|
Distractor capsules do a good job on worms too. Honestly, once you start producing them in reasonable number every enemy base becomes pretty doable. Just throw them around like mad.
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 19:37 |
|
|
After playing with both, I think I prefer belts. Belts are more of a pain to set up, and need more space, but are reliable and have volume going for them. In my last couple games, I've put logistics robots down fairly low in my list of priorities. Normally, once I get green science, I find my biggest priorities are solar power/accumulators, laser turrets, electric furnaces, and basic efficiency modules. The combination of those is what helps me catapult into the final stages.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Deadmeat5150 posted:There has got to be a better way than this prior to have Power Armor mk2
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
A lot of it depends on the proximity of enemy bases to your starting location, and whether or not you have trees to absorb pollution. A desert start near enemy bases is going to be harder than an isolated forested start. The actual difficulty still needs some balancing, really.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 10:27
|
|
|
Eh, just build more solar panels and accumulators. In my last big base idle laser turrets were my biggest energy consumer.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 11:36
|
|
|
Sounds feasible, considering that their roadmap has them coming out with .10 by the end of this month. The roadmap doesn't mention any particularly compelling new features for 0.10 though. 0.11 sounds more interesting, with multiplayer and endgame content. As a side note, the price of the game is increasing 38 hours from now. If you are interested, it is a good time to get in. The basic transport belt repair man level is fine.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
With enough capsules and you can pretty much do anything. I was taking out bases by spamming distractor capsules all around, while I ran in circles with destroyer capsules killing the things trailing me. Capsules turn your production into disposable killing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Lubricant is used for the fastest belts too, and you are likely going to want those, at least on some lines. Making those belts chews through iron like you wouldn't believe though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 11:59
|
|
|
I seem to have problems loading saves with the new update. I don't mean old saves either, but saves from newly started maps. I get a message that "package lock (read) is active", and it doesn't load.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
You definitely don't need to handcraft blues.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Evilreaver posted:That's a mistake I made early on, I walled myself in and fortified myself to hell and back- then when it came to get rocket defense I had zero artifacts, no power armor, lousy drones, etc etc and breaking into enemy bases guarded by Big Biters and Worms was nearly impossible. That's where the LP is now and that's probably why nobody wants to take a turn anymore
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
I think you are going to need to wait until 0.12 for serious content. The roadmap says that version will have a proper endgame. That said, I enjoy factorio enough that I am still going to give 0.11 a shot. Like you though, I am definitely hungering for new content.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
It won't let me put efficiency modules in electric furnaces in the new version. I am hoping it is a bug. It just says the message "__1__ can't be used in __2__"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
As you said, if pollution reaches enemy bases, they will periodically group up and leave to attack the source of the pollution. If your turn that option on, enemies will just sit in their base until you get close enough. I would generally not suggest using it. The game is easy enough as it is. It is easy enough to wipe out bases before your pollution reaches them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
I suggest being proactive, and taking the war to the biters. Wipe out nearby bases before your pollution cloud reaches them. Then you can get by with minimal defenses. The first green beaker technology I research is always the one that unlocks piercing ammo. I'll usually make the beakers by hand. An SMG with piercing ammo is good enough for most bases at the start.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Been playing some multiplayer recently. I decided to take on the task of laying out the smelting setup, and was kind of proud of the design I came up with.  Two input lanes for ore, and two full iron lines and two copper lines coming out. The ore comes in from below, through the center of the operation, so it is easy to expend to the left and the right without needing to reroute things. One electric furnaces come into play, we can add them by just removing the coal lines.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Multiplayer has gotten a lot more stable in the last couple weeks too. It isn't perfect, but it seems fairly decent now, at least in my testing with one other person. Tanks are sweet too. They help bridge that gap between steel armor/piercing ammo SMGs and INFINITE CAPSULE POWER ARMOR CHEETAH MODE.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
They added tanks a while back, which are an improvement. They are pretty good at snipering down spawners, and leading the enemies back to your wall of turret death. Endgame is still a juiced up power-armor running at a million miles per hour while vomiting capsules though.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
50 smelters isn't something I would start with. That said, I would definitely plan things out such that I have the room to expand to that, and more. Typically that involves two load balanced input ore belt for each ore (so four total), two rows of each smelter that can be expanded outward, and two load balanced output belts for each type of plate . Coal belts always on the inside, to make for minimum rebelting when I switch to electric furnaces.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
I feel like solar panels really need a higher tech, higher power option. Needing to put down huge fields of them gets a bit tiresome.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Man, just started playing this again after having put it down around 0.12. Trying to get my bearings again. Boilers are definitely different. How is this for a starter smelting setup? Has two double-sided output belts for each metal, and can be expanded outward until it hits belt capacity. Easy transition to electric smelters by ripping up the inner coal lines. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
What is the first tool used here, which is dragged over the patch of ore? I've made blueprints before, but don't there need to be constructions there? https://gfycat.com/VioletPoliteHomalocephale
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
That sounds fun too. Somebody should do that. Replace as many belts with trains as possible.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Chev posted:Efficiency modules serve the purpose of keeping the bugs peaceful, judging by the difference in bug activity some of you guys seem to be experiencing compared to mine. The best way to achieve peace is through liberal application of nukes.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Man, I am enjoying buffer chests and priority splitters. I like using them to recycle trashed materials back into the factory, rather than having them clog some storage chest. People are probably all already doing this, but I am proud of myself for figuring it out. For example, lets say I want to keep a small supply of iron plates around such that they can be requested. I want any plates over that to be put back into the factory. Random chests full of iron plates don't do me any good.  The buffer chest is set to request 20k iron, so any random iron plates floating around in the network get placed in it. The right inserter is wired to the chest, and is set to only be enabled if the chest contains less than 100 plates. So it will load the chest if it is low. The top inserter is also wired to the chest is set to only be enabled if the chest has more than 120 plates. It will empty plates if the chest gets too high. The splitter is set with left input priority, so that the plates out of the chest get priority to be put on to the line. This way I have between 100 and 120 iron plates in the network ready to be requested for things like nuclear fuel. At the same time, if an iron line gets ripped up and a bunch of plates enter the network, they'll be placed into this chest and reinserted into the factory rather than clogging up some random storage chest. I have a lot of common items wired like that. Ores are all reinserted into the smelting line. Anything that might commonly be ripped up by bots will be put back into its proper place by the appropriate factory. For example, any old yellow/red belts that get ripped up will be put into buffer chests that keep a small supply, and push the rest into making blues. It is nice just being able to put materials from my inventory into trash slots too, and know the logistics robots will carry them off to be recycled. Filthy Monkey fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Feb 8, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
A buffer chest works as both a requester and provider, and does provide its contents to the logistics network. It requests at a lower priority than actual requester chests though. So the small supply of plates in that chest is requestable by players, or by any requester chests that have 'request from buffer chests' checked. A buffer chest will not pull back out of requester chests, as they do not make their contents available to the network.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
Getting tired of the nuclear plant designs on factorioprints that have inputs which make them really tough to place without filling in a lake, or that try to store steam with buggy regulation logic. I am trying my hand at making some of my own some basic, non steam-storing, non-bot plants designs in creator first. My two and my four reactor designs seem to work well, but my eight is kind of making GBS threads the bed on actual vs theoretical output. Two reactor. Does a steady state 159 MW. Seems to be where it should be, given the theoretical 160.  Four reactor. Does a steady state 478 MW out of a theoretical 480. I could definitely see myself using this one in a game. Cheap and effective power to help you get bots and electric smelting going.  Eight reactor. This one seems to be making GBS threads the theoretical bed, and is only doing 735 out of a possible maximum of 1120 MW. Under load, I notice that I don't get visible output out of all of the steam turbines. Any thoughts? I am thinking it is maybe a temperature problem, as I notice the furthest heat exchangers are 683 degrees, compared to 986 degrees for the closest ones.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2018 09:02
|
|
|
I think you are right with the 'trunk pipe' thought. I believe I need to expand the pipe capacity going into the steam turbines. I just spent an hour or so playing with the circuit network, and I believe I have now modified my two-reactor setup to store steam and moderate the fuel usage. It seems to run through some tests in creative mode just fine.  With 22 tanks, it can hold 550k units of steam. If the total units of steam in the tanks is less than 100k, and there is a single empty fuel cell in each the steel chests, it will remove the empty fuel cells from the chests and insert fresh ones into the reactors. A complete burn of two cells with two reactors looks to generate about 320k steam, so at 100k+320k the tanks should be able to hold a complete burn with no energy draw. It can steady state 159 MW, and can do 162 MW draining stored up steam. If anybody wants to give it a shot in their next game to tell me if it works, I would appreciate it. It should be a pretty good starter plant. I was pretty frugal with the resources, and it doesn't require bots. Fuel goes in on the bottom belt, and used fuel returns on the top belt. https://pastebin.com/EkpWGqDP Filthy Monkey fucked around with this message at 11:15 on Feb 11, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2018 10:59
|
|
|
Rahh. Trying to design a four reactor with steam storage setup. I am really close to having the it working. The moderated fuel insertion based on steam storage and empty fuel cells is easy enough, and similar to what was on my two reactor.  The main problem is steam pressure when operating with the reactors off. Hooking up pumps to force steam out of the tanks when necessary is easy enough, and solves pressure issues while working off of steam. The problem is, said pumps completely block flow into the tanks while they are switched off, meaning the tanks don't fill when the reactors are running. I can put a second pump in the reverse direction , but that starves the turbines until the tanks are full. Definitely undesirable. I really just need some sort of non-pumping valve, or the option to make pumps let liquid flow in the reverse direction at normal pipe rates while the pump is off. I am sure somebody has probably figured this out. I realize the solution is probably rejiggering the design so that the flow path is heat-exchanger->tank->pump->steam turbine without any other inter-connectivity. That would solve the problem of lack of backflow, as the pumps could just operate continuously. In my design above, the heat exchangers, pumps, and turbines are all connected to each other, as the straight non-interconnected wouldn't have the necessary pipe throughput. Filthy Monkey fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Feb 12, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2018 06:26
|
|
|
Roflex posted:Regarding limiting cell input, I've become a fan of just making a simple clock. A cell burns for 200 seconds, which is 12000 ticks. Set your inserters to insert when the clock signal > somewhere around 11980. Any lower and they tend to want to do two cycles, higher and they might not catch in time - there's a decent range that works. Then set it up so the clock resets whenever the steam > trigger value. This should be a little higher than usual, since it will have to count for 200 seconds before the clock fires off again, but one tank per 2 turbines (as in above setup) gives you enough room on both ends so you don't waste steam and don't run out of power. Hmm, I might try the clock method. My current loading method is to unload the reactors into steel chests. The steel chests are all wired to a decider, which outputs a signal if the number of empty fuel cells in them is equal to the number of reactors. If it is, I know the reactors are empty. A second decider is wired to all of the steam tanks, and outputs a signal if the steam is below some predetermined value. Those signals are ANDed together with a combinator. If the combinator outputs its signal, I execute the reload. That means activating the inserters to insert fresh cells, and activating the inserters to remove the spent cells out of the steel chests. The output of the steel chest decider can also be used to active pumps if necessary. If that signal is true, I know I am running off of stored steam. I suppose the potential problem with my method is the small delay in loading fuel cells. The arms have to move the spent cells to the chests, and while that is happening the reactors will always be empty. If you are below capacity that won't be a problem at all, but I suppose that at full capacity that split second could make a difference. I didn't notice any power spikes in the graph during creator mode testing though. I see the clock as potentially replacing the steel chest logic, or at least smoothing it out. If I could make the decision to reload a second or so before the old cells run out, it should in theory be a more resilient design. Filthy Monkey fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Feb 12, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
Definitely should function. From your description I don't think it will sync the reactors if they get loaded unevenly, unless there is additional logic involved. It also will have a small window where the reactors are always empty. The steel chest design I was using still has the window problem, but it doesn't have a sync problem. I was thinking of trying timer based approach that also syncs by resetting the timer when all n empty fuel cells have hit an output chest. It would be timed to load just before the old fuel cells are exhausted. I think it would need a resettable timer going into an SR latch. It shouldn't need to be primed with an initial set of fuel cells either, so long as the inserters and circuitry start with some sort of external power source.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
You are 100% right of course. Keeping the reactor powered should be trivial. It is more about the fun of trying to come up with an optimal design. I've been using this plant design as a vehicle to learn more about circuit networks as well. I've played a lot, but only used them very minimally. Plus, more 235 means more throwing nukes around with reckless abandon, wasting 100x the fuel my reactors will ever use. Need to kill biters/trees/other players/myself somehow. Filthy Monkey fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Feb 12, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
That sounds pretty badass. Have a picture and/or video?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
Playing around with timer based nuclear setups, I am feeling like they are more trouble than they are worth. They work, but they have more edge cases, and they really need their own dedicated circuit external of the main power grid. You don't want a brownout leading to the clock slowing down, leading to even less power, leading to the clock going slower, and so on. So far, I am still finding that waiting for four output cells and low steam is the most reliable. There are less ways it can get into an unstable state, and it will sync the reactors too. Here is a belt-based four reactor design I just made, that has more steam storage than it actually needs. They do help fill out the shape though.  https://pastebin.com/2tT10KxL I realize that storing steam is totally unnecessary, given the availability of fuel. I just find nuclear plants a fun thing to work on.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
Is there any way to put the power measurement back to MW from GW? I would like to have more accurate numbers while tweaking plants. Today I've been trying to make an easy hookup 12 reactor design. The point is that it only needs small coast exposure for pumps, compared to so many designs out there that pretty much require you to landfill out the middle of a lake. It took some serious piping to get it to where it is now.  One useful thing I discovered was a pattern you can use to get three pipes worth of liquid through a space two squares wide. I could have just made the plant a couple tiles wider, but what fun would that be?  The plant is showing up as producing 1.7 GW when hooked up to a void, which it should be, but I am worried that the furthest exchangers from the coast might be very slightly water deprived. It is tough to gauge how effective changes are without more accurate power metering. I've think periodic fluid pumps can help speed up liquid? Or would it be better to hook up a couple extra offshore water pumps? A 12 reactor plant does have the ratios of 176 heat exchangers, 303 turbines, 16 pumps. I split it into sixteen equal-sized blocks of 11 exchangers, 19 turbines, and 1 pump. Foehammer posted:Ask and ye shall receive.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2018 03:05
|
|
|
Never seen that before. Neat. now I want to see the 1812 overture synced up with factorio artillery. Can circuits turn artillery on/off? Put it close enough to an enemy base and it should autofire.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2018 03:54
|
|
|
I've been obsessing over nuclear design too much. I think I've figured out my new current favorite way of moderating a nuclear plant. It self syncs like the chest method, but doesn't require an extra set of chests. It also runs dry for one less inserter arm worth of time than the steel chest method. It does require more logic though. The method relies on three conditions. 1) A decider wired to all the steam tanks, set to output a signal if the steam is low. 2) The count of the used fuel cells taken out, modulo (num reactors). When the count is 0, I know that I have taken out a number of used fuel cells equal to the number of reactors. This part is responsible for syncing the reactors. 3) An SR latch that is set when a cell is pulled out, and reset when a cell is put in. The point of the latch is to stop repeat fuel cell insertion. If the steam is low, and the number of removed fuel cells modulo the number of reactors is 0, and the latch is set, then it is time to insert new fuel cells. The insertion resets the latch, stopping new fuel cells from getting inserted again. The used fuel cell count is read via hand pulse, so the new set of fuel cells goes in at the same time as the last fuel cell is coming out. That minimizes the amount of time the reactors will always run dry. I can't think of any way to do it faster without a timer, which introduces a whole host of other edge cases and brownout related slowdown issues. The six reactor plant I made with the moderation scheme runs at a sustained load of 795 MW, which I feel is pretty good given the theoretical maximum sustained load of 800 MW. I mostly attribute the difference to the one inserter arm rotation of dry time every 200s.  Also, it seriously takes more testing than you would expect to get the steam settings right. It is easy to have a plant that runs fine at 100% capacity, but fucky at 95% due to the dipping steam values and high consumption. I spent a lot of time at game speed 100 in creative mode, watching this plant do cycles at various power draws while I tweaked the storage. I can't promise this is perfect in 100% of cases, but it should be pretty solid. Edit: God drat it, I need to move a pump. Edit2: Pump Moved. https://pastebin.com/FHqngTkM Filthy Monkey fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Feb 16, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
My typical strategy is just to defend my pollution cloud. I am far more offensive and far less defensive. As far as I am concerned, any nest near my pollution cloud, or god forbid underneath my cloud is marked for extermination. Even early I am doing work with heavy armor, piercing ammo, and grenades. Those are enough to clear small and medium-sized nests, so long as they don't have any big worms. Once tanks come around killing larger nests and big worms becomes much more viable. Uranium ammo, artillery, and nukes all seal the deal at the end. By the time maximally evolved biters come around, it is usually because I've nuking nests en masse while running around like Speedy Gonzalez with six exoskeletons stuffed in a power armor II. I don't really go for miles of wall and giant arrays of turrets, though I will use them in places. I will usually keep some radar coverage up to watch out for expansions. Filthy Monkey fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Feb 17, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
Okay, I think I am done obsessing over nuclear plants. This is my final one. I tweaked my previous non-moderated 12 reactor design enough that I think it is in a good stopping place. All the pumps help keep the heat exchangers wet, given the lengths involved. I feel like in the late game, I could just drop down another one of these whenever I want additional juice. At 12 reactors the average adjacency bonus is a quite good at 366.67% https://imgur.com/uoFLZUE https://pastebin.com/vavzhupk All 16 hookups are right next to each other at the top, making for easy water hookup. Most of the big power plant designs I see require you to landfill out the middle of a lake, which is tedious and annoying given that bots can't do it. This design just requires that you edge a lake off enough to get the pumps in. Power is truncated to the nearest GW, so to test performance I built two of these plants in creative mode and ran them for an hour. The pair showed a constant 3.5 GW, which means that each plant is individually at least 1.75 GW. Given that the theoretical maximum is 1.76 GW, I think they are on the money. Moderated plants are fun at the 2 or 4 reactor level, but become kind of a pain for reactors larger than that. By that time you generally have a hojillion fuel anyway. Learning how to moderate plants was a fun way to learn about the circuit network though. I went from knowing nearly nothing to being able to set up timers and latches. I figure that is pretty good. Filthy Monkey fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 19:37 |
|
|
Really depends on how your train stop is set up. At maximum research, a stack inserter can move 12.2 items/sec from chest to belt. https://wiki.factorio.com/Inserters A blue belt has a total throughput of 40 items per second. So, four stack inserters going from chest to belt can saturate a blue belt, so long as you are using splitter merging to compress. That means you could in theory get three blue belts out of each cargo wagon without too much effort, provided you are unloading on both sides. Granted, you would need furiously be sending trains to keep up with that. Chest to chest unloading is done at 27.7 items per second. Given double unloading into 12 chests, that means a throughput of 332.4 items/sec while unloading. To keep up with the 120 items/sec going out on belts, you would need to have a train unloading in the station 120/332.4 = 36% of the time. Filthy Monkey fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 17:35
|
|