|
So are the nuclear ratios the same, just that heat pipe can't go on forever?
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 23:18 |
|
|
Yeah heat pipes lose their heat over distance. Of course, steam does not, so just use steam pipes instead 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
I liked the guy in the changelog thread on reddit complaining that this piece of poo poo doesn't work any more:
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
GotLag posted:I liked the guy in the changelog thread on reddit complaining that this piece of poo poo doesn't work any more: Good 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
*derides a player for making a boring grid of heat exchangers and turbines* *best way to make solar plants is to stamp out the same square pattern of panels and accumulators ten thousand times*
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
GotLag posted:Now why didn't you build that east-west instead of north-south? What's the benefit of building it east-west?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Loopoo posted:What's the benefit of building it east-west? Greater goatse resemblance.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Loopoo posted:What's the benefit of building it east-west?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
RyokoTK posted:*derides a player for making a boring grid of heat exchangers and turbines* To be fair, the whole point of implementing nuclear was as an alternative to building boring repetitive grids.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
GotLag posted:I liked the guy in the changelog thread on reddit complaining that this piece of poo poo doesn't work any more: good god that's fuckin awful. I'm so glad this changed.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Indeed it is awful. He's wasting energy by not having fields of steam storage tanks.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
What changed with heatpipes? Lower conductivity?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Truga posted:What changed with heatpipes? Lower conductivity? The curve for heat transfer over distance was steepened. In other words, you can't transmit heat via heat pipes over absurd distances. e: i'm an idiot-- yes, lower heat conductivity
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Oh, nice.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Speaking of nukes: After getting fed up with trying to figure out my own nuke silo design, I looked to BPs. I've been using this setup for a while. Found it on r/Factorio here. There's some pretty cool stuff there and on r/FactorioBlueprints, but I try not to rely on other people's BPs too much. Puts out 480MW. If I need more I just create a whole 'nother setup. Self regulates, doesn't use more fuel than necessary (even though mining a single uranium patch and enriching yields more fuel than you'll ever need), has neat little lights.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
They went too far. Even cut straight in half, my original design is still not viable. That's 16 reactors for just 120 exchangers over the ~absurd~ distance of 50 tiles. Surrounding your reactors with exchangers is the only way to do it now and I'm not sure how that's a good thing. Yeah, the redditor's setup is bad and ugly, but why should that matter?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Maybe the solution to your problem is to make a rectangular reactor blueprint that you can repeat forever in a grid. 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
the real solution is to stay on 15.9 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
i mean, whats next, steam cooling down in pipes and tanks?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
seravid posted:They went too far. Even cut straight in half, my original design is still not viable. That's 16 reactors for just 120 exchangers over the ~absurd~ distance of 50 tiles. There's no limit on how far you can transport steam. Baloogan posted:i mean, whats next, steam cooling down in pipes and tanks? Alas, not yet.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
GotLag posted:There's no limit on how far you can transport steam. I was gonna say this. Optimize your heat exchangers for minimum heat pipe distance, and then pipe your steam off for storage/usage. Distance-wise, you should be going reactors -> exchangers -> steam storage -> turbines. This makes a hell of a lot more sense than superlong heatpipes. Yeah, it gibs some reactor setups, but I think I prefer post-nerf.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:actually writing a factorio-AI would be really cool My personal pet project at the moment is writing a game that is basically factorio blended with Shenzhen I/O. I guarantee the performance will be poo poo and I'll probably never get it past the concept stage, but at least I'm learning a ton about reflection in .NET 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Tupper posted:Yeah, it gibs some reactor setups, but I think I prefer post-nerf. I'm personally against nerfs that reduce the ability to build a bigger thing in this game. I mean honestly the reactor change just means that you build multiple smaller plants rather than one single ultra-mega plant unless you have a super tight layout, and nothing of value is really lost, but it's still a bit of a bummer.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
You can still build heat pipes farther out than in the pic Tupper posted. In my pre-update, stretched out 2×16×28 plant design, exchangers put out 500° steam even though the heat pipe wasn't at max temp--about 80-90% of max, can't remember the exact numbers. My turbines were still operating at 100% last night. I'll look again and post pics when I get home.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
You can pipe steam to turbines literal miles away from the reactors, but exchangers better be placed real close! And not in any single direction, either, they've got to be all around. For balance.RyokoTK posted:I'm personally against nerfs that reduce the ability to build a bigger thing in this game. I did build a 100% output 26-reactor to replace my now non-working setup, so large power plants are still viable. They just end up looking like the loving goatman now.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Cramming things together is an affinity not required of anyone who wasn't playing with Factorissimo given that a single pathway (ie belt, pipe, or heatpipe) is always going to be somewhat cheap when you amortize it out 20 hours. I'm not sure it would end up being the funnest affinity but I really need to credit them trying to tweak the logistics of something to encourage designs that aren't straight lines of things tiled forever because its trivial to link things.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Tupper posted:Speaking of nukes: After getting fed up with trying to figure out my own nuke silo design, I looked to BPs. I've been using this setup for a while. Found it on r/Factorio here. There's some pretty cool stuff there and on r/FactorioBlueprints, but I try not to rely on other people's BPs too much. I did some math on this and even though it's an endgame setup it costs less than 40K iron and 30K copper (with fairly negligible amounts of stone, petrogas, and coal). To put that in perspective, a solar panel costs 40 iron and 27.5 copper and it takes 23.8 panels to produce an accumulator-regulated megawatt of power. With .84 accumulators per panel this goes to 47.56 iron and 31.7 copper, which doesn't count the 150 petrogas that's the main cost of an accumulator. So the cost of a 480MW nuclear plant buys at most 841 solar panels, which generates at most 35MW of power (a 40 steam engine plant generates 36MW).
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Here is my haphazard first-time-playing nuclear setup, for the refining part. Originally uranium ore was belted from the north into five centrifuges, was placed on a belt, and filter inserters split them by isotope. A chest on the right was set up with a circuit so it would only pick up U-235 if there was less than 40 pieces in the chest, so I could collect enough for enrichment. This only applied to half of what was refined though, I had hundreds of fuel cells in stock before ever researching enrichment. The U-238 was just stored in a bunch of chests near the center if the fuel cell assembler was already full and just waiting for U-235. New fuel cells were placed on that belt down south to where my reactor is. After researching enrichment, I re-purposed two of the centrifuges. One to recycle spent fuel cells, and one for enrichment, which puts it output in a loop so it is reused for further enrichment. A belt was added to begin moving the now useful U-238 from the chests into the enrichment centrifuge. Once enough U-235 is created so that the chest builds up to 40 pieces again even while more is in the centrifuge, that inserted will not pick it up and it will instead go on and be stored in the chest near the center. I also added a red circuit connection to the fuel cell assembler inserter so it only operates if the fuel cell storage next to the reactor (off screen) is low. As you can see it is a visual mess as I didn't plan it or look at guides, but it works fine.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
What do people do for tileable solar power? I've spent the last few hours trying to lay out an aesthetically pleasing block that is also the right ratio. The best I've managed so far is this lopsided mess: Oh well, at least the .848 ratio of accumulators to solar panels is almost perfect.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
LLSix posted:Oh well, at least the .848 ratio of accumulators to solar panels is almost perfect. Why do people keep going on about a 'perfect' ratio? Does that allow for laser turret buffers and stuff? I just make a blueprint that looks good with enough accumulators (I prefer a 1:1 ish ratio) and spam it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Probably because when you're talking about making tens of thousands of structures, minimizing waste in your ratio actually has an appreciable benefit.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Ambaire posted:Why do people keep going on about a 'perfect' ratio? Does that allow for laser turret buffers and stuff? I just make a blueprint that looks good with enough accumulators (I prefer a 1:1 ish ratio) and spam it. It's "perfect" in the sense that there are enough accumulators to take up the slack during the night when the solar panels don't work.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
Ambaire posted:Why do people keep going on about a 'perfect' ratio? Does that allow for laser turret buffers and stuff? I just make a blueprint that looks good with enough accumulators (I prefer a 1:1 ish ratio) and spam it. A "perfect" ratio of panels to accumulators has the accumulators basically run dry overnight. Panels obviously don't work during the day so if you have only panels you have to have enough juice to get through the night. Coal and nuclear obviously don't have that issue but it was a big deal before nukes existed. So you'd have people building megafactories powered almost/totally exclusively by solar because holy poo poo would generating multiple GW of power be awful using coal. It's easy to just robot stamp out huge piles of panels since they just need to exist while being connected to the power grid. Too few accumulators and you run out of power every night. Too many and you've blown resources on something you aren't really using. RyokoTK posted:Probably because when you're talking about making tens of thousands of structures, minimizing waste in your ratio actually has an appreciable benefit. And, you know, that. Setting up the infrastructure just to get the resources to set up 20,000 panels is huge so you want to get it right. Personally I like having a big, fat power reserve so I go more than 1:1. I tend to have a ton of accumulators. Then again I also like laser turrets. I also tend to gently caress up my coal power sometimes so having that blob of extra juice for when I inevitably do something stupid is nice. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 03:49 on May 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
Ambaire posted:Why do people keep going on about a 'perfect' ratio? Does that allow for laser turret buffers and stuff? I just make a blueprint that looks good with enough accumulators (I prefer a 1:1 ish ratio) and spam it. Especially these days if you are using lasers for some reason, a better laser buffer is steam, which can absorb and shed loads of higher demand compared to accumulators kind of pitiful flux/power ratio. And also lasers are bad and a stopgap you stick somewhere you are working on getting ammo logistics set up or else at that one power pole that somehow aggravates a single biter in a migratory flock.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
zedprime posted:A buffer requires either excess steam power production or else the perfect panel and accumulator ratio for the worst case. Because you can't charge a buffer accumulator with insufficient panels if you are using the design load. In a practical case sure, you don't use exactly the design load very often but the perfect ratio keeps you honest while you're approaching your limit. lol 'design load'. I don't have enough solar panels/accumlulators until my accumlulators never drop below 50% charge and they charge in ~50% of the day. Lots of buffer. zedprime posted:Especially these days if you are using lasers for some reason, a better laser buffer is steam, which can absorb and shed loads of higher demand compared to accumulators kind of pitiful flux/power ratio. And also lasers are bad and a stopgap you stick somewhere you are working on getting ammo logistics set up or else at that one power pole that somehow aggravates a single biter in a migratory flock. I use lasers because they're fun. Gun turrets are boring... I also like using the beam laser mod. Or at least I have it installed.. haven't gotten to laser tech level yet.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
My nuclear setup. Using 2 reactors at the moment, with room to upgrade to 4 operating. Close up of part of the heat pipes and exchangers (829 C vs ideal temp of 1000 C)  Heat exchanger at the end showing 500 degree steam. Pipe coming out of it is the same.   Is the issue that less 500 degree steam would be produced vs same amount of lower temperature steam? I had assumed the temperature would be lower because that makes sense but haven't verified that.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5O9M-yJ6aEKSkZhQ0c0QUtMeHM/view big rear end screenshot of my goon island game, rebuilt my entire bus and just now realising how to better use underground belts for compact assembler arrays getting uranium up for the ammo because im starting to feel low on resources
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
I am starting to mass produce modules and my green circuit production is going to poo poo and can't keep up with demand from red circuits. Is the best way to scale green circuits to just keep plopping down two circuit assemblers and three copper wire assemblers until demand is satiated?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
Dirk Pitt posted:I am starting to mass produce modules and my green circuit production is going to poo poo and can't keep up with demand from red circuits. Is the best way to scale green circuits to just keep plopping down two circuit assemblers and three copper wire assemblers until demand is satiated?  Essentially
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 23:18 |
|
|
Yes, make it a train stop. Deliver iron and copper plates, train out greens to your red production facility. When you hit a bottleneck, just add extra wagons and lanes.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 08:48
|
|