into a pole along the way they'll attack it. That can lead them to munching on whatever is nearby even if it doesn't get in the way. Normally they'll just run right across anything that you can run across. Normally they'll ignore tracks and belts but that doesn't mean they'll always ignore them. If they pay attention to one track they'll just munch all the tracks along the way to wherever they're going. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Apr 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
It's fun to watch them randomly get pissed off at a rock or tree and go apeshit on it. It's also fun to watch the AI give up when a biter gets stuck on a belt, it stops updating them so they just kind of coast along the belt until they end up in range of a turret.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
Fukkin yeah boiiis, I just figured out and set up the beginnings of an automatic control system that processes the ores I mine into specific resources based on what I have a shortage of at the moment. The circuitry system is super loving powerful and easy to use.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
You have a shortage of everything always.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
I don't, presently, and I definitely have an overabundance of stuff I don't need with angelbobs, so having it only output the ores I actually need is super helpful. I can't really expand production of stuff until I'm not spending every five minutes sorting out overproduced resources jamming up the smelting array. So if I automate that I can just have it produce what's needed and it'll scale up as I put better belts into the refinery setup. Downside: I need to mass produce nitric acid to mine rubyite/bobmonium which I need for targeted lead/tin production and the only way to make nitric acid for some reason is to use aluminium/silver catalysts, which needs the next tier of catalytic ore production to make and is going to need its own loving branch because I always need to keep a stock of those unsmelted or it'll crash the ore input. Like loving hell it's basically air flavoured water how hard can it be to make?? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Apr 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
Olesh posted:Yeah, this is also why adding speed modules to things with productivity paradoxically generates significantly less pollution. Beaconing Efficiency modules is counterproductive with less than 4 or 5 targets. Beacons have a huge energy drain of 480 and that's not reduced by Efficiency modules. Even in dense layouts you're not saving a lot of energy and each module3 is a significant investment of both resources and energy to make.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:You have a shortage of everything always. Factorio: You have a shortage of everything always.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
Evilreaver posted:Three 1s hit the cap a whole lot cheaper than two 2s For pollution reduction, which type of module you use depends on how many module slots you have available. 2 slots - 2x Efficiency 2 3 slots - 3x Efficiency 1 4 slots - 3x Efficiency 3 + 1x Speed 3 (or 3x Efficiency 1s) 3 slot machines are the cheapest because the way the numbers work out, you might as well just throw the 3x E1 modules in because it's cheaper than using 2x E2s or E3s and you can't otherwise benefit from that third slot without raising your consumption above 20%. You can do the same with 4 slot buildings, but in the long run using E3 modules and a Speed 3 generates less pollution, even though it's significantly more expensive to start. LLSix posted:Beaconing Efficiency modules is counterproductive with less than 4 or 5 targets. Beacons have a huge energy drain of 480 and that's not reduced by Efficiency modules. Even in dense layouts you're not saving a lot of energy and each module3 is a significant investment of both resources and energy to make. Beacons don't generate pollution by themselves, this was a discussion about minimizing pollution, not power usage, and I did specify a row of assemblers. Running beacons off solar power doesn't generate any pollution besides the fixed cost associated with manufacturing them in the first place. I don't have a spreadsheet or anything to sit down and figure out exactly where the breakpoint is in terms of the number of products you'd need per assembler to break even on pollution generated, but over the long run this does appear to be the most efficient option for minimizing pollution per craft available while also taking advantage of as much productivity as possible. Beyond this, you'd need to dig into circuit networks to turn off the assemblers and beacons when not needed to further reduce the pollution, or simply do without productivity modules - productivity modules inherently can never provide pollution savings, while speed modules can (provided their power generation is offset with more efficiency modules).
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't, presently, and I definitely have an overabundance of stuff I don't need with angelbobs, so having it only output the ores I actually need is super helpful. I can't really expand production of stuff until I'm not spending every five minutes sorting out overproduced resources jamming up the smelting array. So if I automate that I can just have it produce what's needed and it'll scale up as I put better belts into the refinery setup. Wrong. There's two states you can be in when playing Factorio. The first in the obvious, you're not producing enough of a thing and need to up production. The second is the less obvious. When you have enough stuff, you need to increase consumption. Which leads to you ending up back in the first state. The factory must expand to meet the demands of the expanding factory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
As I said though I can't expand consumption without a stable production base that requires less of the finite and non expandable resource: my attention.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
Reminder that beacons inexplicably produce no pollution. All that energy consumption is (biter) free real estate
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Olesh posted:Beacons don't generate pollution by themselves, this was a discussion about minimizing pollution, not power usage, and I did specify a row of assemblers. Running beacons off solar power doesn't generate any pollution besides the fixed cost associated with manufacturing them in the first place. I don't have a spreadsheet or anything to sit down and figure out exactly where the breakpoint is in terms of the number of products you'd need per assembler to break even on pollution generated, but over the long run this does appear to be the most efficient option for minimizing pollution per craft available while also taking advantage of as much productivity as possible. Beyond this, you'd need to dig into circuit networks to turn off the assemblers and beacons when not needed to further reduce the pollution, or simply do without productivity modules - productivity modules inherently can never provide pollution savings, while speed modules can (provided their power generation is offset with more efficiency modules). The most module design has 12 beacons per assembly machine: two solid rows + 2 beacons between each machine. You can then use underground belts to move items from one to the next. This uses an enormous amount of space, but by that point you can claim territory with artillery.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
Slime posted:Wrong. There's two states you can be in when playing Factorio. The first in the obvious, you're not producing enough of a thing and need to up production. The second is the less obvious. When you have enough stuff, you need to increase consumption. Which leads to you ending up back in the first state. Unless you're playing Angelbob's like Owl Fancier. Because then your entire system backs up because you produced too much loving Chrome or some poo poo like htat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 21:35
|
|
