|
nerox posted:Now someone do it with moving belts and inserters to make his leg running animation. https://youtu.be/28UzqVz1r24 It's only a matter of time before something like this is in DSP.
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
nerox posted:Now someone do it with moving belts and inserters to make his leg running animation. That way, madness lies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 16:01
|
|
|
Eschatos posted:Do ray receivers actually care at all about positioning relative to the sun/sphere? Maybe I just got lucky with placement but mine were always at 100% after they had time to spin up. Yes, they need line of sight to... well I think the sun but I don't actualy know if it's the sphere, if it IS the sphere that would presumably make wide spheres even better. But basically yes they need solar LOS to function, though it is fairly generous, and feeding them lenses significantly increases their ability to see over the horizon, however it is still relevant, they do not seem to function if they are in the middle of the night. I suppose one way to test that hypothesis would be to put one on a planet where the sphere is outside its orbit, in which case they should function at night if it does indeed check visibility to sphere nodes rather than the sun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 16:12
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:At the poles, because they have a long warmup time. So they want the longest possible exposure to the sun at once so they spend the longest amount of time running at peak efficiency before they lose line of sight. Depending on your axial tilt they might work all year round at the poles, and almost certainly will if you put graviton lenses in them. do they consume the lenses over time or can I just slap some in there and they get buffed forever
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 16:16
|
|
|
They consume lenses at something like 1 every 30 seconds, it's a small but steady amount.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 16:22
|
|
|
The wiki suggests that being fed lenses, the determining factor for Receiver blind spots is distance from the sun and if the planet is a moon behind its gas giant. So on your Mercury world you can stick em wherever and feed them lens and call it good, but out on Pluto you should keep them near the poles anyway for maximum uptime.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 17:03
|
|
|
IcePhoenix posted:do they consume the lenses over time or can I just slap some in there and they get buffed forever Yes but very slowly, 0.25 per minute, so 1 every 4 minutes. Practically you can keep a bunch of them fed with one assembler making lenses at full speed because a T3 can put out enough to run like 30 receivers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
Right, so I have a question about late game for this. A friend of mine who's played Factorio loads says that drones in that game aren't really a substitute for belts. Would you say it's the same for DSP or are they that much better?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 18:04
|
|
|
Tirranek posted:Right, so I have a question about late game for this. A friend of mine who's played Factorio loads says that drones in that game aren't really a substitute for belts. Would you say it's the same for DSP or are they that much better? They are fully a substitute for belts. You're going to need belts for running stuff to machines, but once you get logi towers in the early mid game, you won't need any kind of bus or 200 length belt running oil into your refineries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
Tirranek posted:Right, so I have a question about late game for this. A friend of mine who's played Factorio loads says that drones in that game aren't really a substitute for belts. Would you say it's the same for DSP or are they that much better? Logistics drones/vessels are so much better in DSP than in Factorio. 1) Belts in Factorio do up to 45 items/second, while a logistics bot holds I think a maximum of 4 items. So you need a lot of bots to substitute for a belt. 2) Conversely, DSP belts do 30 items/second and planetary drones can hold something like 100 items at max research. So you don't need many drones to feed a tower even spitting out a full T3 belt. The vessels hold up to 1000, and are similar in function to a Factorio train (without having to run rails to specific places or worry about scheduling). 3) In Factorio, your logistics bot network has to be linked by a chain of roboports. In DSP, a planetary station reaches anywhere else on the planet, and an intersteller reaches anywhere in the universe (once you have warpers at least), unless you specifically modify their range. So the set-up is super easy. Now, you can't do a non-belt build in DSP (in Factorio, bots can deliver directly to/from storage chests, so you can do super-compact builds that have no belts if you want). So even though the drones are great, it's not like belts don't matter. But when bringing materials to and away from a factory, logistics stations are the way to go. It's like a complete paradigm shift once you have logistics in DSP. Suddenly making factories becomes so much easier. You don't have to worry about matching raw resources to final outputs. You can build sub-components somewhere completely different. You can separate the miners from the smelters, separate the smelters from the assemblers, separate the assemblers from the cube labs, separate the cube labs from the research labs. Gully Foyle fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Feb 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 18:20
|
|
|
it's worth adding on that logistics towers also have a lot of storage space which means it saves you from needing to drop storage chests for overflow (because if you're filling up a tower then you can afford to pull out whatever you might need for manual construction)
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
Logistics towers can and should form the backbone of your materials transit once you unlock them, perhaps wait until you get the interstellar towers before you start building very big because they can handle more types of stuff, but absolutely you should just have production sections connected to logistics towers with the logistics system handling the distribution of components between production sections. You can do it with belts, but you're just making more work for yourself, it is far easier conceptually to use logistics and also much easier to connect production sections on other planets to your wider factory if you do it that way. Items in logistics towers can be transported anywhere in the logistics network if you supply the necessary ships and warpers, so it essentially allows instant connectivity with all parts of the factory and also all possible future additions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 19:07
|
|
|
DelphiAegis posted:https://youtu.be/28UzqVz1r24 How do you not use this one?! https://youtu.be/Kry8lbrHjeY
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 19:26
|
|
|
Azhais posted:How do you not use this one?! Because the one I posted is full color and actually powered by belts the same as the megaman image earlier.  Also its not 4khd Rick rolling so it's already sub par. The 1.0 version of the facto-ray-o did use lamps like that but had dead pixels due to needing to use substations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 19:31
|
|
|
It's actually a bit sad that logi towers are better storage chests than the actual chests because of their belt-in belt-out capabilities.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 19:35
|
|
|
Finished my game, gotta say I spent the last 7 hours or so of the run just letting it run in the background so the solar sails could fill in (I even finished a second partial sphere during the wait), maximizing power/frame component has its downside. Some pics, game is pretty:      
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 19:43
|
|
|
Setting up a production line with towers is just glorious after navigating the spaghetti hell of your homeworld. Call in resources, copy paste a line of assemblers, port out the product. Maybe place it next to another mini factory if it needs the output from that, but everything goes through a tower. If you build along a longitudinal line, you can use the copy inserters mod to build a vast production line in seconds. It's incredible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 19:44
|
|
|
I think there is some translation-related confusion about the "continuous receiving" meter on ray receivers. It goes up at the same time the wattage goes up, but that doesn't mean there is a "ramping up period", that just means it is morning. Wattage is based on the angle to the sun, and it is doubled with lenses (but still limited by the sphere's total output). The "continuous receiving" meter shows how long until the next lens is consumed, or the next photon is produced. So if you don't want to deal with graviton lenses, you can just build twice as many ray receivers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 22:45
|
|
|
Uh... what? Continuous receiving is how long the receiver has maintained LOS to the Dyson Sphere (which is significantly more generous with GLs). It does also ramp down as the receiver loses ray strength. Lenses have their own separate consumption countdown timer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 22:51
|
|
|
What's your favorite mistranslation? I'm partial to "soil pile".
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 22:57
|
|
|
Phssthpok posted:I think there is some translation-related confusion about the "continuous receiving" meter on ray receivers. It goes up at the same time the wattage goes up, but that doesn't mean there is a "ramping up period", that just means it is morning. Wattage is based on the angle to the sun, and it is doubled with lenses (but still limited by the sphere's total output). The "continuous receiving" meter shows how long until the next lens is consumed, or the next photon is produced. This isn't correct, the ray receivers have an efficiency modifier based on how long they've had LOS. It ramps up to 100% over time and they are able to receive their full 12.5MW (without lenses) With lenses they're considered to always have LOS (it supposed to be using the ionosphere as an antenna I think), and their output/max MW is doubled.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 23:03
|
|
|
zoux posted:What's your favorite mistranslation? I'm partial to "soil pile". "Photon Combiner Component The surface of the prism is cut into nano-gratings and then reassembled. After coninuously absorbing multiple low-energy photons will emit a high-energy photon under a combination of specific structures. The magic is that the natural Optical grating rock in the cluster can directly do this."
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 23:05
|
|
|
Yeah if you drop a ray receiver in full sunlight it still has to slowly creep up to its full output, and if you put one on the pole in perpetual twilight it will still likely reach 100%. Also I did initially think that lenses made them flat out ignore directionality and wrongly claimed as much, but I am now finding that they do still care they are just a lot more forgiving with lenses. They behave broadly as if the receiver point was high above the dish for LOS calculations. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Feb 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 23:07
|
|
|
This is how I feel like when I unlocked and automated towers/drones/ships: Except it's towers instead of guns. Mechas: No sense of right and wrong
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 23:43
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:This is how I feel like when I unlocked and automated towers/drones/ships: I picture this like prequel to some space opera where in a billion years people are finding the long crumbled remains of my block of 46 assemblers for 1 quantum chip and trying to figure out what the gently caress was going on on this planet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 23:47
|
|
|
Just want to confirm something real quick. I did some napkin math and just want to confirm my findings. So... True or False, Burning oil in a thermal plant is more efficient than taking the oil and eventually cracking it into hydrogen/graphite and burning those. Ofc this is taking into account the power needs of all the buildings needed to run the cracking loop. When all is said and done it's better to burn the oil directly. Right? I read some article about infinite power loop using xray cracking because each hydrogen contains twice as much energy as each crude oil, but I think it was old and the recipe for cracking became more hydrogen expensive or something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 23:58
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:Just want to confirm something real quick. I did some napkin math and just want to confirm my findings. So... The opposite, you get much more net power from cracking. 2 crude oil is 8MJ, refined that becomes 9.MJ (16.8MJ before refinery costs). Xray cracking the products of refining 2 crude yields 25.08MJ (36.6MJ before refinery costs). *Did not account for the 80% thermal plant efficiency, doing that 2 crude oil is 6.4MJ, refined that becomes 9.6MJ (13.44MJ before refinery costs). Xray cracking will yield 17.76MJ (29.28MJ before refinery costs) Edit: At the stage of the game were I care about thermal power generation, refined oil is a valuable commodity that gets used elsewhere. Hydrogen may be burnt off, but refined oil is neither cracked or burnt as I need a stupid 5 refined oil per organic crystal. Smiling Demon fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Feb 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 00:21
|
|
|
And that's before you even get into fractionator loops for deuterium for fusion plants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 00:25
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:Just want to confirm something real quick. I did some napkin math and just want to confirm my findings. So... A plasma refinery will take 2 units of crude oil (8 MJ total) and use 3.84 MJ (960 kW over 4 seconds) to produce 2 refined oil (8.8 MJ) and 1 hydrogen (8 MJ), so the net change is 8.8 + 8 - 8 - 3.84 = 4.96 MJ. An x-ray cracker will take 1 unit of refined oil (4.4 MJ) and 2 units of hydrogen (16 MJ) and use 3.84 MJ (960 kW over 4 seconds) to produce 1 graphite (6.3 MJ) and 3 hydrogen (24 MJ), so the net change is 24 + 6.3 - 4.4 - 16 - 3.84 = 6.16 MJ. If you don't also burn the graphite the x-ray cracking process is energy negative. Admiral Ray fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Feb 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 00:28
|
|
|
Smiling Demon posted:The opposite, you get much more net power from cracking. 2 crude oil is 8MJ, refined that becomes 12.96MJ (16.8MJ before refinery costs). Xray cracking the products of refining 2 crude yields 25.08MJ (36.6MJ before refinery costs). One refinery doing xray cracking yields 3 hydrogen and 1 graphite every 4 seconds. That's 30.3 MJ (8*3 for hydrogen, 6.3 for graphite) every 4 seconds or 7.575 MW. If we assume 1 refinery running cracking, 2 running plasma refining and 2 oil extractors (4.56 MW total) we're left with 3.015 MW net. This is before the 80% efficiency penalty in a thermal plant. Running it down to just the two extractors and burning the crude we have (roughly speaking because of the variance of oil seeps) 3 crude per second. that's 12 MJ per second or 12 MW. Running two extractors is 1.68 MW to run, or a net of 10.32 MW before the penalty. What am I not taking into account here?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 00:34
|
|
|
Do you have the ratio of cracking refineries to plasma refineries backwards? You should have 2 xray cracking refineries for every plasma refining refinery. If we assume 1.68MW gets us 3 crude a second, by default that is 7.92MW net power burning the crude. [3 crude/s * 4MJ *.8 efficiency - 1.68MW energy cost] Refining that crude gets us 1.5 hydrogen and 3 refined oil a second using 6 plasma refineries. This is 12.72 MW power. [ ( 1.5*8MJ + 3*4.4MJ ) *.8 efficiency - 1.68 MW - 6*.96MW] Cracking that result gets us 4.5 hydrogen and 3 graphite a second using 18 refineries total. This is 24.96 MW power. [ ( 4.5*8MJ + 3*6.3MJ ) *.8 efficiency - 1.68 MW - 18*.96MW] *Edited to show math. Sorter power usage not included. Smiling Demon fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Feb 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 00:54
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:One refinery doing xray cracking yields 3 hydrogen and 1 graphite every 4 seconds. That's 30.3 MJ (8*3 for hydrogen, 6.3 for graphite) every 4 seconds or 7.575 MW. If we assume 1 refinery running cracking, 2 running plasma refining and 2 oil extractors (4.56 MW total) we're left with 3.015 MW net. This is before the 80% efficiency penalty in a thermal plant. 1 refinery running cracking and 2 running plasma refining (as you said in your first example) only use 1 oil per second. So you'd still have 2 oil/s leftover to burn if you wanted to. Edit: All of this is math is kind of pointless. Burning oil products in thermal generators is only really useful to get rid of products you don't want to store. Oil in the early game is far more useful to make things out of it, whether it's red science, organic crystals, plastic, or sulphuric acid, and then deuterium out of the hydrogen. Just burn the oodles of coal you have sitting around instead. In the late game you have better power options and are probably largely ignoring the oil stuff since you have access to things like gas giant mining, fire ice, and mining organic crystals. Gully Foyle fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Feb 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 00:56
|
|
|
Gully Foyle posted:1 refinery running cracking and 2 running plasma refining (as you said in your first example) only use 1 oil per second. So you'd still have 2 oil/s leftover to burn if you wanted to. Argh forgot about the excess oil.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 00:58
|
|
|
Gully Foyle posted:Edit: All of this is math is kind of pointless. Burning oil products in thermal generators is only really useful to get rid of products you don't want to store. Oil in the early game is far more useful to make things out of it, whether it's red science, organic crystals, plastic, or sulphuric acid, and then deuterium out of the hydrogen. Just burn the oodles of coal you have sitting around instead. In the late game you have better power options and are probably largely ignoring the oil stuff since you have access to things like gas giant mining, fire ice, and mining organic crystals. This is what should be emphasized as the takeaway. Burn unwanted/excess oil products just to prevent things from backing up and stalling your lines. I don't burn coal much and instead line my planet with rings of wind turbines, but that is down to personal preference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 01:04
|
|
|
Gully Foyle posted:1 refinery running cracking and 2 running plasma refining (as you said in your first example) only use 1 oil per second. So you'd still have 2 oil/s leftover to burn if you wanted to. I agree with this completely. I don’t have access to late game power options yet and was looking for a way to get some more power since I can’t run my blue, red and yellow loops simultaneously. I have a bunch of unused oil and was going to just burn it in the meantime since it’s infinite. I wanted to know if it was better to crack the oil or just burn it and even if my math is wrong it’s simpler as a stop gap to just burn the crude. Less hassle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 01:11
|
|
|
Cracking is better but if you just want to dig it up and burn it as you say, it's infinite, you can do that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 01:15
|
|
|
I'm having a recurring problem with the factory where it keeps locking up because I have too much hydrogen. Which then cuts production to the factory because the graphene production jams up, which causes the power draw of the factory to crater, which causes the thermal plants to stop burning hydrogen, which makes the hydrogen blockage unclearable I really wish there was a reliable way to just... get rid of hydrogen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 01:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm having a recurring problem with the factory where it keeps locking up because I have too much hydrogen. I thought thermal plants would just keep burning resources regardless of actual power draw? Also: you can delete liquid tanks to destroy the stuff inside. It does mean you need to manually clear then when needed, but you could set up a couple of tank towers and have a lot of buffer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 02:01
|
|
|
No they throttle down if there is no demand, half of them simply aren't burning at all, the others burn too slowly. And yeah I'm demolishing whole stacks of hydrogen storage and towers full of it, still can't shift it fast enough. Because the factory should use quite a lot of it when it's in use is the thing, but the factory doesn't run because it's full of hydrogen. Basically the whole thing relies on constant throughput of hydrogen but once it caps out it just crashes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 02:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
God, I miss logic circuits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 02:22
|
|