|
my reputation is in tatters and the day is ruined entirely
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 03:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 18:39 |
|
|
Teledahn posted:Nuclear power is not a UPS problem. Ages ago, maybe, but it's been considerably optimized in the intervening years. You can power 5k science per minute bases with nuclear without significant impact. The reputation is no longer and not deserved. Ah, good to know!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 06:42
|
|
|
Everyone knows UPS is User Penis Size.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 00:40
|
|
|
Teledahn posted:Nuclear power is not a UPS problem. Ages ago, maybe, but it's been considerably optimized in the intervening years. You can power 5k science per minute bases with nuclear without significant impact. The reputation is no longer and not deserved. it's not that it's a huge problem, it's that you're comparing zero to not zero solar has effectively zero performance cost, nuclear doesn't if you start falling behind the servers update rate in a multiplayer game the experience is basically unplayable, so you cut whatever you have to should most players care? probably not would I ever use nuclear in a space ex multiplayer game? no
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 01:03
|
|
|
TwoDice posted:it's not that it's a huge problem, it's that you're comparing zero to not zero I remember being in a multiplayer game with a rather large base, and whenever the host fired a nuke into the dense wall of biters around our base's perimeter, my computer ate poo poo trying to keep up with everything that was happening. After the biters all pathed and started dying, I could play again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 02:13
|
|
|
While it's true that negligible is not zero, I'm annoyed that ancient hearsay leads most players to just mindlessly place down thousands of solar panels in an endless sprawl instead of engaging with the interesting and different placement puzzle that is optimising nuclear designs. It's a neat mechanism (combined with the enrichment system) that is somewhat ignored due to an ill-deserved reputation. I like neat puzzles and optimization problems, which is why I play Factorio, and somewhat wish there were more neat things like it as players research down the tech tree. The important take-away; TwoDice posted:should most players care? probably not
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 05:57
|
|
|
Solar power: energy from sunshine Nuclear: energy from dangerous materials and convoluted systems Which is more “factorio”? That’s right - using both, poorly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 07:15
|
|
|
I would never play Factorio in a situation where UPS is relevant— it’s literally a factor that penalizes cool and fun options and rewards boring and lame ones. This is a great game, but no game is great enough to still be enjoyable under that crushing constraint.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 07:17
|
|
|
Unfortunately that situation is "multiplayer" so that is exactly "i will never play factorio multiplayer" which is too bad, because playing factorio multiplayer with your friends is fun 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 14:26
|
|
|
I’ve never encountered UPS slowdown in multiplayer. Factorio is very well-optimized!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 14:29
|
|
|
factorio multi is best played with enough mods to get qcs closed and that's really where the problem stems from not gonna lie edit: also just to be clear the reason I'm mad about it in multiplayer is the behavior as UPS drops when client machines are faster than host machines, which is the common case when using dedicated servers. In singleplayer, or presumably if you're the host in a game-client-is-host game, when UPS falls below 60 everything just runs incrementally slower. Sort of annoying in the limit but it's decoupled from UPS, whatever. However, what if you're a client in a multiplayer game, and your computer is faster than the server? In that case, you get absolutely brutal rubberbanding. Let's say the server is sending you updates every 17ms for a UPS of 58.8, but your computer is capable of doing local lookahead simulations at a rock-steady 16.66...ms aka a steady 60. Then, your client takes information from the server whenever it gets it, and fuses the server info with the local info at that time, and renders it at the next local UPS tick. Which means that if the server info is slow enough to miss a local UPS tick, render won't change (aside from client-side-only actions like moving around in the map that don't have to be simulated) until the next local UPS tick. It's like dropping a frame, but what's getting dropped is your inputs, until that late server response comes back and gets played. The client experience is then rubberbanding, where inputs don't apply for the first little bit of asserting them, and then stay applied after you stop asserting them. Your character motion is unpredictable, your mouse clicks are unpredictable, your interaction with every part of the simulated game state is just ???????? it's actually unplayable. Phobeste fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Feb 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 14:33
|
|
|
Host on a better computer? And, now and then, pull up the UPS stats and see why Slow megabases in MP is very much a self-made issue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 14:42
|
|
|
Well, yes, but often it's more an accumulation of little things where you take the top 2 or 3 or 5% off, or the real bottleneck is something you don't want to change. The real problem is the degradation behavior of the system. If the server presented a rolling average of its last N sim calculation durations to the client so the client could slow down so it didn't drop sim frames, it'd be a lot better regardless of what's getting simulated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 14:44
|
|
|
I just wanna make stupidly big SE bases for my own satisfaction. Small bases don’t get the brain tingling
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 14:46
|
|
|
Teledahn posted:While it's true that negligible is not zero, I'm annoyed that ancient hearsay leads most players to just mindlessly place down thousands of solar panels in an endless sprawl instead of engaging with the interesting and different placement puzzle that is optimising nuclear designs. It's a neat mechanism (combined with the enrichment system) that is somewhat ignored due to an ill-deserved reputation. I like neat puzzles and optimization problems, which is why I play Factorio, and somewhat wish there were more neat things like it as players research down the tech tree. I think the problem here - and the problem any complex power generator is going to have - is that the output of all generators is the same. They all just produce Power, you're never going to need specifically nuclear power for anything. Placing solar panels and batteries is incredibly easy once you've solved that system, so it's tempting to just keep slapping down the easy solution. There is no problem that that won't solve, you're just missing out on the interesting, more challenging design. Satisfactory and DSP both address this in their own ways - they still only have one kind of "power" resource but they make the actual amount you can get from a given power source limited. There are only so many resource nodes avilable to tap in Satisfactory and once you've got all you can out of the coal and oil ones you have no choice but to go for nuclear, and DSP uses space-limiting with the geography of the planets to force you to vary up your power supplies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 14:47
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:Host on a better computer? And, now and then, pull up the UPS stats and see why Having a faster host actually makes this worse. If the host is slow then everyone is slow. If the host is fast, and everyone else is slower, the game is unplayable for them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 15:37
|
|
|
If you are playing multiplayer AND the host has a crappy computer AND you have a megabase then maybe you need to care. Maybe pool your money and shell out for a dedicated factorio server for your playthrough? it's a few coffees a month. You should not care about UPS, almost no one has to care about UPS and most of the people who plan megabases don't get through the planning stage. the factorio subreddit is filled with 'planning my megabase' posts that go nowhere with some screenshot of a 64 lane splitter in a sandbox test. That's fine, I'm not telling people how to play the game, but I am saying the people who might need to care about UPS are very aware of the limitations because they already have 2,000 hours and have exhausted everything else to do in the game. You'll know if fall into this category and if you think you might not be, you aren't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 16:46
|
|
|
The exception is if you're using custom mods that are not UPS friendly and liberally abusing them. I've seen someone on YT cripple their UPS in a SE multiplayer game in part because they used 500 slot giant chests everywhere for belt balancing and train loading.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 17:09
|
|
|
Darox posted:The exception is if you're using custom mods that are not UPS friendly and liberally abusing them. I've seen someone on YT cripple their UPS in a SE multiplayer game in part because they used 500 slot giant chests everywhere for belt balancing and train loading. Are giant chests in train stations bad?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 17:19
|
|
|
Selklubber posted:Are giant chests in train stations bad? Loaders are warehouses used to be very UPS efficient compared to equivalent inserters. I didn't think that'd have changed. Unless they have some mod to alter how the trains are loaded, as trains being mobile chests have some extra logic steps during loading and unloading.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 17:28
|
|
|
As I understand it, when you move items into or out of a chest it has to check all the slots each time for stacking items and deciding what gets pulled and etc. More slots in your chest means more work to check slots each time you move an item in or out, and having chests in high traffic areas acting as train buffers or belt balancers means they're being checked constantly. With regular chests this isn't really noticeable, but with extremely large chests (like the 512 slot warehouses in SE) it becomes more pronounced. It's still fine to use large chests in places, but using them every time you want a train station or belt balanced adds up quickly.
Darox fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Feb 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 17:30
|
|
|
Bhodi posted:If you are playing multiplayer AND the host has a crappy computer AND you have a megabase then maybe you need to care. Maybe pool your money and shell out for a dedicated factorio server for your playthrough? it's a few coffees a month. Again, it's the opposite. If any one in your friend group has a weak computer, then you must care otherwise they can't play. If the server is slow then it gracefully slows down for everyone. If a client is slow they eat poo poo and can't play.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 18:09
|
|
|
TwoDice posted:Again, it's the opposite. If any one in your friend group has a weak computer, then you must care otherwise they can't play. If the server is slow then it gracefully slows down for everyone. If a client is slow they eat poo poo and can't play. if your friend has a potato computer that can't really run factorio, one of the most optimized and efficient games of the last decade, that does suck for them and it will impact everyone else yeah
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 18:18
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bRi1ykIeHg absolute madman I think this is his best one yet, it's incredibly convoluted and teaches some neat circuit tricks while also going horribly wrong and building an enormous rube goldberg contraption of a base
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2023 01:45
|
|
|
Darox posted:As I understand it, when you move items into or out of a chest it has to check all the slots each time for stacking items and deciding what gets pulled and etc. More slots in your chest means more work to check slots each time you move an item in or out, and having chests in high traffic areas acting as train buffers or belt balancers means they're being checked constantly. With regular chests this isn't really noticeable, but with extremely large chests (like the 512 slot warehouses in SE) it becomes more pronounced. It's still fine to use large chests in places, but using them every time you want a train station or belt balanced adds up quickly. Does it matter whether you have all but a few slots blocked off or not? I tend to use merging chests and loaders as balancers a lot, but have never really noticed any UPS issues because of it, but when I'm using a wide chest as a balancer I usually block all but a few slots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2023 18:08
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Does it matter whether you have all but a few slots blocked off or not? Yes it does matter, the game won't check blocked slots so doing that way is more UPS efficient.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2023 22:05
|
|
|
I could have sworn there was an optimization, same as they did with the belts, where if there is only one type of item it abstracts the stacks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 01:10
|
|
|
If you're concerned about UPS hits from nuclear power you should check out this mod. It provides nuclear setups as a single entity to avoid all the steam calculations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 02:48
|
|
|
Mr. Peepers posted:Yes it does matter, the game won't check blocked slots so doing that way is more UPS efficient. There's nothing stopping items from existing in blocked spots so I'm not sure that's true. It might help but it's definitely not the same as not having the extra slots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 03:46
|
|
|
Darox posted:There's nothing stopping items from existing in blocked spots so I'm not sure that's true. It might help but it's definitely not the same as not having the extra slots. Inserters and loaders never insert into locked slots (even if there's already a partial stack there), when inserting it's identical UPS-wise to if those slots didn't exist. Of course for balancing you're also taking stuff out, which is where you do get the UPS hit even from locked slots. IIRC this isn't optimized because the vanilla game doesn't have chests with enough slots for any optimization to be worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 04:08
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bRi1ykIeHg I've been binging this guy's videos since you posted this. These circuit designs are incredible and frightening. And I am once again reminded that I'm very bad at scaling up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2023 18:41
|
|
|
Bah, every time I start a new run and eventually work up to artillery I forget just how anemic the shells are. I want earth shattering explosions without having to set up atomic shell production. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 01:29
|
|
|
Trains are impossible, and my factory is an impossible spaghetti mess and my various patchwork solutions are all breaking down 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 09:31
|
|
|
not the biggest player, only got several hundred hours in, but i still have to look up train guides every time
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 16:47
|
|
|
If a train stops here, could it block another train that needs to get through? No: Regular signal Yes: Regular signal at the end of the section you don't want a train to stop at. Chain signal where you want the train to stop before entering the section.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 16:58
|
|
|
Trains are the one thing I resort to internet sourced blueprints for. Find yourself a properly signaled, chunk aligned blueprint set for all basic rail configurations and call it a day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 19:05
|
|
|
Chunk scale rail blueprints are the correct answer but if I'm learning anything about myself playing AngelBobs it's that I don't want a correct answer, I want chaos.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 19:18
|
|
|
Sounds like I am sticking to separate lines for separate trains.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 19:21
|
|
|
Signals are not traffic lights. The divide lengths of track into blocks as noted by the colored lines that appear over the rails when you have a signal in hand. If something is on that same block ahead of a signal, it will be red regardless of whether it's 4 spaces or 4 million spaces ahead. This also applies where rails intersect at a cross as the game treats them as all one big network, even if not directly connected. So you need the signals to break them apart. Chain signals look ahead to the next signal(s) so you can think of it like chain for "choice" at a split and rail signal for "all clear". You also want chain signals before a rail signal if the train waiting at the rail signal will block other traffic. For a beginner, I would stick to unidirectional tracks, as signaling is a bit easier.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 18:39 |
|
|
yeah, this is why trains are pains
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 19:48
|
|