|
Fixed my red circuit shortage, or at least band-aided it.. now I'm out of plastic. Haha.. this game. Several of my older resource outposts are about dried up now too. The juggling continues!
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
Reverend Dr posted:Mod Talk: From a quick perusal of that mod's code, it manages the bots' queues itself, so it detects the creation of ghosts by listening for the on_built_entity event and taking action if the placed entity is of type entity-ghost, which only captures players creating ghosts by placing blueprints or shift-building. What is it exactly you want to do?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 00:59
|
|
|
So I made it... almost. It appears that 1000SPM is not achievable with a single silo (wasn't a huge surprise) but I'm nowhere near being able to support another silo, even though I have a set of 3 new silo's built and waiting. I got rocket launching down to right at 1:03, which is why I can't quite hit 1000 SPM, but this is a 10 minute charting of what it does maintain:  I know that the current infrastructure won't maintain this rate, as the satellite production won't keep up for more than about an hour when I think the buffer I've built up will crash, and copper is teetering on crashing everywhere so I need to add more outposts to pull more in as my old supplies are just running out, which means also re-doing the intake as I move to making plates at outposts instead of large onside smeltering operations. If anyone wants to see the giant spaghetti mess of trains and belts, let me know and I'll upload the save game. The Locator fucked around with this message at 03:19 on May 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
You get slightly faster launches by feeding the satellite from a box if you aren't already. e: by like 10 ticks. Doesn't come anywhere close to beating a minute.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 04:05
|
|
|
GotLag posted:What is it exactly you want to do? Have trains created via recursive blueprints be placed in automatic mode rather than manual mode.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 04:11
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:You get slightly faster launches by feeding the satellite from a box if you aren't already. I have 3 requester chests with stack inserters for each item feeding it inside a complete circle of beacons. Outside of the circle of beacons I have 4 buffer chests for each type of item being fed from the belts by stack inserters, and outside of that a ring of roboports so the minions don't have to go far to recharge if needed. I'm not sure if it would be faster or slower to remove the productivity modules from the silo and put speed modules there, but I'm thinking it would be a net loss since I've got so many speed modules in the beacons already in play. I read somewhere that it's impossible to beat 60 seconds per launch simply because of diminishing returns and the really long launch animation cycle that it has to go through. I was honestly surprised that I could get it down to only a few seconds over.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 04:32
|
|
|
The Locator posted:I have 3 requester chests with stack inserters for each item feeding it inside a complete circle of beacons. Outside of the circle of beacons I have 4 buffer chests for each type of item being fed from the belts by stack inserters, and outside of that a ring of roboports so the minions don't have to go far to recharge if needed. I'm not sure if it would be faster or slower to remove the productivity modules from the silo and put speed modules there, but I'm thinking it would be a net loss since I've got so many speed modules in the beacons already in play. Filling the silo with production modules and surrounding it with speed moduled beacons is the fastest way to go. This is also the single best use of production modules possible because of how many resources rocket parts require. Also since the rocket launch itself is a canned animation the fastest rocket launch time per silo is 61.85 seconds which works out to about 970 science per minute.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 08:21
|
|
|
From Reddit: Mamma Mia.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 10:21
|
|
|
Looks similar (although more compact) to my base before I ripped everything out and redid it!
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 14:46
|
|
|
Breetai posted:From Reddit: How’d they screenshot my game?!
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 15:12
|
|
|
The Locator posted:So I made it... almost. It appears that 1000SPM is not achievable with a single silo (wasn't a huge surprise) but I'm nowhere near being able to support another silo, even though I have a set of 3 new silo's built and waiting. That's pretty cool, I'm working towards the same goal but I suspected I would fall a bit short as well. I'm basically working on doubling everything and I currently peak at 480 SPM. I have a way to go but I'll probably stop at 950+ because rebuilding my base to double rocket production is unappealing. I don't really want to load a save file but I'd love to see some screenshot of your base. In other news, has anyone tried this space exploration mod? I was watching a stream and it has all kinds of crazy things like falling meteors that smash your base and interplanetary travel. The coolest part is that you build a space station and generate space science in actual outer space. It looks insane and apparently Nilaus is considering it for his next streaming series. edit: A nuclear powered Enterprise shooting lasers? I'm down 
RVWinkle fucked around with this message at 21:17 on May 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
RVWinkle posted:In other news, has anyone tried this space exploration mod? I'm waiting for it to mature more, though it seems really interesting. Though I am wary of the modmaker-itis showing through from the dev making Robot Attrition mandatory. " Robot attrition description: Very occasionally if you have heavy logistic bot congestion a logistic bot will crash. The crash rate is configurable (down to near-zero). " Seriously, just let people play the mod the way they want, don't just force in a dumb thing like 'logistics robots will randomly crash over time.'. It's very 'How dare you play this game incorrectly.', and makes me wonder how the mod will shape up over time.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
SubNat posted:I'm waiting for it to mature more, though it seems really interesting. Hoo boy yeah Earendel is opinionated about how people use his mods. There was a big spat in the factorio forums thread after someone posted about hosting a modified version that took out the mandatory dependencies (his mods' licensing terms forbid modification and redistribution), and everyone in the thread seems to walk on eggshells when it comes to criticising his design decisions. Fake edit: I started a Space Exploration game, but since it's angelbobs I'm extremely far from actually getting to the content (also, for some reason it's currently made rocket fuel require Space Science, so the tech tree is going to require console commands to actually launch a rocket) Tesla was right fucked around with this message at 22:16 on May 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
Just send up a wood-burning rocket.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
Tesla was right posted:Hoo boy yeah Earendel is opinionated about how people use his mods. He's like a lot of mod makers from the KSP or god forbid, minecraft communities. Thankfully he's very much in a minority in the factorio world in that respect. He also has his fingers in a lot of mod pies though - he has done scripting for a number of mods that struggle with the code side. We're just one small tantrum away from a major mod fight although I suspect Wube would stamp on it pretty fast.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Does anybody have a solution for nuclear waste? My base is becoming like the Rocky Flats. I'm currently rolling with 72 reactors and will need to scale up to 120 soon. I don't consume nearly enough uranium as it stands right now and my only real solution is to create a massive array of requester chests as some sort of nuclear waste dump.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
Process the waste and feed it back into your system?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
What the actual gently caress are you doing with seventy-two reactors?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
That's like 8.2gw maybe? Sounds like a decently bit mega base.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
Bombs.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
necrotic posted:That's like 8.2gw maybe? Sounds like a decently bit mega base. It still feels paltry as I've spent the past two weeks building multiple refinery pipelines. The 16 lanes of plastic I posted earlier along with half a dozen coal mining operations consumes well over 500MW alone.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 23:24
|
|
|
SubNat posted:I'm waiting for it to mature more, though it seems really interesting. Tesla was right posted:Hoo boy yeah Earendel is opinionated about how people use his mods. Once that is in the mod network the only moves he could do would be: - try and add more late-stage ways of forcing it back on, which would result in a funny tech war - try and crash if the other mod is detected Due to the modding api of Factorio being a hilarious drug party of monkey-patching for all there's a lot of ways to gently caress around with things even if he won't allow you to just mod it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 00:53
|
|
|
RVWinkle posted:That's pretty cool, I'm working towards the same goal but I suspected I would fall a bit short as well. I'm basically working on doubling everything and I currently peak at 480 SPM. I have a way to go but I'll probably stop at 950+ because rebuilding my base to double rocket production is unappealing. I don't really want to load a save file but I'd love to see some screenshot of your base. I tried to capture an actual hi-rez screenshot so you could zoom in for details, but at 16,384 x 8192 @ 0.15 magnification it still wasn't wide enough for the entire base and it generated a png file so large that it crashed my image editor (MS Paint, I'm lazy and cheap) so I couldn't save it as anything smaller. The png file size was 315,984 KB. Since that failed, I resorted to screencaps of the map so you can at least see the horrible railroad track spaghetti. If you want anything more specific you'll have to ask I guess. Here are two images so you can see the entirety of the base inside the walls (minus most of the southern wall, but nothing special there).   My operational plan is that the east wall is fixed, and all expansion is to the west so that I continue to get larger resource patches by concentrating all the expansion in a single direction.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 02:22
|
|
|
I often hop into new clean maps to mess around in creative mode, and getting power generation setup is always a big pain. Up till now I would just plop down fields of roboport/solar cells, but I'd constantly find myself needing to make more and more solar items to keep up with the power requirements. It was bad habit, so I came up with this.  1.12GW cold start nuclear plant. All the pumps and inserters are on a isolated electrical network powered by those solar panels so they'll always be able to eventually start up on their own. The turbines connect to the main electrical system down at the bottom. All that hazard concrete is to show the closest a power pole can get to the isolated network without connecting. The concrete art is just to make it beautiful. There are many nuclear plants like it, but this one is mine. Galvanik fucked around with this message at 04:04 on May 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 04:00
|
|
|
Galvanik posted:I often hop into new clean maps to mess around in creative mode, and getting power generation setup is always a big pain. Up till now I would just plop down fields of roboport/solar cells, but I'd constantly find myself needing to make more and more solar items to keep up with the power requirements. That's a nice looking layout. I still don't understand why people do the isolation network and 'cold starting' stuff with nuclear power. How can it ever shut down? Once you have kovarex process running, it seems like it would be completely impossible to lose power enough to actually starve the nuclear plant for fuel. Last I checked I could turn off my uranium processing completely and run all 40 of my reactors for over a year of real time 24x7. Way too many people do this stuff for there not to be a reason, but I am just not seeing it. It's probably something stupidly obvious. For the same reason listed above, I have no idea why people wire up complicated circuit networks and make big steam buffers trying to get the maximum amount of energy out of each bit of nuclear fuel. I'm using nuclear to power my trains it's so plentiful, why would I worry about saving some fuel cells here and there?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 05:07
|
|
|
I'd say that there are a significant number of Factorio players who have been burned by a coal cold-start scenario. I can think of a few multiplayer megabases which suffered huge setbacks from brownouts throttling coal deliveries, over the years. Basically, in addition to it being a solvable problem with a little bit of thought and engineering, it is also an Extra Important bit of add-on automation flourish, and also some of us have stories about failures from a lack of it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 06:39
|
|
|
So I can sort of understand it with coal, as I had some serious brown-outs in the early days of this base when my solid fuel petered out and I didn't notice in time to switch back over to coal, but once I got nuclear and removed all my steam... I don't see what could go wrong? Even if I somehow managed to make demand massively greater than my nuclear plants can supply, they would still be producing 7'ish GW of power, right? What is the scenario where a nuclear plant would be shut down by a cascading power failure once fuel for the plants has been produced in significant quantity (and 1 level 3 assembler without beacons or anything can build up a huge stockpile of fuel in pretty short order)? As far as the circuit stuff to save fuel, the only real reason I can think of for that is "because I can", which I can see might appeal to some people, it's just not something I see the point in myself given how abundant my fuel supply is.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 08:57
|
|
|
Most likely "because it's neat". A subset of players would probably think that without it, the design is unfinished/unpolished. And/or it's an appreciation of good engineering design (I like it, even if I don't bother with that level of rigour). The scenario is if the fuel or water supply - or waste removal - has been interrupted somehow for a long time (train congestion causing huge blockages, maybe?) - when restored, will the power plant start back up automatically? Or do you have to traipse over there and manually stick some fuel in?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 10:04
|
|
|
Also, if you think your uranium supply is abundant, your nuke stockpile is too small. Every uranium saved by a simple circuit is a uranium that can be used for more nukes. 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 10:10
|
|
|
Truga posted:Also, if you think your uranium supply is abundant, your nuke stockpile is too small. Every uranium saved by a simple circuit is a uranium that can be used for more nukes. Nuclear Artillery Shells when!? (I'm sure there's a mod or something)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 10:44
|
|
|
The fuel saver circuits are more about being able to use 3-4 reactors for efficiency sake before you have the infrastructure for that many reactors, either power consuming or fuel creating. Kovarex might be like 10+ hours from the point you plop your power station and building out normal fuel fab in the ratio for that many reactors is kind of spendy at that point in the game.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 13:18
|
|
|
As I've mentioned though you do not ever need Kovarex for 2-4 reactors. It's pretty rare you need to bring 4 online to start - but even if you did you're talking 4 centrifuges each with maybe 2x speed1 modules to produce enough glowing green rocks. This will scale too but obviously any bigger than 4 reactors and you're probably just going to want to play with Kovarex. My current game on expensive mode we have 3 centrifuges and 2 reactors and currently just letting it run there are 1800 fuel cells in storage. It's just backed up now and we had to pull the uranium train out of service since it was just sitting at the stop. bus hustler fucked around with this message at 13:37 on May 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 13:34
|
|
|
Lets pretend (ok not pretend) I spent all my red circuits on the nuclear reactors, each centrifuge is kind of a big deal at the point I'm putting down reactors. 4 centrifuges with speed modules is something I'll get around to... 20 hours from that point because I'll need the fuel. The steam circuits are for those 20 hours.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 14:05
|
|
|
Noob question : what should I be doing with modules? I tend to just jam productivity modules in anything I'm mass producing. When should I be looking at speed? I don't have beacons yet.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 14:21
|
|
|
Speed modules just cause everything to run faster, so in theory you can just achieve the same basic results in more factories. They're great if space is an issue on an island map or something. They're great on oil pumps that are running low, since they never actually run out. They're great when you've built yourself a weird spaghetti and can't add more assembly machines easily. When you are just a litttttle bit heavy in light oil and need to crack some more to petroleum. I also use speeds a lot to make ratios prettier too when designing blueprints. Otherwise you should use beacons w/ speed modules to make up for the lost speed that productivity modules cause because they're better in almost every other situation. I recommend playing around with the modules on https://kirkmcdonald.github.io/calc.html and you can instantly see how they work and will change resource requirements, which at the end of the day is what the game is about. bus hustler fucked around with this message at 14:39 on May 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 14:36
|
|
|
The trick with speed modules is they make your production modules that much better. So in general step 1, 3 prods 1 speed inside it before you can sustain blanket beacons Step 2 4 prods, and its surrounded by beacons with speed modules. You can look up some lists of expensiveness of each intermediate, you want to focus on the most expensive ones first. There's a bunch of one off exceptions. Always full speeds in oil wells. Always full production in rocket silo.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 15:10
|
|
|
The Locator posted:What is the scenario where a nuclear plant would be shut down by a cascading power failure once fuel for the plants has been produced in significant quantity (and 1 level 3 assembler without beacons or anything can build up a huge stockpile of fuel in pretty short order)? Protected electric networks are generally used in nuclear plants that have the potential for negative feedback loops from insufficient satisfaction. There are two main circumstances that can cause that. 1) Pumps. Unpowered pumps act like valves. The less power it gets, the less flow it gets. If you have reduced satisfaction, your pump moves liquid more slowly, which can result in even less power, which means even slower pumping, so on and so forth. 2) Timer circuits. If you are using a timer circuit to insert fuel, then the circuit running more slowly means fuel gets inserted late, which means even less less power, which means your circuit runs even more slowly, and so on. I still mostly just use this design that I made over a year ago. No pumps, and no timer. It is overkill on the steam tanks, but I wanted it to be able to completely store a fuel cycle as steam even if it was disconnected from any power consumers at the time of fuel loading. I know it could have fewer tanks and store some of it as heat, but I can't read heat with circuits, and I wanted to have fun with the lamp display. https://factorioprints.com/view/-L63IKLwHrj1bn0Lgr8r I know that the whole steam storage thing isn't a huge deal from a resource perspective, as keeping enough fuel around is trivial. Half of the fun of factorio is overengineering solutions though, and steam is fun to play with. Filthy Monkey fucked around with this message at 16:57 on May 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
Filthy Monkey posted:I still mostly just use this design that I made over a year ago. No pumps, and no timer. It is overkill on the steam tanks, but I wanted it to be able to completely store a fuel cycle as steam even if it was disconnected from any power consumers at the time of fuel loading. I know it could have fewer tanks and store some of it as heat, but I can't read heat with circuits, and I wanted to have fun with the lamp display. That's pretty slick. What exactly is the display showing? 53% storage or is that how much of the potential capacity is being utilized? Edit: Nevermind, just read the text on factorio prints instead of just looking at the pretty picture.
The Locator fucked around with this message at 21:07 on May 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
Percentage of of steam tank capacity used. The reactors load when the steam capacity is down to around 26%. If you are under full load you can watch it load, watch the steam storage percentage go up as it burns the fuel cell, watch the percentage go down as it runs on the stored steam, and then see it reload the reactors midway through 26% again.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
Galvanik posted:The concrete art is just to make it beautiful. I really like the concrete designs. I usually just use the hazard concrete to create a border to my walkways but I need to learn how to make patterns like that.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 00:57
|
|