|
I played it a bit. It's quite rough but sort of neat. The control scheme on console is really bad.
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2023 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
Does it satisfy the satisfactory itch?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2023 21:35
|
|
|
It's very different in scope I think. There might be a large area to build a mega factory but at least so far it's about building what you need in each chamber to reach the next.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2023 00:45
|
|
|
Klyith posted:Eh, kinda big disagree here. If you're using trains you may have rather long trip times, because rails make it easy to spread out. Platforms with 2x mk5 outputs will easily drain a platform faster than a train can fill them when you're talking about something like ingots (which you need in high volume but only stack to 100). I did specify a single belt, since that's generally more common especially past the ingot/t1 stage of stuff. If you're double-belting into the consumer to meet quota then you'll also need to be double-belting out from the producer to get the benefit of that super fast delivery time. Granted I have no idea why you'd pick a source that took a long travel time for such a high-volume dependency, especially since outside of a fast P4 megafactory you're almost always going to be good locally, but in that specific situation where the lag in train delivery causes it to be slower than a globe-spanning belt... yeah just add another car and you're good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2023 01:13
|
|
|
I've been following Techtonica, but there is no combat so "Deep Rock Galatic" elements only extend as far as the underground setting. That said I think combat is probably the weakest element of Satisfactory. Re: Trains, do people actually use dual outputs on a single freight platform? Since input/output stops during the load/unload animation I've always sent the two outputs to an industrial storage to buffer a single output during the animation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2023 01:15
|
|
|
Smiling Demon posted:Re: Trains, do people actually use dual outputs on a single freight platform? Since input/output stops during the load/unload animation I've always sent the two outputs to an industrial storage to buffer a single output during the animation. Sure. The waterfall factory I just built will supply 1850/m petcoke to my all-frames factory (doesn't exist yet) to make coke steel. Between the petcoke being a 200 stack and a relatively short distance between the two locations, it only needs 2 cars. But that needs 4 belts. In other occasions pulling 2 belts from the platform to your production can avoid the buffer container entirely -- your belts get turned off, but the stack in each machine buffers the shortfall. Mailer posted:I did specify a single belt, since that's generally more common especially past the ingot/t1 stage of stuff. If you're double-belting into the consumer to meet quota then you'll also need to be double-belting out from the producer to get the benefit of that super fast delivery time. I think my "big disagree" was just to the idea that you don't have to pay much attention to the train's throughput limit. The difference between 200-stack and 100-stack items is a huge difference to gloss over. Even for 1 mk5 belt the 100 stack items can be tight. I'm with you that I move 200-stack products by train way more than ingots. But I've seen plenty that do it the other way. Mailer posted:Granted I have no idea why you'd pick a source that took a long travel time for such a high-volume dependency, especially since outside of a fast P4 megafactory you're almost always going to be good locally, but in that specific situation where the lag in train delivery causes it to be slower than a globe-spanning belt... yeah just add another car and you're good. Keep in mind it's the round trip time. Including the 2 docking stops. I dunno if you've stopwatched your trains very much, but they're ... maybe not quite as fast as you think. In a past save I had a big one-way rail loop around the dune desert, and that was about 5 minutes on its own. TLDR I think knowing the hard limits is important, both because they're hard limits and because you can make good-enough ballpark estimates from that chart. Like, knowing whether you will need 2 cargo platforms or 3 ahead of time is pretty useful. Especially before you build a complete factory around it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2023 04:15
|
|
|
Smiling Demon posted:Re: Trains, do people actually use dual outputs on a single freight platform? Since input/output stops during the load/unload animation I've always sent the two outputs to an industrial storage to buffer a single output during the animation. The discussion was around actually needing two belts or more of output, but yeah you can help mitigate frequent stops by double-belting a single-belt-fed setup so that it empties faster than the producer recovers. That situation, where technically the train throughput (without that buffering) is slower than a single belt, is pretty weird. Like you'd need that trip to be so fast that the i/o block was an issue and at that point there's a good argument for just belting it. Klyith posted:I think my "big disagree" was just to the idea that you don't have to pay much attention to the train's throughput limit. The difference between 200-stack and 100-stack items is a huge difference to gloss over. Even for 1 mk5 belt the 100 stack items can be tight. The throughput is important, but you cannot solve it by making the train faster because... you can't. Short of an awful rail network or hauling way too many cars or other broken railway issues your train moves as fast as it moves. You have to solve problems at one or both ends. Whether that's producing more belts/cars full of stuff, adding a train/source and larger output buffering at the destination, or just scrapping it all and belting everything in is situational but it's always something you do at production and consumption. (Note: I'm purely talking logistics here. There's plenty of reasons to have a short-run or otherwise weird train, not the least of which being a cool-looking build, in which case ignore this entire thing.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2023 05:29
|
|
|
What's the go-to for buffering fluids from train platforms anyway? I've been using this setup but I never actually tested to see if it allows for continuous flow. Seemed like the closest thing to the two belt in, one out arrangement you get inherently in a large storage container. Not having top ports on a large fluid buffer seems like kind of an oversight in comparison, maybe they'll add them at some point. Could also make fluid trains a lot more functional by just doubling their capacity, limiting it to 2400 is weird when you can package it all and transport 4800 in the same size container.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2023 05:48
|
|
|
NoEyedSquareGuy posted:What's the go-to for buffering fluids from train platforms anyway? I've been using this setup but I never actually tested to see if it allows for continuous flow. Pipes have a fair amount of inherent buffering to them, and the low capacity of a fluid train means you probably aren't dealing with large m3/min rate from any one platform. IMO a fluid platform probably doesn't need a buffer other than in exceptional occasions. That setup has potential problems with the buffers sloshing into each other. You could put valves after each buffer & before the junction to prevent that. But a better method is to delete one of those buffers and connect the 2nd platform output to the junction with a straight pipe. One valve or pump after the junction. When the platform is stopped the buffer provides all the flow, when it turns on again the 2 pipes refill the buffer and supply the output. NoEyedSquareGuy posted:Could also make fluid trains a lot more functional by just doubling their capacity, limiting it to 2400 is weird when you can package it all and transport 4800 in the same size container. lol fluid trains only get 1600 m3 capacity I don't know why they seem to hate the idea of fluid trains, it's stupid
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2023 13:21
|
|
|
I have a big ring railroad in my world, it's pretty basic with just one track on foundations or sometimes just hanging out over space. I've been debating redoing it for two tracks and making it prettier in the process... It wouldn't be feasible to make a blueprint of a rail segment, right? Say, two tracks an appropriate distance apart, foundations under them, and maybe the some column tops under them to be made into full columns to the ground later. Possibly some fluid pipes (or a hypertube?) under the rails as well to pipe fluids around the map. Two issues I see: One, blueprinted rail segments don't connect to each other, so if the rails were in the blueprint, I couldn't just plop down the same blueprint next to it and have the segments connect. A way around this would be to have one blueprint with the rails and one without, alternate between them when placing, and then just add in the missing rail segments to connect them all. Would you run into the same issue if you put pipes in the blueprint - would the pipes connect automatically? Two, would having such a long pipeline (literally around the map) cause any performance issues? With rail fluid transport being slow, it might be nice to just pipe it but not if it's too much math for the game to handle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2023 19:30
|
|
|
boxen posted:I have a big ring railroad in my world, it's pretty basic with just one track on foundations or sometimes just hanging out over space. I've been debating redoing it for two tracks and making it prettier in the process... Yeah. If I was doing something like that I'd make 1 blueprint with the rails and one without. Then you can build in blueprint mode and do 1 rail BP, 3 blank BPs, 1 rail BP, then manually build rails across the blanks. Max rail length is 12.5 foundations, the 3 blanks are 12 foundations. Hypertubes also stretch 100 meters so integrated hypertube would work the same. Pipes not so much since they only go 50m. Makes building into a much more annoying 1-2-3-2-1 pattern. boxen posted:Would you run into the same issue if you put pipes in the blueprint - would the pipes connect automatically? Nope. Nothing auto-connects between blueprints. boxen posted:Two, would having such a long pipeline (literally around the map) cause any performance issues? With rail fluid transport being slow, it might be nice to just pipe it but not if it's too much math for the game to handle. Eh, maybe? One pipe would probably not be terrible. But I think if you were moving fluid in quantity enough to be useful you'd need multiple pipes in this shindig. Also I don't really see a lot of utility for moving any fluid across the map in pipes. Most fluids you want to produce and use in the same location. What I might do is design your blueprint with places that pipes can go, but just fit it with supports and not the actual pipes. And then if you need to move fluid along your rails just fill in the pipes from A to B.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2023 20:38
|
|
|
Klyith posted:Yeah. If I was doing something like that I'd make 1 blueprint with the rails and one without. Then you can build in blueprint mode and do 1 rail BP, 3 blank BPs, 1 rail BP, then manually build rails across the blanks. Max rail length is 12.5 foundations, the 3 blanks are 12 foundations. Hypertubes also stretch 100 meters so integrated hypertube would work the same. So far it seems to be going okay because it's trivial to replace sections as needed for intersections & it was real quick to put up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2023 20:52
|
|
|
Klyith posted:
Yeah, as I was typing that I was trying to think of a fluid I'd actually do that with. Water is available basically everywhere, oil I use pretty close to the source, fuel I use or store right next to where its produced, and acid I don't have a use for yet. The only thing I could think of was Nitrogen but I already have a fluid train set up for that from A to B, I don't really need the ability to get nitrogen at any given train station. I'd probably do like you suggest and just put the supports in a blueprint in case I find a use. A set of supports for a pipe plus a set of supports for hypertubes, I think. I don't think hypertubes are a super useful way to get around the map, but a hypertube loop around the map might be handy for when my hypertube cannons aren't working for whatever reason or I just want to travel from one place to another without having to pay attention to what's going on in the game. Easier than waiting for the train and hopping on/off at the right times anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2023 20:53
|
|
|
Klyith posted:lol fluid trains only get 1600 m3 capacity Dang, and I already thought they were uninspiring at 2400. I was working under the assumption that station capacity was the same as freight car capacity but I guess it's lower for both solids and liquids, explains some of the strange throughput behavior I was observing. Not a hard problem to solve at least, I think I just need more trains running the same routes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
Yeah fluid cars being so lovely boggles the mind, but I'd rather run more trains than do packaging in most cases.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2023 21:05
|
|
|
boxen posted:Yeah, as I was typing that I was trying to think of a fluid I'd actually do that with. Water is available basically everywhere, oil I use pretty close to the source, fuel I use or store right next to where its produced, and acid I don't have a use for yet. The only thing I could think of was Nitrogen but I already have a fluid train set up for that from A to B, I don't really need the ability to get nitrogen at any given train station.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2023 21:17
|
|
|
One of the advantages of a global rail network is you can go anywhere with no effort. Spawn train, tell train to go to whatever station, and ride in comfort while doing no work and occasionally adjusting my monocle. Granted with enough boosters placed you'd tube there faster but now you also have to daisy-chain power on top of your rails and your tubes and have tubes going both directions and that's too much  Khorne posted:No foundation, no grid coherency. One of the things that irks me so much about rail (and roads, though at least there's a mod for roads!) is that in order to place anything that doesn't look like poo poo you have to get all wonky with platforms. The game actively fights you on it every step of the way. By the end when I finally connected the full world loop (in addition to multiple alternate paths) I was a pro at making these excellent smooth curves even while going up/down but christ if it didn't take me hours of twiddling to do it. Placing rail is like that annoying moment when you try to connect a belt to a stand and it flips to the other side in a dumb invalid direction rather than snapping to the valid one unless you point at just the right pixel... only stretched out repeatedly for hundreds of hours.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2023 02:20
|
|
|
I would love a mod that adds a passenger car in that lets me ride in the back in first person mode, standing or sitting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2023 02:29
|
|
|
OgNar posted:I would love a mod that adds a passenger car in that lets me ride in the back in first person mode, standing or sitting. That would be cool, could be like a mobile HUB with the little office space and living quarters!
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2023 02:30
|
|
|
Khorne posted:What future horrors have I unleashed by creating an adhoc double rail world loop by making the following blueprints: 2 tile long rail in the middle of tile1, 2 tile long rail in the middle of 2, many blueprints from 0m through 20m in height in 4m increments. I then built the loop by spacing them ~10 tiles apart (way less with rapid height changes) and snapping rail between them. No foundation, no grid coherency. Nothing, that's a perfectly cromulent solution. The constant mild up-down slopes will cause the trains to use a little bit more electricity than if they were level, but that's deep in who gives a poo poo territory. Beyond the basics of signals, maximum slope, and keeping your rails 1 foundation apart so your trains don't collide, most of laying rail is where you sit on the aesthetics vs effort spectrum. Mailer posted:One of the advantages of a global rail network is you can go anywhere with no effort. Spawn train, tell train to go to whatever station, and ride in comfort while doing no work and occasionally adjusting my monocle. Exactly this, I keep the materials to build a one-engine train with me at pretty much all times. It's not fast but I can go refresh my drink or whatever while riding limo service. So with the loss of cyclotron cannons, my new fast travel is via pulse nobelisk. Throw 10-15 pulses in a pile, then hit 'em with the bat. They all go off at once. Works anywhere, no electricity needed, one stack is good for 3-5 trips. My only problem is that it seems that when carrying pulses I cannot resist the temptation to dick around with monsters instead of just shooting them. Waste like 5 minutes and a dozen pulses trying to wile e coyote a spitter off the edge of a cliff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2023 04:42
|
|
|
Building a road to transport aluminum scrap down a mountain to the ingot foundries:   
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2023 05:47
|
|
|
Love the design, that looks awesome! Have you tried to see what vehicles can make the slopes...? Cause the big truck does not handle slopes very well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2023 09:34
|
|
|
Dunno-Lars posted:Love the design, that looks awesome!
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2023 14:33
|
|
|
The one that looks like a large 4m incline right before the turn around the rock pillar might be a little harsh, but in general they'll handle stuff like that very slooooowly before finally giving up. As long as you have a steady fuel source it just takes the dumb thing longer while it slowly plods up the hill.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2023 14:37
|
|
|
Dang that looks good, but the short range of 4m signs in lumen has really put me off using them for things like this. Ash1138 posted:Thanks! I知 going to use tractors for this. They work fine on 1m slopes with curves at the top and bottom and I知 pretty sure they値l be fine on the 2m slopes. The only thing I知 worried about is the single stretch of 4m slope with a 30 or 40 degree turn at the bottom, but I値l know for sure later today. In U7 trucks can do any length of 2m slope, but generally can't do 4m slopes. (They can do 1 if they have enough speed coming in.) Tractors can do infinite 4m slopes, though they slow down a lot. In U8 right now trucks can do infinite 4m slopes. What they can't do is turn. Their turning radius is basically the same as a train. It's seriously awful. A bunch of my paths made in U7 can't be driven properly by their trucks in U8, they loving Austin Powers themselves trying to get out of a truck stop. (Also the explorer is terrible in U8. I just used it recently for the first time in a while, driving in an area I drove dozens of times back in my first game. They killed my boy!) I am assuming all of this is just stuff they haven't had enough time with the new engine to tune behavior, and will eventually be fixed / closer to previous feel. So my general advice is to not use 4m slopes for trucks, because they might go back to being undrivable. And if you have trouble with recording routes or vehicles not driving a route right, put it off until later.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2023 15:52
|
|
|
From the videos it seems like they want the vehicles to behave pretty much the same way, just less janky. But they haven't had the time to really refine it since it's a completely different physics engine and they're basically starting from scratch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2023 16:28
|
|
|
Ash1138 posted:Building a road to transport aluminum scrap down a mountain to the ingot foundries: Love this design, looks great. I would love for them to put in a road tool similar to train tracks though (similar to the roads in, say, Death Stranding)
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2023 16:32
|
|
|
Klyith posted:Dang that looks good, but the short range of 4m signs in lumen has really put me off using them for things like this. Mailer posted:The one that looks like a large 4m incline right before the turn around the rock pillar might be a little harsh, but in general they'll handle stuff like that very slooooowly before finally giving up. As long as you have a steady fuel source it just takes the dumb thing longer while it slowly plods up the hill. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 03:29
|
|
|
Hey, that was my initial first-playthrough-of-game starting position. Your solution is... let's call it "more elegant" than mine. I had a single tractor that drove from ground level up a 4m incline (taking a hilariously long time) all the way to the top of the waterfalls, then over a bridge to near the coal deposits, then all the way around the lakes to where I had a small aluminum operation. Also the packaged fuel was based on excess plastic and fuel from my main base (where it looks like yours is) so whenever items jammed or something I'd just randomly run out of fuel and have to go rescue the poor tractor stuck somewhere on the incline.  Weirdly enough it was still enough aluminum to carry me all the way to endgame production. That lone, brave little tractor just making thousands of trips up that hill for hundreds of hours.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 04:06
|
|
|
Mailer posted:Hey, that was my initial first-playthrough-of-game starting position. Your solution is... let's call it "more elegant" than mine. My main base is closer to the map edge, next to the space elevator in the screenshot below. The closest skeleton of a building houses the aluminum ingot foundries and the building with the roof has steel foundries on the top floor and steel pipe/beam/encased beam production on the floor below. The floor or two below that will have the alclad/casing production with associated copper sheet production. Silica circuit board, AI limiter, and high-speed connectors will be around there too, probably on the other side of the lake where the quickwire is made. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 14:42
|
|
|
While I still don't have my Al Factory properly finished, I set up all the supporting infrastructure and it was... interesting. Batteries need massive amounts of alclad sheets, which need copper. There's no copper nearby the red forest bauxite nexus, so I need to drone it in because #notrains. The drones need batteries, which need sheets, which need... ok, I can manually kickstart this. Batteries also need a fair amount of plastic, so off to go set up a bespoke plastic/fuel factory...  But that needs batteries to function. Since I'm just taking the plastic to the battery factory the drone can fuel there. So off to the (very dodgy-looking) battery factory!  I kickstarted it with a box of plastic and alclad, which got the plastic drone flying. A bit of rerouting at the aluminum factory got the battery drone and dedicated alclad-for-batteries drone ready to go. Unfortunately while I have batteries into the aluminum factory it has no copper to make alclad. The closest node is forever away, off a cliff, and Impure which is insufficient. So I went even further off a cliff...  It's, uh, it's a ways down there. Fourteen smelters, a miner, and a drone port. Perfect. I even tracked the wiring back up the cliff so I can put it on the Al factory's switch. By the time I got back the whole thing had gone into production. One giant symbiotic mess where every part relied on one or more other parts functioning and if anything breaks it all goes to hell. With ~300 batteries a minute it should support quite a nice drone ecosystem. I checked the transfers and with the extensive distance to alclad I'm undersupplying one of the manufacturers slightly, but going from 318 to ~300 batteries is fine. All hail the flying legion and their hatred of trains.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 11:54
|
|
|
Mailer posted:what came first, the battery or the drone Very nice. Are you gonna build up the battery factory with more drone ports to hub-and-spoke your future logistics? Otherwise you need drones to distribute batteries to power the drones... But the classic battery alt is definitely why I wouldn't go whole hog on all-drones logistics. Standard batteries are a resource hog, but classic is literally double the buildings. I'm gonna need almost 200 batteries just for production needs (mag field gens & super-state supercomputers), and I predict that the relatively modest number of drones I'll be using will only add about 25/m to that. That will be doable with regular batteries, though it'll use up 2 sulfur & 2 aluminum nodes. But it'll fit in one build. A thing I just noticed: with the new OC math, mk2 & mk3 miners are exactly the same for production-vs-power. IE a mk2 miner at 250% uses the same power as a mk3 at 125%. So in places where I need 600 or less from a pure node, I'm just OCing the heck out of the mk2 and calling it good. Not even worth going back and replacing them later.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 17:04
|
|
|
Mailer posted:While I still don't have my Al Factory properly finished, I set up all the supporting infrastructure and it was... interesting. Universal
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
Mailer posted:One giant symbiotic mess where every part relied on one or more other parts functioning and if anything breaks it all goes to hell. This is the correct way to play. Design your factories so that if something goes wrong it's easier to start a new save than fix it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 21:17
|
|
|
Klyith posted:Very nice. Are you gonna build up the battery factory with more drone ports to hub-and-spoke your future logistics? Otherwise you need drones to distribute batteries to power the drones... Yes. The Al factory is already configured like that as it has four (possibly overkill) distribution drone ports in addition to the dedicated battery/copper/alclad-to-batteries drone ports. Likewise the plastic is delivered to the battery factory so I can cheat and just fuel on the delivery side. quote:But the classic battery alt is definitely why I wouldn't go whole hog on all-drones logistics. Standard batteries are a resource hog, but classic is literally double the buildings In the end it could probably have been engineered better if I'd gone down that path and produced more casings but by the time it all went into place the Al factory's output had already been tuned for classic. Having the next big project be nuclear makes me really not care about power. I'm sure the next big challenge after that, which will be the first space part mega factory, will have its own logistical nightmares. I just know now I can attach a battery intake port and fire up the drones for all my aluminum/nitrogen needs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2023 03:26
|
|
|
Mailer posted:In the end it could probably have been engineered better if I'd gone down that path and produced more casings but by the time it all went into place the Al factory's output had already been tuned for classic. Having the next big project be nuclear makes me really not care about power. The power use for classic battery is actually only like 10-15% higher! The standard recipe is all refineries and blenders, those are power-hungry. Classic changes blenders to manufacturers and adds assemblers and constructors. Twice as many machines, but a lighter average power load per machine. But for me the number of machines has extra weight: I have to make a cool building to put them in. Twice as many machines means the building needs to be twice as cool. So I pay a lot of attention to the total machine count of various alts. Architecture effort is a bigger constraint than resources.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
This aluminum factory is the start and end of trying to make actual production look pretty. It's cute when it's tiny but once you scale up to where you're trying to house 50+ assemblers the effort involved in the pretty is so much higher you spend weeks building a nice house for your machines to live in. It's one of the reasons I want higher-scaling stuff even though they stated that's not happening. It's that weird Satisfactory thing where it has tools for mass production and tools for Minecraft pretty-for-the-sake-of-pretty but trying to push very far in either direction runs into a big wall.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2023 22:32
|
|
|
Mailer posted:This aluminum factory is the start and end of trying to make actual production look pretty. It's cute when it's tiny but once you scale up to where you're trying to house 50+ assemblers the effort involved in the pretty is so much higher you spend weeks building a nice house for your machines to live in. It's one of the reasons I want higher-scaling stuff even though they stated that's not happening. Yeah, making things pretty can be a huge time drain. It's 90% of my playtime. I think it's rewarding in the long run but it has also lead me to take long breaks from the game so I understand the giving up. That said, if you do blueprints right you can make pretty things by default treating a set of blueprints like legos. Blueprints really are a godsend even with their limitations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2023 22:54
|
|
|
Higher scaling stuff is why I will never uninstall the Industrial Evolution mod. Those 3x machines are life savers and I can稚 imagine going back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2023 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
  Going to be a while before trains are actually running on these but it was a fun part of a larger project.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 10:49
|
|