|
KirbyKhan posted:Thats the rub. My experience with factorio is seeing youtubers navigate the flow of building their factory. The main bus usually takes shape in service of building the blue koolaid, then it gets used to build the bots and the factory-factory. I think you will find that the main bus works extremely well for purple and yellow once you start bussing gears and circuits from a separate production area at the start of the line. Without that, you run into the throughput issues you're describing because belts just can't keep up.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 20:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:29 |
|
|
I think people tend to not think about input:output ratios when it comes to belt designs. Two belts of green chips is going to be equivalent material to 2 iron + 3 copper belts, so if you're pulling iron + copper off the main bus to make green chips, you better have that many extra lanes for it. A single belt of blue chips, with productivity 3 in everything, will use up 14 copper and almost 12 iron belts. At that point, why carry those down the entire bus when you could feed them in from the back? This is where trains can probably fill in for bots in a limited capacity - instead of a 32-lane balancer coming out of your smelters (because who can get by with just one belt of blue chips?) feed smelters to trains and have a train bus. Maybe have 4 dropoff stations for 4-car trains, each feeding 1/4 of a belt of blue chip production, and merge them together with splitters. I mean you probably could just put 32-lane balancers everywhere, but in terms of infrastructure just having 8 train stations is probably easier.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
Renegret posted:I tried not bussing gears once. My previous game/factory I was all "Wait, I don't use that much copper, do I?" and I was able to keep my relatively small factory running smoothly on a single belt of copper through red chips by having a dedicated second line for green chip production. Then, THEN I hit high tech science/blue circuits and I hear this massive suction noise as my factory grinds to a halt. There's a sudden copper jump where you go from using a relative trickle of the stuff to ALL THE COPPER EVER.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:My previous game/factory I was all "Wait, I don't use that much copper, do I?" and I was able to keep my relatively small factory running smoothly on a single belt of copper through red chips by having a dedicated second line for green chip production. Then, THEN I hit high tech science/blue circuits and I hear this massive suction noise as my factory grinds to a halt. There's a sudden copper jump where you go from using a relative trickle of the stuff to ALL THE COPPER EVER. Jumping from Purple to Yellow science at the same rate of production requires a 3.5x increase in copper per second  edit: Whereas you only need 1.4x the iron per second Foehammer fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Jan 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
I gotta start a new base to get the whole bussing thing down. My current base is just random poo poo everywhere and there's no rhyme/reason because I'm learning as I go along. I want to take the advice given to me earlier in the thread and just fuckoff to somewhere random in the map and start over but I don't want to leave my current base behind 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
explosivo posted:I gotta start a new base to get the whole bussing thing down. My current base is just random poo poo everywhere and there's no rhyme/reason because I'm learning as I go along. I want to take the advice given to me earlier in the thread and just fuckoff to somewhere random in the map and start over but I don't want to leave my current base behind Connect it via train. Either ride back there to get more stuff, or have your base output everything into the train, learn how to make a sushi belt at the new base, and enjoy the output of your old base as you build your new base.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
neogeo0823 posted:Connect it via train. Either ride back there to get more stuff, or have your base output everything into the train, learn how to make a sushi belt at the new base, and enjoy the output of your old base as you build your new base.  Got a project for tonight!
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:Yesterday, I decided to try starting a game in cheat mode to see if I could build a neat rail-based factory, just to get used to trains with no real pressure on me. I got as far as actually building all the rails to the mines and the unloading yard before I decided that I don't actually like trains that much. Just break up your base into sections. Rather than trying to squeeze everything into one area, split it across several areas and belt or train (depending on distances and amount of land) materials from one area to the next. The reason that I like the bus design is that it encourages you to create plenty of space - since all the input resources are coming from the same place, it's easy to take them way off to the side and build out your production far enough away that nothing feels cramped.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
Don't be afraid to make miniature bases dedicated to one product, as well. Green circuits are a favorite of mine -- train in cars of iron and copper, train out green chips. If you can find an iron and copper patch next to each other, even better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:My previous game/factory I was all "Wait, I don't use that much copper, do I?" and I was able to keep my relatively small factory running smoothly on a single belt of copper through red chips by having a dedicated second line for green chip production. Then, THEN I hit high tech science/blue circuits and I hear this massive suction noise as my factory grinds to a halt. There's a sudden copper jump where you go from using a relative trickle of the stuff to ALL THE COPPER EVER.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 01:26
|
|
|
yeah on my current playthrough i have just got purple drank up and running, and i'm still limping along on a single red belt of copper but the, uh, 144 assemblers between green and red circuits that i need for yellow drank is going to stress that juuuuuust a little bit
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 01:33
|
|
|
Gwyneth Palpate posted:Don't be afraid to make miniature bases dedicated to one product, as well. Green circuits are a favorite of mine -- train in cars of iron and copper, train out green chips. If you can find an iron and copper patch next to each other, even better. This was the single best suggestion I’ve gotten from this thread early on. Remote green circuit factory is a game changer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 04:55
|
|
|
You can make a main bus last a lot longer if you have dedicated furnaces & assemblers for the following three things: - Green circuits - Steel - Gears And if you have dedicated supplies, it's easy enough to make them offsite. If you do that, then you'll find even a 4-lane bus (4 lanes for each of copper and iron, that is, plus belts for the other things you want to bus) will do a job through to about 100 science/minute. edit to add: if you're training stuff around, just be aware that a wagon full of green circuits or steel is the same as 10 wagons of ore, so your trains don't need to be anywhere as big (or they can be far less frequent). I typically do 2-8 trains for ore, and 1-2 for gcircs/steel. Thel fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Sininu posted:0.16 water generation seems sucky in general compared to 0.14 This was in response to players. The devs heard "water isn't fun" from a lot of whiners and moved the baseline way down. I'm a little surprised there isn't already a mod to revert (there probably is).
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
Hahaha, what? That is NOT what default scarcity water gen looks like for me in .16. My experience has been the exact opposite. I got so sick of having to run for ten minutes to find a single natural crossing across some giant lake/ocean/whathaveyou I gave up on it and had to start over just to crank it down. Water is not a remotely interesting problem to solve for me and probably won't be unless they do something diabolical like implement water shipping, which... sounds pretty amazing actually, but somehow the kind of thing I feel like we would've heard about by now if it was ever going to be a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
There's a mod called Islands World which gives you a map generation preset that generates disconnected islands. Unfortunately it hasn't been updated for 0.16.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
I'd really prefer it to generate huge water seas that force players to go around rather than these 20k landfill tiny lakes that are annoying speedbumbs on your perfectly straight rail line.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
We just need barges. Can load/unload from a train. Or even just a little space to put assemblers to put-put-put around an island making sure all your trains have coal
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
I actually rather like Minnesota/River Delta world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
I think rail bridges would be kinda cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
Rail bridges would be great if they had a maximum span and you can't just drop a 4x4 landfill in the middle of the ocean to reset the distance. But that would require elevation so you would have to figure out that the middle of the ocean is to 'deep' to directly landfill. Licence dwarf fortress world generation for terrain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
Actually, a rail bridge that is basically an "underground train belt" (except going over poo poo instead of into the ground) would be baller.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
Gwyneth Palpate posted:Actually, a rail bridge that is basically an "underground train belt" (except going over poo poo instead of into the ground) would be baller. Did you just describe a bridge as a tunnel that's not in the ground?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
Vic posted:Did you just describe a bridge as a tunnel that's not in the ground? Uh, yeah, duh. That's how normal people think, after all. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
Vic posted:Did you just describe a bridge as a tunnel that's not in the ground? I feel like I'm having a heart attack reading this
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
boo_radley posted:I feel like I'm having a heart attack reading this A natural reaction to unbridled genius.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
Rail tunnels themselves would also be cool to have. Especially since we now have cliffs. I mean, we have cliff explosives, but tunnels feel more fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 01:13
|
|
|
 I just created a Factorio Goons discord server link: https://discord.gg/m3rSshr I set it up so it doesn't send notifications by default so it's a nice place to chill and automate. 
Vic fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
So we have 3 discord servers now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
Can never have too many. We got a quick vanilla multiplayer game up and running. [edit] Also to be fair there is no mention of discord in the OP or on the first page of the thread Jamsque fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 04:47
|
|
|
I created a 1000x1000 sandbox map with megarich resources as a cool place to hang out and automate and pinned it for anyone to chill in factorio. And exchange blueprints.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
Any protips for city block designs?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 07:50
|
|
|
I finally got around to figuring out how disabling train stations work. The key was I thought that as soon as a station was disabled the train would leave, so that a train would be constantly shuffling around to deliver 1 item then go back to base. But that's not the case, even when a station is disabled, it will still use the wait conditions to decide when to leave. So now I've got myself a blue print for a fixed artillery cannon that will keep itself supplied with shells and parts to keep the surrounding laser turrets repaired.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I finally got around to figuring out how disabling train stations work. The key was I thought that as soon as a station was disabled the train would leave, so that a train would be constantly shuffling around to deliver 1 item then go back to base. But that's not the case, even when a station is disabled, it will still use the wait conditions to decide when to leave. Something I find frustrating is a scenario when you have a train at the station as well as a second train en route to the station. The train being loaded will trigger the station to turn off. The second train en route will continue its path to the now disabled station but never stops, rather it just blows right through the station and goes to its next destination. I have all of my mining stations with the same name-- I wish the train would reroute to an active station with the same name. Does that make sense? Difficult to describe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 01:05
|
|
|
sharkbomb posted:Something I find frustrating is a scenario when you have a train at the station as well as a second train en route to the station. The train being loaded will trigger the station to turn off. The second train en route will continue its path to the now disabled station but never stops, rather it just blows right through the station and goes to its next destination. I have all of my mining stations with the same name-- I wish the train would reroute to an active station with the same name. I believe the issue is that trains only decide which station to go to when they depart from a station, though they'll recalculate their route at every signal. This can cause trouble if you've got a bunch of unloading stations in the same spot, for example - a train will queue up at an occupied station rather than the empty one next door because this one was empty when it first set off. You can avoid that by putting a station just before those, for trains to leave immediately just so it can choose the station right before entering. Obviously less helpful when you've got a decentralised factory and the destination can be anywhere; in that case I guess you've just got to deal with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
sharkbomb posted:Something I find frustrating is a scenario when you have a train at the station as well as a second train en route to the station. The train being loaded will trigger the station to turn off. The second train en route will continue its path to the now disabled station but never stops, rather it just blows right through the station and goes to its next destination. I have all of my mining stations with the same name-- I wish the train would reroute to an active station with the same name. I think it does just that - reroute to another active station with the same name. In your case, it blows through that station because that happens to be the best opportunity to turn around and reverse course to whatever it's new destination is. That still causes issues for me though, not related to offloading, but loading. For example, if I have two iron ore mining outposts, one far west and one far east of where I want to offload their stuff, and I have them both named "iron mine" and set to activate/deactivate based on having enough stuff in chests to fill up a train. What often happens is train A sets off to the west mine, while train B is coming in to offload. Before A has reached the station, train B sets off to the same one. And while B is en-route, A reaches it and starts loading stuff, causing it to deactivate shortly before B gets there. B then recalculates, figures out it should go to the east mine, but has a much longer way to go since it all the way out west. I guess the train routing decision when heading to the station "iron mine" is to just go to the closest station with that name that is active. I don't know that I can factor in stuff like "only allow X trains at a time to route to this stop" or something else to avoid this problem. What's the proper way of solving this? When I was young and foolish, I just had separate trains per mining outpost (as many trains as it took based on how large and far away it was), never deactivated stations but just let them queue up at "their mine", but that just isn't neat enough anymore to float my boat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 09:13
|
|
|
My suggestion would be to separate your stations based on approximate location/direction, eg "Iron Mine West". A little bit fiddlier though, and you might have to switch over trains from one side to the other as demand dictates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 09:35
|
|
|
ionn posted:I think it does just that - reroute to another active station with the same name. In your case, it blows through that station because that happens to be the best opportunity to turn around and reverse course to whatever it's new destination is. It might be too simple an answer, but you could have the station only turn on if it has 2 trains worth of cargo to pick up? The more cargo you have in reserve, the more unexpected trains can show up to the party. You could also schedule depot stops (ex have an eastern and western holding area) after the drop off. That will bias the locations the trains get ore from appropriately (since it's distance-cost based), but still allow them to choose the other mine if it was the only option.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 10:05
|
|
|
GotLag posted:My suggestion would be to separate your stations based on approximate location/direction, eg "Iron Mine West". A little bit fiddlier though, and you might have to switch over trains from one side to the other as demand dictates. Yeah, and it doesn't really get me away from the fiddling of balancing trains schedules to match different mining outposts production rates. Also even if a subset of "all mines" are all west of the main base, i still have the same situation of trains competing over the various stops on that side of the map. Bedurndurn posted:It might be too simple an answer, but you could have the station only turn on if it has 2 trains worth of cargo to pick up? The more cargo you have in reserve, the more unexpected trains can show up to the party. It won't help, as regardless of how much stuff is in the chests when it deactivates the station, the train simply won't go there. Bedurndurn posted:You could also schedule depot stops (ex have an eastern and western holding area) after the drop off. That will bias the locations the trains get ore from appropriately (since it's distance-cost based), but still allow them to choose the other mine if it was the only option. I think that will greatly complicate the whole setup, without really fixing the underlying issue but just make it slightly less visible. It also still leads to the same situation as above, where I have the same thing happening between all "west-side" stations/trains, or I subdivide things until the point where I have separate trains and schedules per mine. It's just essentially a sliding scale where I can pick any point between "micromanage all the train schedules to balance stations" and "trains keep running around uselessly changing their minds about where to go", but not actually fix it. The "proper" solution would be something that allows me to program in "for every 8K ore in these chests, allow one train en-route to this stop". But not only is there no output signal from stations for "#trains on their way here" (which would in theory let me formulate an arithmetic expression for that), but it would also need changes to how train routing works (station enabled state would matter when initially routing, but having it deactivate while en-route would not). My precious trains, all I want for them is to be efficient and free-roaming and happy...
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 10:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:29 |
|
|
I actually did solve this issue of redundant train travel on my last map, but the solution wasn't very elegant or interesting. I had a very large, distributed factory and 20 trains picking up copper ore. The copper mining stations were named "CopperOre-Load-1" "CopperOre-Load-2" ... etc up to "CopperOre-Load-5" The copper trains were distributed among those stations, and I made sure each CopperOre-Load-# had 3+ identically named stations so trains could always be dispatched. It really doesn't solve the main issue, it just decreases the likelihood of it occuring. edit to add: ionn posted:output signal from stations for "#trains on their way here" i need this
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 11:43
|
|