math-and-meta

[austere sandal]

how much oil is in the map now?

[upbeat tide]

Lil over 11k

[austere sandal]

clocked?

[upbeat tide]

Greeny’s calc has the total

Yes

[austere sandal]

whats greenys calc?

[upbeat tide]

The one linked above

Satisfactory tools

[austere sandal]

okay so oil is like

very abundant

[upbeat tide]

They added two oil wells like the nitrogen ones

One of them conveniently in the Swamp region

[fierce ruin]

how much can i get from a S normal mine with mk2 miner?

[upbeat tide]

Well, convenient for me

[fierce ruin]

and it is 300/min

[austere notch]

I prefer this setup for the turbofuel - gives you 1 turbofuel for every 0.450133333 crude oil.

[deep root]

The problem with that late game is how much sulfur it uses

[upbeat tide]

^^

[fierce ruin]

and apparenly blender is at T7 that i dont have so i will need to fing a way to make it work without it ( it mustn be a min max build but i have 600 crude and i want at least a few GW net gain

[austere notch]

Plus once they are built you dont need to build more. For this purpose```

Doesn't really matter if there are alts for canisters - still bringing in additional unneeded materials and machines. Unless you can show me the math that you can achieve the same flow of turbofuel using less power, more packagers, and overall less resources in your system utilizing it --- it's worse to use the packaged fuel combo for turbofuel.

[deep root]

600 crude can give you 40GW plus in power gain without using blenders. Give or take a few GW

[austere notch]

@upbeat tide --- ah, hadn't considered the sulfur limitation. That makes sense, thank you.

[upbeat tide]

Always remember U4 alts are still up for changes

[deep root]

Of course, before having access to blenders the recipe is great. But once you get blenders it will make sense to switch and use that sulfur for batteries

And other stuff

[ornate swift]

I'm planning on making a railway going around my entire world just to grab resources from various factories, nodes, have rails branching off etc etc. I've sat here for a while trying to work out the best location to place down the rail. I don't want it to be so huge that it ends up taking too long for the train to get around the rail but it still needs to be big enough that I could branch off a separate train line to anywhere in the world from this loop.
My main base is the red square thing is there any kind of meta thing for rail placements?

[deep root]

Do you want a flat train rail or are you willing to go up and down following terrain?

[ornate swift]

I'd love to be able to incorporate the train line into the terrain

[sullen cloud]

You can follow the natural paths pretty well. Just activate that layer in the interactive map

[nimble ridge]

so i was originally planning on doing a 1200 uranium nuclear setup but i just run the numbers and that would be stupid

[fierce ruin]

@deep root how do i force that tool to only use certain recipes like no blenders?

[austere notch]

Wait a minute - did I misunderstand something? From what I see, one cycle of turbofuel from the refinery using my setup uses 15 sulfur/minute for 30 turbofuel while the turbo blend fuel recipe uses 22.5 sulfur/min for 45 turbofuel - so it's the same ratio of sulfur to turbofuel but mine still has a much better crude to turbofuel ratio

[nimble ridge]

natural land bridge here

ive used it for trains alot

[deep root]

@fierce ruin don't activate the blender recipes, also if you remove the base recipe the calculator won't use it

[nimble ridge]

the forest and the rocky desert both have pretty clear paths you can follow after that

[deep root]

Blender using 334 Sulfur per min

[frosty owl]

I think the blender version uses less machine at the cost of more oil, pretty much

[austere notch]

Yah cause your'e using the turbo blend recipe

that wasn't in mine -

[deep root]

Same thing, no blender, using 534 Sulfur per minute

[austere notch]

hmm

[deep root]

200 less sulfur but 200 more oil when using the blender recipe

In my case of 666.67 turbofuel

Which is 148 gens at 100%

[fierce ruin]

since i can only realisticaly get 300 sulfur there

i can get much more crude there but sulfur is the hard cap for me atm

[austere notch]

Trying to figure out where the math differed and why...

[deep root]

you used heavy turbo instead of blended?

[oblique hollow]

@frosty owl i can now confirm that the pipe shape influences manifolds.

Any setup that is fed from below, with pipes going up to the buildings, is doomed to starve.

The most stable seems to be having the pipes level to the entrances

[frosty owl]

Nonsense, the recipe is clear enough xD (just checked it out)
Blended turbofuel uses 1 sulfur for 2 turbofuel.
Fuel+comp coal is 4 to 5
HOR+conp coal is 1 to 1
@Thorn#3607 @Soransis#0021

[frosty owl]

What above feeding from above?
Thanks for taking your time testing it!

[deep root]

WAIT WHAT?!?!?!?!

[frosty owl]

Referring to the issues with long manifolds of pipes junctions

[oblique hollow]

above seems.... ok, but also not ideal

[deep root]

Long manifolds, like a 148 gen turbofuel setup!?

[frosty owl]

I like having my belt on refinery level, so I usually feed from above
I'll see how that goes when I turn on some factories

[austere notch]

Need details on your study!

[frosty owl]

Someone, throw him the link!

[oblique hollow]

I found this out thanks to @ember lintel and their coal generator setup

they were feeding their gens from below.
I redid their connections, and now it works

[deep root]

That doesn't make sense to me...I feed coal gens with 360 water from BELOW my gens and they never starve

[oblique hollow]

i had to level the pipes though

[oblique hollow]

depends on how exactly your manifold pipe is set up

[frosty owl]

The details of the system? Flow rate, consumption/production?

[oblique hollow]

8 coal gens, 360 water

[frosty owl]

The classic

[oblique hollow]

this is how it looks after i redid it

before, the central pipe was slightly below, and it was feeding up into the gens individually

[frosty owl]

Heh, double ended feeding rarely fails

[oblique hollow]

yep

its very stable

[frosty owl]

Tbf, I find the need to have pipes rather then belts on the floor not much to my liking :/

[deep root]

I feed mine to a single pipe with double end just like that, but I have 2 rows of 4 and they are fed from the bottom

• extractors

[austere notch]

Did the difference in the central pipe elevation (D) times qty of feeds (F) exceed the existing headlift in the system?

[deep root]

single pipe under the foundations in the middle

[austere notch]

By leveling them out you would have reduced required headlift by a factor of 8

increase elevation of main feed line by 1/2 meter = 1/2m of headlift needed. increasing elevation of each smaller feedline to the gens by 1/2m = 4m headlift required

so long as there's enough headlift in the system - they shouldn't starve... but clearly your rework is a more efficient design so I'm guessing they didn't have enough headlift to start with.

[ember lintel]

According the the readings I had. More interesting though, while @oblique hollow was testing I continued with a second series of generators with the same setup, and that one works with no problems. Difference is less overall pipe length before I needed to pump it upwards

This was the readout of the top most pumps

[austere notch]

Do you have a picture of the old setup, please?

[frosty owl]

It's not a headlift issue, it has to do with problematic pipe junctions mechanics

[austere notch]

how many meters below is the water extractor?

[ember lintel]

Good question xD

[austere notch]

call it below the feed line

1 wall = 2.5m I think?

[oblique hollow]

nope, not at all

4 m

[austere notch]

4m is extractor difference or wall?

[oblique hollow]

but no, not of Timelog's pumps were exceeding their limits

[oblique hollow]

wall

[austere notch]

how many walls or meters was the extractor below the old main feed?

[ember lintel]

48 meters if I can count

[oblique hollow]

that doesnt matter, it the central manifold pipe that was important here

[austere notch]

how were the pumps setup if you don't mind?

[oblique hollow]

In this picture, their central feed pipe fed the generators from below
thats what i mean. thats the problem part

not the fact that the water was being pumped up from the lake below

[austere notch]

right

sorta

[oblique hollow]

and their pumps were set up correctly

i checked that

[ember lintel]

this is the setup from afar.

[oblique hollow]

everything else was perfectly in order

[austere notch]

how much distance from the last pump to the old central feed pipe @ember lintel ?

[oblique hollow]

roughly 12 m

so way below the pump's limit

[austere notch]

20m headlift on the mk1s right?

[ember lintel]

From this side with the same generator setup it works fine:

[oblique hollow]

mind you that the pipe feed i built is even higher than this old one

[austere notch]

looks to be between 1/4 wall to 1/2 a wall of lift required per smaller upfeeding pipe on the old setcup

so that's between 1 to 2m of additional headlift per pipe that would have been required

[oblique hollow]

yeah, but head lift in parallel pipes doesnt add up, its all the same

[austere notch]

multiply that times 8

[oblique hollow]

nononono

[austere notch]

you get an additional 8 to 16m of headlift required

[oblique hollow]

thats not how head lift works

[ember lintel]

Personally beginning to think it has something to do with pressure as well, not just headlift. idk but on the old system I do have some lengths of pipe that are no completely full

[oblique hollow]

head lift is calculated from the highest point of any connected pipe, not the sum of all pipes

[austere notch]

so 12m + (8 to 18m) >= 20m

[oblique hollow]

Nope

[austere notch]

Are you sure?

[oblique hollow]

1000%

[austere notch]

then why did it fail and do you have a source?

[bleak coral]

Headlift is a maximum height not something that is used up

[frosty owl]

@austere notch ,why keep doubting the headlift, you realize that in game one just needs to check with the pump to know wether the headlift is enough or not, right?
And if course, they BOTH checked that already

[austere notch]

It's fine to say that, but do we know that for sure?

[bleak coral]

Yes

[oblique hollow]

Source: Me
Problem is the rapid flow fluctuations that arise when fluid has to flow up the short pipes

[ember lintel]

I think this might be the problem:

[bleak coral]

If you doubt us go test it yourself

[oblique hollow]

nope, i didnt need to fix that to get yours working, flow rate was fine

[bleak coral]

We've all done enough piping here to know how it works

[austere notch]

I mean... one explanation makes mathematical sense and gives a solid reason why some of the gens would starve... the other I'm supposed to take someone's word on because "source: Me".

[oblique hollow]

I've been extensively testing pipes from the day since Update 3 released

I can very much claim im the most extensive source on Pipelines

[austere notch]

Okay I mean I can believe that - and I'm not trying to insult anyone here either...

[frosty owl]

The explanation the you say would make mathematical sense is wrong though 🤦‍♂️
Again, checking the pump is enough to prove/disprove that

[austere notch]

But it's called #math-and-meta not #McGalleonSaysSo

[oblique hollow]

the problem is there is no precise math here

the only way would be to get the simulation equation from the devs

[bleak coral]

Simple test to see for yourself: Set up a system where it goes up and down and up again

[oblique hollow]

and thats not gonna happen

[bleak coral]

You'll see it can go up to max height once it goes up again because it's a height limit and not something being used up

[oblique hollow]

The only kind of equation i have is the splitting ratio of junctions, and that isnt needed here

180 water / min is needed, 180 water / min goes in
Head lift is never exceeded.
Yet it fails

[austere notch]

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand - how so?

[oblique hollow]

heard of communicating vessels?

the same principle applies here

static head = density * gravity * fluid level height

there is no mass involved here

[frosty owl]

When you interact with a pump, it tells you how much headlift has been provided to the fluid at its MAXIMUM HEIGHT. If that is below the pump's limit, the starving is not due to headlift (as all the generators are in the same height)

[oblique hollow]

so the pressure is the same in each and every pipe

and adding more pipes will not increase the pressure

except when you add taller pipes

[austere notch]

Still doesn't disprove what I'm saying then especially considering if they're at the same height we don't know if the pump would add each one together. That doesn't mean that the code which calculates availability doesn't add them together.

Does someone have a better mathematically sound or evidence based explanation?

[bleak coral]

We do because this is a principle of how headlift works that we know about.

[austere notch]

Based on what you all are saying - you should be able to set up and infinite number of bottom fed coal generators with a single pump

somehow I don't believe that is true

[frosty owl]

It does. If you ever encountered a similar situation you'd have seen yourself.

[oblique hollow]

it is true

but the issue is flow rate

and cumulative calculation errors

[frosty owl]

Try and see
Bruh, you can even use 1 pump per fluid in the whole game if you so wished, no kidding :jacelul:

[oblique hollow]

pressure in this game doesnt work like in real life

Dont try to apply real life hydrostatics or fluid dynamics

[bleak coral]

Look if you want to challenge a well documented and known principle of how headlift works, go prove that it works differently. If you want to see documentation go to wiki article on headlift.

[austere notch]

I mean... that's fair.

So I could setup a series of 8 coal gens on a single Mk1 pump* being bottom fed by 15m pipes from a closed loop feed that was 15m below the rest?

[oblique hollow]

go ahead an try this little setup. youll see it works

[frosty owl]

@oblique hollow Please link the Water Tower thing. I think that can sum up the explanation quickly xD

[austere notch]

That seems so silly that it works ><;

[oblique hollow]

I dont make the rules, i just find out what they are

[bleak coral]

You would also have to show that any problems that happen are occurring when theoretically headlift "runs out" according to how you describe it.

[austere notch]

Based on the picture of the old setup it seemed to make sense that gens in the middle could be running out of headlift on a closed loop supply

Except that's just not how the game code works apparently

[frosty owl]

This system allows you to have 1 pump power all fluids of the same kind, as long as you connect the all in a single pipe system
Eg: you could pump all your water with a simple pump put high enough by linking all the water pipes to one another :hehe:

[oblique hollow]

unfortunately that wasnt the case. have you seen the fixed version of the coal gen setup?

#math-and-meta message
this one.
if what you said were true, then where did the 20 m extra head lift go here?

[austere notch]

Yah I saw your fixed version - it looks nice. I too prefer the closed loop supply.

[oblique hollow]

all i did was raise the supply pipe 4 m

so its level to the machine inputs

[austere notch]

Stop teasing me with what would make sense as a headlift issue, not being a headlift issue because of the code used 😉

[oblique hollow]

[bleak coral]

ok guys I think he gets it we can put away the beating sticks 😛

[frosty owl]

@oblique hollow Pipe rating of 3?
Is that or ?

[oblique hollow]

thats
meaning "i gotta look into that"

[frosty owl]

More testing on that too? Noice!

[bleak coral]

To be fair I see where your conclusion came from, it does make logical sense. It just unfortunately doesn't match with how headlift works.

[oblique hollow]

also, as far as i see it, it wouldnt add up with how total dynamic head works irl either

4 seperate, smaller collums of water are the same as one giant

as long as they all are the same height

[austere notch]

Gonna make me bust out some MS Paint?

[fierce ruin]

draw io > ms paint

[oblique hollow]

sorry, total dynamic head, not static

[frosty owl]

More pipes means more friction, so loss of pressure

[oblique hollow]

pipes here have no friction xd

[frosty owl]

1 pipe> more pipes

[frosty owl]

IRL

[austere notch]

That was the general thought process before not knowing how the code works

[oblique hollow]

that doesnt explain why the one after the 3rd coal gen gets fed though 😉

[ember lintel]

Fixed it 🤷

[frosty owl]

Cause it's fed by a separate pipe :P

[bleak coral]

what are cumulative rounding errors but friction by another name 😛

[oblique hollow]

xd

i mean, i guess

but we cant confirm that

[oblique hollow]

the problem with that is this:

this is the reason why Water Towers work in the game: each pipeline shares the same pressure

[bleak coral]

oh does the shared pipe headlift cheat still work? y'know the one where you give headlift to just one pipe and attach it to more and it spreads it to all of them?

I haven't heard anyone test it in U4

[austere notch]

I dont' think that really addresses what I was talking about? it assumes an unknown variable of "pressure" when what I initially thought (that I am being told is incorrect) is that the game subtracted headlift as it progressed down the pipeline

[ember lintel]

I still think the half empty pipe segment was the problem. I moved the pumps to the other side of the generators and everything works fine now/

[ember lintel]

Well I know aquarium pumps don't like half empty hoses 🤷

[glacial hemlock]

If you have a water tower you can pump up water using 0 power

The 0 power mechanism is introduced in 3.5. Previously you have to use small amount of power

[austere notch]

I'm assuming the top of the water tower needs to be at higher elevation than the destination? (IAW expected physics)

Anyone know if Greeny's calculator automatically chooses the most efficient factory combination between alternate recipes?

Or do I need to manually select the most efficient ones I want it to use?

[iron prairie]

It'll pick the best according to its internal logic.

[fierce ruin]

I think some cases have exceptions, but it's very very accurate

[deep root]

It is very accurate in terms of efficiency, but sometimes you don't want to be efficient but instead you want to use specific materials 🙂

[iron prairie]

In that case, you can play with either the "Items, Input" tab or just manually select/de-select recipes.

[fierce ruin]

^

[deep root]

Yeah, my point was that you have to manipulate the recipes because what is efficient isn't always what you want...In reference to Thorn's question of efficiency

[ember lintel]

What is efficient is sometimes up for debate. I unlocked bolted frame and it insisted on using it. Setup would've been easier, but it would have used more resources

[deep root]

I believe Greeny's calc uses weighted efficiency, which spits out the most efficient production line based on the combined weights of the process. Whether that means less power but more resources or vice versa

[austere notch]

Thanks for the input!

[iron prairie]

To be fair, the power savings from bolted frame are considerable if you have any sort of screw alt.

[fierce ruin]

It doesn't weight power since it prefers packaged over blender diluted fuel

[deep root]

Could that be simply because blender is new?

[iron prairie]

At present, yes. I know Greeny is working on incorporating power more directly into the planner, so that's liable to change, but that's a good clarification.

[fierce ruin]

it's a small power gain using the blender though

[fierce ruin]

yea can't wait

[ember lintel]

It it ever worth it saving power over resources?

[iron prairie]

When I did the math, I think it was something like 5 MJ per fuel saved by using the blender recipe. A nice perk for new factories, but so tiny that if you already have a DPF setup, it's not worth switching out.

[deep root]

Um, I just plugged them both into the calc and it prefers diluted and not packaged??

[iron prairie]

Yes, because power is resources. Iron is so common that saving a bit of oil/coal/nuclear rods is usually more important than saving iron.

[fierce ruin]

I'm basing it on this one https://u4.satisfactorytools.com/production?share=6nXqKXnsJJcgJV9zSAel

both Diluted fuels are enabled

[deep root]

Um....

[ember lintel]

Hmm, maybe the HD wiki should be updated sometime in the future with more info instead of just calling it inefficient then 😛

[deep root]

https://u4.satisfactorytools.com/production?share=KbqBqHIXK3O7KaiEipnj

How is mine different???

[iron prairie]

On diluted fuel, my guess is they're considered equal by the current tool, and some tiny difference (e.g. browser) makes one have precedence.

[fierce ruin]

lol

I'm on edge if that makes a difference

[iron prairie]

My solution would just be to disable the almost universally inferior diluted packaged fuel.

The only two advantages to DPF I can see are "don't need to unlock the blender" and "if you want to send the fuel up several hundred meters, eventually pipeline pumps cost more than 5 MJ per fuel".

[deep root]

LOL!!! Maximize vs items/min

[iron prairie]

Maximize has been a touch buggier.

[deep root]

I was wondering why mine will prioritize blender over packager...It seems maximize is the issue?!

[wind spade]

no, browser doesn't do any calculations, it's all server-side

[deep root]

There's the man himself

[wind spade]

maximize currently doesn't optimise for raw resources

so just get the max number and copy it to items/min for both maximized and efficient setup

[fierce ruin]

k

[deep root]

Why would that make it choose packaged instead of blended?

[fierce ruin]

AFAIK it can't tell the difference

[wind spade]

maximize optimises for max resources and if there are multiple ways to the desired result, it picks one seemingly at random, but it's not really random

[iron prairie]

It could be as simple as "it's earlier in alphabetical order"?

[fierce ruin]

no

[wind spade]

meaning you can get pretty much any setup that leads to desired result, but for a given set of inputs you'll always get the same result

[deep root]

That can't be true. If it can't tell the difference it would pick in order of which one was selected first or last depending on its priority in that case

[iron prairie]

If there are two inequal options, the tool should pick the better one.
If there are two equal options according to its internal logic, best guess is it picks one at semi-random.

[wind spade]

it doesn't have any priority nor it knows order of selection of the recipes

[deep root]

Yeah, that's my point

The "random" selection is based on what though? lol

[wind spade]

as was said, the fact that maximize doesn't optimize for raw resources is a bug and will be fixed later.

[wind spade]

black magic linear solver internal implementation

(which is as close to black magic as one can get)

[iron prairie]

You mean linear solver internal implementation black magic.

[deep root]

Would that change my result from someone else's, or will it always be the same for everyone?

[iron prairie]

That depends on whether the linear solver internal implementation black magic is platform-dependent.

[wind spade]

see #math-and-meta message

[wind spade]

it isn't because it's server-side

[iron prairie]

Ah, I keep forgetting that.

[wind spade]

given set of inputs ALWAYS resolves to the same output

[deep root]

So, the random choice is made as soon as the recipe is created in the calc?

[river night]

it likely means its not random, just not based on factors you can see

[wind spade]

the random choice isn't made anywhere. It's just what the linear solver deems as "best", in case there's multiple options, it probably has it's own way of determining "best"

[deep root]

Which makes it not so random 🙂

I'm just trying to understand why more steps is deemed "best" LOL

[wind spade]

it's not random as in "roll a dice to get a result", but random as in "the result can be any of the possible options to get to the goal (but always the same for given set of inputs)"

[river night]

its optimizing for output, you are trying to optimize for multiple things at once 😄

[deep root]

Dammit, why can't the computer think like my brain!!

[fierce ruin]

I guess a workaround is using maximize then setting the limit where cost is factored

[river night]

the tool could of course do that step itself, determine the max output first and then use that internally, but i'm sure there is reasons why it doesnt

[wind spade]

since I do not know the internal workings of the solver, this would be just a guess, but I'd say either total sum of variables to be lowest as possible or a tree that was defined "earlier" (they are defined in fixed order based on data file)

[wind spade]

there's only one reason why it doesn't and that's lazy dev

[river night]

thats always a good reason

[deep root]

I tend to just adjust my items/min until the input is correct vs changing how much I want then maximizing...I don't even think about the maximize option until I'm already done changing the output LOL

[wind spade]

I have API v2 that already can do this, but it's not finished yet and also the calculator would have to support v2 which has different data structure, so it's not coming in next day or something, but it's most likely the next big update

[fierce ruin]

I like knowing that only a given number of raw resources are being used that way it scales nicely

[deep root]

Yes, I just do it for 1 raw at a time and not multiple

[iron prairie]

So, side question: is there a term for "MJ per m^4"?
I'm trying to calculate the power consumption of adding X meters of headlift to Y cubic meters per minute.

[wind spade]

what's m^4 lol

[fierce ruin]

time juice

[iron prairie]

Volume times headlift, basically.

[fierce ruin]

*ceiling(x/20)?

[wind spade]

I'm pretty sure the term is MJ/m^4

[iron prairie]

(it also works out to the energy required to pump Y cubic meters of fluid up X meters)

[river night]

arent pumps relatively low power usage in general

[iron prairie]

Yes, and I'm trying to do a ridiculous calculation: how high would you have to send the fuel for diluted packaged fuel to be more energy-efficient than diluted fuel.

[fierce ruin]

depends on how much you make since that can determine how much wiggle room you have in terms of energy

[wind spade]

that kinda doesn't make sense, by sending it higher you make it less energy-efficient 🤔

[iron prairie]

Well, you see, diluted fuel starts off more energy efficient, by 5 MJ per fuel.
However, conveyor lifts are free, so if you use diluted packaged fuel, after a few hundred meters, it actually becomes more energy-efficient.

That this is absurd is no reason not to calculate it.

[wind spade]

the question you need to ask is: why do you want to move fuel

[iron prairie]

With U3, I got accustomed to making diluted fuel factories vertical by making the packaged fuel on the ground floor, conveying it upwards, unpackaging it on the top floor, and letting the fuel flow downwards by gravity.

[deep root]

You could also use a train instead of pumps and move it infinitely vertical for the same amount of power right?

In terms of the train will use the same power NOT the same as pumps

[iron prairie]

Trains are almost always more expensive than pipes.

[wind spade]

still... there's pretty much no reason to ship fuel

power plants should be onsite, the few packaged fuels for jetpacks would be sent in solid form anyway in both cases and plastic/rubber production from fuel should also be onsite

[iron prairie]

The primary reason why I'd do the "send it upstairs" thing was to reduce the footprint. Big diluted fuel/turbofuel plants could take up a lot of area due to the sheer number of fuel generators involved, so I liked to make them multistory affairs, with oil processing on the ground floor, unpackaging/turbofuel on the top floor, and fuel generators on the middle floors.

[wind spade]

even then, this message doesn't make sense. You said you want to send it higher to become more energy efficient

and my point is that sending it higher makes it less energy efficient 🤔

[iron prairie]

With diluted packaged fuel, U3 style, you could do the verticality for free. With blender fuel, it's not free.

My point is "how tall would you need to make the fuel plant for the free verticality of diluted packaged fuel to outweigh the 5 MJ extra it costs versus blender fuel?"

So, operating on the constraint that for some reason, you want to send the fuel up by more than 132 meters*, diluted packaged fuel costs less energy than diluted fuel.

*The smallest break-even point, assuming T1 pipes and T1 pumps.

[fierce ruin]

Could you build it over the edge of the map and build down?

Though that is an interesting question, something like Ceiling(y/20)*(Energy cost of a pump)

[fierce ruin]

So with 600 fuel you avg a 50mw difference

[bleak coral]

wouldn't this also depend on how much fuel you're making? because blender diluted fuel is more energy efficient than diluted package fuel

[fierce ruin]

It should

Also depends on how full your pipes are

[frosty owl]

Doesn't it all depend on wether you use pumps or not in the first place?
I mean, making fuel without pumps isn't unfeasible on any of the coasts, is it?

[deep root]

I made fuel without pumps at the pink jungle oil location

[frosty owl]

That's impressive

[iron prairie]

I assumed either 270, 300, 540, or 600 m^3/min going through the pipe.

[deep root]

It's all about going up 8-9m each liquid process 🙂

[fierce ruin]

Blue crater you can build into the void

[deep root]

Not down 🙂

[fierce ruin]

Where n is the 8mw of a mk2 pump

That gets you electric consumption based on x meters above the blender

[frosty owl]

I like the left part of that graph

[fierce ruin]

Very accurate

Forgot to set domain lololol

[deep root]

Crude comes up ~8m to make HOR, that goes up ~8m to make DPF, unpackaged right infront of the machine, that goes up ~8m to make turbofuel, then that is on the same level to feed 148 gens (not done with all the gens yet)

[fierce ruin]

So at 600 fuel the limit of 50mw is capped at 310m above the blender out pipe

So vertically speaking it’s still a waste to use packaged fuel

[deep root]

But the "waste" is reduced the higher you go

[fierce ruin]

Yes, if you like building stupidly tall buildings and the other logistics around traveling up it

[deep root]

I'll stick with my semi vertical build going up ~8m each fluid process

[fierce ruin]

There’s not much point since as greeny said it best to keep it on the spot

[deep root]

Right

You just have to adjust based on some minor terrain tweaks

Which is what I did when building the above monstrosity

[frosty owl]

I was referring to getting energy back from fluids going down

[fierce ruin]

Yes please

Water power confirmed

[deep root]

Buildings take nuclear spaghetti to construct! Lol

[oblique hollow]

btw, did some more pipeline manifold tests with another user's save (this time it was @supple mural's fuel gen plant)
Turning a manifold into a loop, ie feeding it from both ends, and then making sure the pipe flow indicator is full (pipe is saturated an transmits headlift) seems to be the optimized way to deal with manifolds.

sample image, buffer not needed

[bleak coral]

Oh that's neat, that's exactly what I just did with my wet concrete setups to be safe 😆

glad to know my gut feeling was right

[oblique hollow]

yeah, this is the safest approach.
Priority list for safe pipe manifolds:

1. Make it a closed loop (ie. feed from both ends)
2. Make sure the flow indicators are full (like through prefilling the whole system)
3. add valves for extra safety and to avoid machines from consuming too much (cuts out internal storage)
4. add pumps to add back pressure into the system. Pumps might not speed liquids up, but they keep them in motion

[fierce ruin]

Don’t valves prevent backflow?

[oblique hollow]

yes, that too.

[abstract copper]

Since both overclocking and underclocking are exponential curves, what is 100% representing?

[oblique hollow]

wdym

[fierce ruin]

Could I run this system clock and counter?

[abstract copper]

Is my understanding wrong?

[fierce ruin]

Since this pushes it one direction

[oblique hollow]

the formula for overclocking is Base power * (OC / 100)^Exponent

when OC = 100, 100 / 100 = 1

and 1^something is always 1

[oblique hollow]

the image here pushes it to the corner, but it is still free to flow both directions after passing the pumps, if you want, you can indeed turn it into a circulating system

[fierce ruin]

2. Also isn’t the pump redundant?

[abstract copper]

Don't mind me I'm just pondering out loud

[oblique hollow]

a bit, but it keeps the liquid in motion. idk what it is exactly, but it might be the fact that they block headlift in the backward direction

all i can say is, they simply give the system a boost here

[fierce ruin]

Unpowered?

[oblique hollow]

powered

[fierce ruin]

Oof

[oblique hollow]

unpowered means no head lift, and thats bad

that can make pipes back up

powered pumps simply do something that valves cant

i should look into this more

and find out what exactly it is

[abstract copper]

Isn't the valve redundant?

[fierce ruin]

Hm k thanks

[abstract copper]

With the pumps in place?

[oblique hollow]

the valve can be limited, thats the purpose here

[fierce ruin]

Valve can control flow rate

[abstract copper]

Ahhh oh ok

[oblique hollow]

so you can evenly split the flow onto both paths

[fierce ruin]

Makes 2:32 split

[oblique hollow]

oh and the last important step for manifolds:
6) try to avoid using maximum flow rate (300 or 600 m³/min)

[fierce ruin]

But traveling horizontally w/o junctions is still safe?

[oblique hollow]

should be

1 or 2 junctions wont hurt you

but as the number increases, it gets worse

[deep root]

That can't be right

[oblique hollow]

it kinda is though

[bleak coral]

it's the magic of 🌈 floating point errors 🌈 (probably)

[oblique hollow]

most likely

[bleak coral]

imagine the troubles possible with like a 1200m^3/min pipe

[deep root]

Hmmmm, loading my old turbofuel setup save right now to see if it starves

[bleak coral]

I hope my turbofuel setup is safe for U4, I haven't loaded it in a version where they fixed the fuel generator bug yet

it's a full 600m^3/min but it does split in half before going into any generators

but it does have 32 junctions where the turbofuel is being made so.....

[oblique hollow]

this is a very slow issue, so it might happen after waiting for a long time.
sometimes, it doesnt happen at all
and apparently, liquid types influence this too

[bleak coral]

it first popped up with HOR right?

[oblique hollow]

HOR seems to be the most common one

and water the least, kinda

which coincides with some of ther former viscosity values

[bleak coral]

I still wonder if those viscosity numbers that greeny found are affecting it somehow

[oblique hollow]

right now, the only thing viscosity tells us how much of a pain in the butt each fluid is

[bleak coral]

we're on the same wavelength lol

[oblique hollow]

i have yet to find out how this all is for nitrogen....

[deep root]

148 generators use 666 turbofuel per minute...Which should mean if that is true and I'm only making 666.67 per minute I should see generators on the end start to have less than max fuel stack inside the generator (50)

[bleak coral]

correct me if I'm wrong, but the problem is really unlikely to happen if you're well below max flowrate

and I'd assume that's being transported in 2x mk2 pipes

[oblique hollow]

that is the expected case.

However, funny enough, Turbofuel is as viscous as water

[deep root]

1x mk2 and 1x mk1 actually, and they combine to make the whole loop a circle 🙂

[oblique hollow]

if the old values are still true

[oblique hollow]

circles are good

[deep root]

It's less of a circle and more of a tree with branches at this point though

This was my first attempt at a huge power setup lol

[oblique hollow]

as long as one end leads back to the start in some way, it should be safer than open-ended manifolds

[deep root]

It's a circle BEFORE the gens, then tree branches off to the gens lol

It SHOULD be a circle after the gens, I know that 🙂

Been staring at the generator for the past 5 minutes and still going strong 🙂

[oblique hollow]

some stay strong, others not

its usually the far away sections that make trouble

[deep root]

Yup that's what I'm looking at

[oblique hollow]

how full is the pipe?

[deep root]

And I have AT LEAST 75 junctions on the system 🙂

[oblique hollow]

these are the old values according to the old data greeny extracted from the json. the middle value is the viscosity

turbo and water are both veeery fluid.
water does actually make the least trouble

[deep root]

Okay I take that back

[oblique hollow]

oh?

[deep root]

It's 337.5 fuel per 2x mk2 pipeline

[oblique hollow]

thats barely above 300, so very much within safe range

[deep root]

Yeah for some reason I thought it was 1x mk2 and 1x mk1

[oblique hollow]

might still cause issues, but less so than full pipe setups

[deep root]

But if junctions "consume" fluids wouldn't they do so in every situation

[oblique hollow]

its less that they consume and more that they increase error accumulation due to rapid flow changes

the liquid inside simply doesnt have enough time to react to every change and cant flow everywhere equally

thats my best guess

im not certain

What i know though is
Big manifold = bad

[deep root]

Basically make your pipes always a circle and you will rarely have an issue?

[oblique hollow]

that seems to be the best solution right now, tbh

no single ended feeding. keep the pipe flowing

[deep root]

That doesn't make my preferred turbofuel plant setup happy 😦

[oblique hollow]

if it doesnt die, be happy

some setups get lucky and simply work

others crash and die before they are even finished

[deep root]

LOL

[oblique hollow]

the way you lay out your feeding pipes also affects this.

[deep root]

Well, I'm using the feed from below method for pipes, so I'll see if I start to experience this problem when I start building bigger

[frosty owl]

Are you sure the valve limitation helps? I fear it might end up starving the system in the long run since they can't provide more then their limit but are not assured to provide that much 🤔

[oblique hollow]

feed from both ends is the safest

[oblique hollow]

it prevents one side from drawing too much and thereby starving the other side

and reduces fluctuations

[frosty owl]

But does not assure that side draws ENOUGH, does it?
It's been a while since I used them, but the times I did the flow wasn't that stable...

Oh wait, you mean valves on the machine inputs or just the sides of the manifold?

[oblique hollow]

you can mix between it.
if you want a valve to actually output at its set limit, put a pump after / before it

they need pressure to force the liquid through

like i wrote: its not needed, it just adds another layer of security

[fast urchin]

what effect does the viscosity have here?

[frosty owl]

None

[bleak coral]

no one knows, we just know fluids have a viscosity number and it may or may not have something to do with the errors that lead to less flow sometimes

[fast urchin]

So it doesn't limit max speed or something?

[bleak coral]

I'm suspicious, but honestly for all we know viscosity is just a leftover number from a different model and doesn't actually do anything at all

[fast urchin]

alright

[obtuse scroll]

So, I have 720 Iron Ore and Coal going into 16 Foundries, how do I split that up so that it fits evenly? The Foundries are in rows of 4.

[bleak coral]

16 is 2^4, so if you want to load balance you can just split it in two 4 times

you could also just split it in two twice, and then manifold for each row: https://satisfactory.fandom.com/wiki/Manifold

wait, are you just starting with steel? what mk belt do you have?

[obtuse scroll]

Well, I would do that, but my belt only can do 480 per.

I have 4 seperate Conveyors.

1 - 240 Iron ore
2. 240 Coal
3. 480 Iron Ore
4. 480 Coal

[bleak coral]

Without changing your setup, you could use one of these to balance the belts so they're 360 each and then divide each of those into 2 so you have one belt per row. And then you can load balance or manifold each row. https://satisfactory.fandom.com/wiki/File:Belt_Balancer_2-2.png

Or you could change your machines to be one manifold, and do an injected manifold as seen here: https://satisfactory.fandom.com/wiki/File:Manifold_Schematics.png

[nimble ridge]

can someone check my math that with 600 uranium i can make 6 fuel rods per minute, running in 30 reactors to make 75,000 mw?

im looking at you @frosty owl

[bleak coral]

I get 400 with all alts: https://u4.satisfactorytools.com/production?share=UytG6vp6XtNA0XBZLICD

you're on U4 right?

[supple mural]

30 reactors seems low

[frosty owl]

You should get 9 using alts

[supple mural]

i got 32 reactors in U3 with 300 uranium, using only one of the alts

[nimble ridge]

hm ok i'll look at different alts

[frosty owl]

Wanna see the "greeny's solution"?

[supple mural]

is nuclear fuel unit the recipe that uses oscilators?

[nimble ridge]

..sure?

[frosty owl]

I cut out the rest so you can figure it out if you want ;)

[supple mural]

how many rods/min do reactors do of each type?

[bleak coral]

0.2/min for uranium, 0.4/min for plutonium

pending changes™️

[supple mural]

i think its a bit silly that the material which has a longer and more expensive production chain has a shorter burn time

so i kinda hope they buff plutonium a bit

also its a real shame that that calculator doesnt have nuclear waste as being a recipe made in a nuke

[worn bobcat]

whats this website called again? i haven't played in a while

[supple mural]

https://u4.satisfactorytools.com/production

[worn bobcat]

thanks

[bleak coral]

make sure to pick the version you're on in the upper right corner

[worn bobcat]

thanks (again)

[supple mural]

that link should already be U4 version anyway (i tihnk)

[worn bobcat]

should i play in experimental or stable (im starting anew after a year or so break)

[supple mural]

experimental doesnt have many bugs

the biggest one is goofy conveyor rendering

but that also saves your GPU some effort

[nimble ridge]

oh god oh no please i dont want to use crystal oscillators and beacons no

[worn bobcat]

i just got a 3070 so it better not have problems

[supple mural]

lucky boi

[worn bobcat]

it was the last one in stock in my local store

[supple mural]

i want to get one, but my 1080 works fine enough

[worn bobcat]

i upgraded from a 980 so i was a bit overdue for an upgrade

[supple mural]

its not like im going to be pushing it anytime soon with a 1080p monitor

oh yeah 980 is weak stuff these days

pascal is just so much better than maxwell

[worn bobcat]

weak but not useless for my 1080p monitor

[supple mural]

but the 20 and 30 series arent that impressive to me who is a 1080p gamur

[worn bobcat]

yea im saving up for a 1440p monitor

[supple mural]

thing is, 1440p monitors which are high refresh and have g-sync are costly

almost as much as the GPUs to run em

[worn bobcat]

yea... fair enough

[supple mural]

though, g-sync isnt that important at 165hz anyway

so could easily shave off 200$ right there

[worn bobcat]

the monitor i wanna get has a 144hz refresh rate

[supple mural]

most of the 1440p ones ive looked at go to 165hz

but that might just be cuz the ones i look at are the ones with g-sync

[worn bobcat]

what does g-sync do?

[supple mural]

it eliminates screen tearing, which is what can happen if the gpu sends the next frame before the monitor is done displaying the last

basically makes the monitor match the gpu

i think there's also a setting that makes the gpu match the monitor?

so idk if its even necessary these days

[worn bobcat]

yea i think its v-sync

[bleak coral]

g-sync/free-sync/adaptive sync is that setting

v-sync is the old tech

[supple mural]

v-sync bad

[worn bobcat]

yea well i have an old monitor lol

[supple mural]

the setting i was thinking of is fast sync, at least for nvidia

[bleak coral]

v-sync is fine, adaptive sync is just better

[worn bobcat]

this is the monitor im looking at https://www.digitec.ch/en/s1/product/aoc-q27g2ubk-27-2560-x-1440-pixels-monitors-12513103

[supple mural]

i think free-sync has compatibility with nvidia stuff too these days

[bleak coral]

and adaptive sync is super important for high-refresh monitors, it only might not matter with like a 60hz monitor and a nice GPU that will never drop below 60fps

[supple mural]

https://www.newegg.com/black-asus-tuf-gaming-vg27aq-90lm0500-b013b0-27/p/N82E16824236987?Description=asus monitor&cm_re=asus_monitor-_-24-236-987-_-Product id get something like this

its practically the same as my current monitor just bigger

(actually i think the base is literally the same)

[worn bobcat]

i have a samsung SyncMater S27B550 so any modern monitor is pretty much an upgrade

[supple mural]

that nme makes it feel old thats for sure

[worn bobcat]

yea its an old af 60hz monitor

[versed violet]

Mind that some screens have issue with brightness flickering when fps drops below certain value. (really annoying)

[royal mountain]

I recently got a 165hz monitor and i adore it.. Update 4 has tanked my frames though and it barely goes over 100..

Used to get 150+ in game

[fierce ruin]

#off-topic-tech

[weak harbor]

bigger resolution also?

[royal mountain]

nope, i had the new monitor before update 4 dropped and got solid 140-165 frames with 1440p. i have the top tier evga 3080 too

[shrewd yacht]

its weird as FPS drops with session time

5600X and a 2060 with settings on high, far, ultra AA give me around 100fps after a while, but it always starts out at 120 which I've limited it to in game

[unkempt acorn]

screw recreational drugs... the natural high i get when the conveyers line up perfectly is just 👌

[lusty oar]

how would i calculate how long solid biomass will last?

i got 6283 of it

my math might be wrong and i got 2 months :/

[vast jungle]

will highly depend on how much you use

[lusty oar]

Ahh good point

Well god damnit my calculations are way off

Ok around 20 days if Im correct

[wind spade]

wdym by that? it only depends on how much do you use

if you run 1 constructor of it, it's different than running entire megabase

[wicked tinsel]

you can compute how much it will last if you just afk for x days

but its pointless, you will expand soon enough and it will decrease usable time

[tiny sentinel]

Good Morning! I have a plan to make a Coal gen setup with 80 coal gens fed by 6 MK2 pipes of water. I'm trying to figure out an efficient way to distribute the water to the coal gens but am bad at math. I know the 3;8 ratio, but I'm getting lost in the numbers when I try to scale up? I'm hoping someone here already has a nice layout since I'm probably not the first to do this. I'll be using the 4 normal coal near the lake to the north of the green fields starting area.

[wind spade]

if you scale it up to 80 gens, you need 30 extractors

and I'd recommend not maxing pipes

[tiny sentinel]

yeah, I know i'll have 30 water extractors

[wind spade]

  G  G  G  G
E-+--+--+--+
E-+
E-+--+--+--+
  G  G  G  G

just build this 10 times

[tiny sentinel]

that's only 40 coal gens if I'm reading your symbols right

wait, nevermind

[wind spade]

G = generator
E = extractor

[tiny sentinel]

whats that middle extractor doing?

[wicked tinsel]

3 extractors to 8 gens

[wind spade]

pumping water, same as the two others 😄

[tiny sentinel]

this I know. I'm trying to scale up without getting lost in math

[wind spade]

just build the same setup multiple times 🤷‍♂️

[tiny sentinel]

that totally answers my question

[wind spade]

I mean... what more do you want to know?

[tiny sentinel]

the water distribution.

[wind spade]

you need 3 extractors, so I've shown you a setup with 3 extractors

- is pipe, + is pipe junction

[tiny sentinel]

the middle extractor only connects to the first 2 gens

[wind spade]

no, + is a junction, not a bridge

[tiny sentinel]

I want everyone to realize I've built a setup of 16 coal gens already. so I know how to distribute 360 water to 8 coal gens. I just suspected the pipe layout might be a little different if piping 3600m^3 of water through 6 MK2 pipes to 80 coal gens. true, I could build the same 3:8 layout 10 times, but I was hoping there might be a more optimized way to go about it.

[wind spade]

as I said, I do not recommend maxing pipes. The game has issues with maxed pipes and you may run into power problems because of that

also I don't know why do you want to merge it to 6 pipes just to split it again anyway

[tiny sentinel]

so I have fewer pipes to lay? If I'm bringing fluid over a significant distance, it makes sense to condense it to as few pipes as possible, then split at the destination.

[wind spade]

never bring water to coal, bring coal to water

[vernal smelt]

heyyo just starting out here. just finished space elevator 1.
what early materials are good for the sink ?

[patent bough]

I haven't had any issues with maxed pipes; when were these issues observed/reported?

(and are they on the bug report site?)

i should say i haven't personally observed any issues with maxed out pipes yet, nor had i heard there was any problem with them before...

[wind spade]

it doesn't happen to everybody, it seems that it's specific to hardware and what have you built

[patent bough]

hm i see.

[wind spade]

but it happens often if you have lower FPS or a few lags

[tiny sentinel]

G G G G G G G G -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | E E E ----+---+---+

I was thinking I'd do this. Elevated platform, 3 water extractors below the 8 coal gens and a single MK2 pipe carrying the 360 water. the water should be able to reach the last coal gen right? (and I'd be using a pump MK2 of course)

[wind spade]

why not 🤷‍♂️

[regal canopy]

Yes that setup works.

[sterile light]

I built a 160 coal generator power station divided in 4, I used 3 mk2 pipes per section.

1 mk2 pipe for 13 generators and 15 water per minute leftover for the 40th generator

[sterile light]

Probably quickwire, ai limiters when you reach tier 3 also

[vernal smelt]

okay thanks

[knotty yarrow]

I’m trying to make diluted fuel, store it in a container and burn the excess in fuel generators. How do I design it so that the constructors make canisters only when it’s needed? If all the fuel is being burnt, then the canisters need to be reused but the constructors need to make canisters when the container with the fuel isn’t full

The fuel generator will get backed up when the constructor replaces canisters that are meant to be recycled

I can sink the overflow to prevent the fuel generator from being backed up, but is there a better way than sinking 50% of the empty canisters

[unkempt acorn]

heck... my game crashed when i was on the menu screen

[verbal hemlock]

@knotty yarrow i'm new but I'm thinking you could put some sort of splitter somewhere just before it goes to your Generator, have a lower Conveyor speed that would go to another route, while the one that goes to your Generator has a higher conveyor speed.. somewhere along those probably... that way, when your Generators are fully fed, the excess will be diverted elsewhere. That's what I did and made a loop for some of my resources so that rather than staying in place, they are rerouted and split to other areas..

[manic oak]

@knotty yarrow If you un-package the fuel, you can separate the fuel from the containers and recycle the containers in your diluted fuel setup. Then set up a separate packaging facility with a constructor for plastic containers. It's more complicated, but will give you complete control over how much you want stored and how much you want burned. You can also use valves to limit the amount of fuel going to the fuel generators.

[tall stratus]

Anyone have a nice diagram for splitting plastic, rubber and turbo fuel for update 4 with alt recipes?

[frosty owl]

First step: turn all oil into HOR
Second step: make as much turbofuel as you need (either with diluted fuel and coal or HOR and coal)
Third step: use the rest for recycled rubber/plastic
It's hard to give hard numbers since that depends a lot on your base :P

[vast jungle]

so in effect... always go "Oil => HOR => Diluted Fuel"... and then branch out into Turbofuel or Recycled Rubber/Plastic...

[wicked tinsel]

^

[frosty owl]

Unless you wanna skip making fuel for the turbofuel for whatever reason, yes 😆

[vast jungle]

and with U4 you can use "Blended Turbofuel" which skips the fuel step

needs more Oil but less Sulfur/Coal

[frosty owl]

Blended turbofuel still requires fuel too though?

Fuel+HOR+Sulfur+Coke

So keeping some HOR DOES make sense

[tall stratus]

That's great, thanks!

[torpid robin]

For the oil and plastic . Just do the enclosed loops .

[knotty yarrow]

This is a really good idea. I’ll burn a certain amount of fuel and then store or sink the rest

[torpid robin]

300 oil to 900 plastic/ rubber

[cedar mica]

20 uranium fuel rods, 40 plutionium fuel rods. That works? Also, how much waste will I end up with per minute?

[torpid robin]

2k waste from uranium right ?

You work your plutonium from the waste of your uranium

[versed violet]

Is there a way to fit 65 smelters into 8x14 foundations, while also having some space for splitting / mergin at end of platform, so ideally 13x8 foundations or less?

[bleak coral]

sure, if you do like 4 floors of it, I'm doing it in 6x15 foundations right now with room to spare

do a double manifold each floor

[tall stratus]

Im doing some math on my 1800 crude oil. I have a lot of work ahead of me...
1800 Crude => 60 Refineries => 2400 HOR + 1200 Resin
40 Water Extractors => 4800 Water
2400 HOR + 4800 Water = 48 Blender => 4800 Fuel

[versed violet]

Has to fit on single floor 🤣

[bleak coral]

then no, not anywhere near enough room

oh wait I'm doing foundries not smelters, misread

but still probably not enough room

double manifolds are your best bet though

[versed violet]

pardon my ignorance, what is a double manifold?

[bleak coral]

one where you use both sides of the splitter or merger instead of just one, like this (but simpler cause smelters)

[versed violet]

Oh, so its just a regular manifold

[torpid robin]

No . It’s a double manifold

Sheeesh

[versed violet]

Oh, so single side one is called single manifold?

Monofold?

[torpid robin]

Lol

[bleak coral]

you could even stack two doubles side by side to save one side of the outside mergers, so like 4 rows of smelters could use 2 rows of splitters and 3 rows of mergers

if the bandwidth allows

still not sure you could fit all that on 8x14, but you could sure try

[versed violet]

Its the only sensible approach that fits 4 smelters within 8 foundations wide.

[deep root]

OR you bring both ores in on the same belt and smart split them into the foundries!

[versed violet]

But bandwitch does not allow, couple machine sshort on mk5 belt 😕

[bleak coral]

lol each of those belts I'm using has 650ppm coal/iron ingots

[deep root]

That's no fun!

[bleak coral]

3000+ ppm steel ingots sounds fun to me XD

[deep root]

Challenge: use only factory carts and truck stations to transport materials more than 1km

[bleak coral]

aka the clown car challenge

[torpid robin]

Oooof

2000 factory carts lol

You would need to build roads for them all lol

[versed violet]

What if I put foundries 1km from miners, then contructors 1k farther, then assemblers 1km farther and final kilometer into the base, all by conveyors?

[bleak coral]

32x smelters is more than 780ppm? (not doubting, just double checking)

[deep root]

Still meets the intent!

[torpid robin]

Well technically you would be within the rules of the challenge lol

[bleak coral]

what are you smelting?

[torpid robin]

Ore

[versed violet]

780/30 = 26 machines

[torpid robin]

Hehehe

[versed violet]

Pure iron into iron ingots.

2x780 belt + 1x390 of ore

The other 390 went into copper factory

[bleak coral]

oh that's an easy solve, do insertions

[torpid robin]

Oof I started my smelting last night. I need 560 iron refineries . 580 copper and 180 cat

Ain’t looking forward to it

[versed violet]

Don't think insertion will fit between smelters. Guess I have to feed from both ends

[bleak coral]

that works too

though with 14 foundations you may be able to do a gap for a merger and insert from above

let me get a picture, hard to explain

[versed violet]

I'll try feeding from other end, where the balancer/wannabe splitters will be. Should be easier to jam in extra belt in area filled with mergers than around smelters

[versed violet]

Aaargh, just realized I haz to pick the output from both sides too. Iron aint caterium to shrink in the dryers

[bleak coral]

well you have 3 output belts, so just do smelters like this:

O           O           O
| 16.5 | 13 | 13 | 16.5 |
       I         I

[versed violet]

Pretty sure 19.5 smelter won't fit in a line

But it is an idea to think about

[bleak coral]

16.5 not 19.5

or was that a typo?

[versed violet]

I assume type on Yours side, since 65 - 13 - 13 = 39, and 39/2 is 19.5 not 16.5

[bleak coral]

oh yeah my bad

or you could move the output of the middle up one level in the same gap where you do the insertions, if you did it like in the pictures I showed

that is if 16.25 + merger length isn't too long

[versed violet]

Actually, that gives me an idea

[cedar mica]

Okay, let me refrace, how much waste is plutonium giving per minute?

[versed violet]

Would a Monofold like this work?
Getting the 2m foundations to align to get machines bumped up will be challenging, but possibly could work?

[bleak coral]

5 per 0.4 plutonium per minute

[cedar mica]

40 rods, that 100 reactors, so 500 waste a minute

[bleak coral]

yeah

[bleak coral]

I don't see why not haha, so it'd be 4 single manifolds, but staggered vertically so they can use the same horiztonal space for the lines?

I like it

You'd need a 3:4 balancer right? if you wanted each row to be the same length

[versed violet]

Don't think an actual balancer will fit, so planning on feeding the edge rows with mk5 and pout overflow into two mid belts + the 390 iron one

[cedar mica]

If you can fit splitter + lift, you can balance somewhere else

[bleak coral]

overflow works too, and is smaller

don't know why my mind didn't go there first haha

[versed violet]

mk 5 on the edges, with smart splitters, and mk4 coming in the middle, split into half, then join the overflow with mk4 halves for mid rows. Looks simple

[cedar mica]

The only usage I can see for a balancer, is a power plant, as you want to garanty it dont take long to start working

[versed violet]

Output might need an balancer though - have 4 floors with diffrenet ingot needs

[cedar mica]

Just overflow, the belts will sort them self out to usage

[versed violet]

I could really use half-foundation bricks right now

[bleak coral]

do mind using mods?

[cedar mica]

If you dont mind clipping, you can use walkways to get new snapping points

[versed violet]

there is one with half blocks?

[bleak coral]

yeah, foundation industries

[versed violet]

foundations do not snap to walkways?

[cedar mica]

They do in U4

[bleak coral]

oh right if you're on U4 no mods yet

[versed violet]

aww, still u3 here

[bleak coral]

I make no guarantee the foundation industries foundations won't have janky snapping though, just as disclaimer 😛

[versed violet]

This is absolutelly unmodded legal, right?
[might replace the bottom floor of 1m tiles with 2m tiles so pipe sunks a bit more. but belts connect in this positiontoo]

[bleak coral]

nice

out of curiosity, why did you want this to be just 1 floor instead of 2?

[cedar mica]

With foundation frames, you can have input and output under the smelter, freeing more floorspace

[versed violet]

Oh, mostly falvor/realism - smelters (hot stuff) needing access to open air, so nothing gets built above them

[bleak coral]

not sure it would always line up with foundation frames

[versed violet]

It doesn't, and you can't build smelters on frames

[cedar mica]

With a 1m foundation, you can

[versed violet]

That makes whole contraption 5m high, of 2m needed

[bleak coral]

you can fit foundations inside of foundation frames, which is what crazy is talking about I believe

[versed violet]

Right, remember seeing it once

[bleak coral]

honestly though I don't see a reason to switch to foundation frames when what you have works

[versed violet]

But half pipes work better here

[split rain]

Not sure if this is the right channel, but I am not sure which of these 3 alternatives would be best 🤔 Any suggestions?

[nimble ridge]

im a big fan of solid steel

[bleak coral]

solid steel is amazing

[frosty pawn]

solid steel first, then steel screws, then bolted plates and bolted frames become relevant, but steeled frame is better than bolted frame if you dont have bolted plate

bolted plate and bolted frame work very well together

[wind spade]

stitched is way better tho

[frosty pawn]

stitched is way better on its own but the two bolted together have good math

[bleak coral]

I prefer screwless recipes, never understood the love for steel screws myself

[frosty owl]

Try them with bolted plates, bolted frames and flexible HMF :P
Convenience at its best (number-wise)

[oblique hollow]

Screw screws

[frosty owl]

I love the smell of fresh bammer in the morning

[oblique hollow]

Here, have one

[bleak coral]

I mean I would never use those recipes so.....

screw screws

flexible in particular sucks, why would you use that?

[frosty owl]

Again: conveniency
It's not like everyone always play with the endgame resource efficiency in mind :P (flexible is one of the fastest while still using less steel, if you get to oil coast you're bound to have more oil then you need in most scenarios anyway, so the rubber input is no big deal)

[bleak coral]

flexible undoes itself cause it's so resource inefficient, you may build less manufacturers but you build more other machines

I can see the bolted frame + bolted plate for a simple setup, but it also does the same thing where its resource inefficiency actually makes you build more machines to feed it

[frosty owl]

Wdym more machines to feed it?
They're the fastest recipes, thus require the least machines (at the cost of a bit more resources of course)

[bleak coral]

they are so resource inefficient that the total number of machines required to feed them resources is more than the total number of machines required to feed the more resource efficient recipes

on their specific step they reduce machines by being the fastest, but they do that by needing more resources and thus more machines in the earlier steps

this is even if you choose these kind of recipes from beginning to end

[frosty owl]

Nah, I'm pretty sure for the same amount of item/min you use less machines. Can't check on greeny's stuff now though as I gtg

[bleak coral]

I just checked, and I did the analysis ages ago for flexible

[torpid robin]

I use bolted frame

Then steel screws . Cause it removes the need to make rods

[bleak coral]

why are you avoiding rods?

[torpid robin]

No reason in particular lol

That’s what it was gonna be for update 3

But I may change things up a bit for update 4 recipes

Kinda the way my factory is built . If I can save a whole factory il do it

So either screws or rods

[bleak coral]

I'm doing a spreadsheet, cause I'm being petty about this I guess :P, and I'm taking a look at steel rod

and I think I've been underestimating it

it's pretty freakin' fast and efficient

12/min steel ingot -> 48/min rods

[torpid robin]

And it very well could be

But I always look at end game efficiency right . And I needa save ma steel lol

Hmf expensive

[bleak coral]

I mean that's kinda the point I'm making, steel rod > steel screw if you're trying to save steel

[torpid robin]

well i ended up looking at casted screw

but i had never made my mind up whatg way i wanted to go

it often came from going bolted frame

[frosty owl]

That's the thing about steel: it's usually not the most resource efficient way to to do things, but usually much faster then the iron counterpart :P (see steel coated plates Vs iron coated plates)

[torpid robin]

as i felt that was better thna the steeled frame. but i never looked too much into it

[bleak coral]

steel coated plates is the resource efficient one

[torpid robin]

i just alwasy look at it and go. if yit can be made from just iron. do it,even if it was efficient

[wind spade]

speed is pretty much useless to look at 🤷‍♂️ you can always build more buildings

[torpid robin]

thats my exact thought with iron

just the resource and build more to get the same amopunt. and not use a limited resource

cause good luck using all iron on the map

any other resource could be tapped out. pretty easily tbh. iron never will

[bleak coral]

coal isn't really that rare, you'd be hard pressed to use it all, but yeah not to the extent iron is

[torpid robin]

you would be surprised though. i know i was when going through things on the calc

i tapped coal out before quartz cat and oil

[torpid robin]

on the bright side of steel though you can make coke ingots. which is much better this patch

[wind spade]

we have tons of oil in U4, I'm hoping people will stop thinking about it as rare resource

[torpid robin]

yea i agree. and the use of it too i have realised is much less.

[vast jungle]

20% more is not "tons more"

its "a bit more"

[torpid robin]

with one of the biggest things being the sucomp alts. you use less plastic anbd rubber

[bleak coral]

I mean U4 + fluid update increased oil by 70%

[wind spade]

I'm including the extra alts that make you use less oil for more

[torpid robin]

combine with the alts using less you have more spare than last patch though

[bleak coral]

I don't think we have ever had that little, due to diluted fuel and recycled recipes

[vast jungle]

okay... haven't looked that deeply into the new Alts.. but the oil cost for everything tier 1-6 should be pretty constant

[bleak coral]

people just saw the absolute number and thought of it as rare, even though it can be used very very efficiently

moreso than other resources

[frosty owl]

The numbers I ran:
1 is standard recipe. 1.5 GW
2 is Flexible frames, Bolted everything, coated iron, steel screws. 1.1 GW
3 Is the most efficient one but with normal reinf plates (didn't want to get the stitched ones in the equation, they just up the machine count anyway). 0.89 GW
@bleak coral

[oblique hollow]

Btw, i finished my fluid viscosity test yesterday

[frosty owl]

Referring to this

[torpid robin]

yea that hasnt changed. but later tier stuff using less of the lower tier makes things cheaper

[torpid robin]

tbh i never pay attention to power usage

just make MOAR POWA 🤷‍♂️

[bleak coral]

@frosty owl here's the flexible vs heavy encased I did a while back, that pretty much agrees with those numbers: https://questions.satisfactorygame.com/post/600a0376fedfd12dd73994c2

noted the analysis is footprint, I didn't go over machine count in it

so flexible may have less machines

so I shouldn't have asserted the machine count for flexible was more, my bad

[frosty owl]

Same, but I did now since it was next to the machine count. Surprisingly (or not xD) flexible frames use more power then not flexible ones despite using less machines... because refineries :P

[torpid robin]

and tbh thats somethign to p[ay attention to

[bleak coral]

encased is just king, flexible needs a buff

[torpid robin]

the machine you place.refineries are cancer compared to say a smelter lol

[torpid robin]

point is though as people have mentioned . is to have some bad ones to make the good ones look better

[frosty owl]

Yeah, that was the entirety of my point xD
The bolted-flexible combo is just convenient (given you got the resources for it, ofc) due to its speed and low machine count

[bleak coral]

small scale I guess, but the bigger you get the less convenient anything that uses screws is

cause any convenience in reduction in complexity by using less types of stuff would get undone by the number belts you need to manage

[torpid robin]

so ya know what. i just looked at it

felxible for resources isnt bad. i looked at the numbers for 50pm

[frosty owl]

Don't really think so . There's no particular kind of item you need extra belts for, as long as your screws are made 1:1 with consuming machines (that the steel screw numbers allow)

[torpid robin]

less iron limestone for 300 mopre oil. its not terrible.

[frosty owl]

Also, let's be real: stitched plates is a PAIN compared to bolted plates + steel screws, to set up

[torpid robin]

oh wait

[vast jungle]

of course "Oil = Rows of Refineries" makes everything with Plastic/Rubber questionable

[torpid robin]

reeeeee

it was using oil for coke to steel lol

thats what i get for not looking better

[torpid robin]

tbh though the 300-900 loop is pretty darn easy to set up

[vast jungle]

I have just setup 80 refineries for a new turbofuel production... I don't want to setup more SOON... 😉

[frosty owl]

Yeah, but if you're making an argument about setups "easy and convenient to make", you don't wanna even mention those

[torpid robin]

i did all mine.. place once cry once. now i dont have to worry about power for a wee while

[bleak coral]

blender diluted fuel does change stuff

[vast jungle]

yes, thats true... looking forward to it

[torpid robin]

once you have made one and have a template.

i can throw one up in a couple hours now

mind you. thats after doing 8 of them 😂

[vast jungle]

even if the numbers are a bit "off" in the other direction... HOR production is 40, diluted fuel need 30... that was 75% UC...

Blender Diluted Fuel needs 50, right?

[bleak coral]

yeah 50

[vast jungle]

I am looking into the numbers to transform 60 Fuel and 240 Polymer Resin into Gas Filters and Packaged Fuel... I really like the numbers I am getting 😉

so 125% OC is the new 75% UC (for Blender DF)?

[frosty owl]

I prefer a 125% OC then a 75% one 😆

Also, praise be made for the CTRL+C/V QOL

[bleak coral]

If we're doing 1:1 HOR refinery to diluted fuel stuff, I'd rather give up the power and shards to do 125% OC and not have to do a loop

[vast jungle]

I did the 1-1 HOR/DPF for my powerplant and it was really nice to do

[torpid robin]

yea

and i aint changing mine lol

[vast jungle]

I will NOT change anything... I had to built an additional powerplant

[bleak coral]

me either, wouldn't fix something that's not broke

[torpid robin]

even without changing fuel. you will get to use it all any way in other productions lines

[vast jungle]

but after getting this powerplant running I can finally get my "cargo station" up and running... and then prepare the space elevator parts for T7 😉

[torpid robin]

how much power are you expanding to now?

[vast jungle]

I had 500 Turbofuel... now I have 1250

so its from 16.5 GW to 41.25 GW

(when I built the 150+ new Fuel Generators)

[torpid robin]

arrh nice

[vast jungle]

it was a decision limited by 600 easily available sulfur ^^

[torpid robin]

yea sulfur is a pain to get. i had to do so much prep work to get all of mine

[frosty owl]

On that note, do you guys agree about 650 GW is enough for a "near node exhaustion" end-game production?
I got about 550 GW for a calculation close to that (excluding particle accelerators)

[torpid robin]

yes

you got to the same numbers as i roughly did

i talked about it a week or so ago

[bleak coral]

I've never looked into that, even talking theoretically I find map exhaustion too outside the realm of possibility to entertain

[torpid robin]

hence why i say i feel with where they have nuclear now i feel is balanced for end game

[bleak coral]

and nothing has made me interested in looking at it yet

[vast jungle]

Turbofuel Region "Middle"

[torpid robin]

i looked at it cause someone said there isnt enough power in the game and they felt nuclear was nerfed too hard

[frosty owl]

Difference being, I think I managed to get the result inputting less variables ;) (just space elevator parts) which is convenient to mess around with numbers and compare results easily, I think

[torpid robin]

yea id agree with that

[bleak coral]

does one of the new ones use the new frame part?

[torpid robin]

yes

[frosty owl]

That's the point, even for node exhaustion it seems just nuclear can be enough, without tapping into plutonium

[bleak coral]

the frame line is good for pulling all the resources

[torpid robin]

it goes into pasta

which is where your coal and copper go

[frosty owl]

The new frame is actually quite versatile, plenty of alts you can chuck it it, so it can be handy to mass-produced imo

[bleak coral]

one of us has to remember its name lol

or look it up

[torpid robin]

fused frame

[bleak coral]

there it is, a working memory 😛

[vast jungle]

Fused Modular Frame

[torpid robin]

hay there is alot to remember in the game

[vast jungle]

https://satisfactory.fandom.com/wiki/Fused_Modular_Frame

[bleak coral]

FMF, hmmm not quite as nice as HMF

[frosty owl]

I run those simulation mostly to know power demand (so how much I can OC to save on machines) and what resources I can splurge on or not ^^

[bleak coral]

looks like a typo

[torpid robin]

you could go HFF

heat fused frame

[vast jungle]

sounds too much for me like FMN... (NATO abbreviation for Future Mission Networks)

[torpid robin]

which is the alt

[bleak coral]

I thought the max uranium power was ~300GW with no plutonium processing?

[frosty owl]

Fused frame is much worse then the volume thinghies. Those are the versatile ones I refer to ^^

[torpid robin]

i though about 380 or something

[bleak coral]

of course you go big enough with uranium power it's not practical to handle the waste without uranium processing

[torpid robin]

oh i had 331 875 mw

but. things may have changed . as that was worked out on the 5pm waste befopre people knew it was 20

[bleak coral]

393,750MW from 31.5 uranium rods

[torpid robin]

so that means more waste. more plutnoium which means more uranium used on that

you have it up on calc atm?

[bleak coral]

best power actually has less uranium fuel rods, cause it switches some of the ore to plutonium

[bleak coral]

yeah max uranium rods is easy, just all alts on the U4 greeny site

max power is harder, cause it doesn't do waste automatically

I don't remember what the balance is with uranium rods vs uranium ore to plutonium alt

[torpid robin]

im about to look

so 20 waste now right?

so its 100 pm per rod?

just double chekcing if im retarded or not

[bleak coral]

yeah so you could figure out max with 31.5 uranium rods, and yeah it's 100 per rod now

but fertile uranium is the gotcha: https://satisfactory.fandom.com/wiki/Non-fissile_Uranium

that also uses uranium ore, and the max power does use that alt

[torpid robin]

yea so you gotta find the balance

[frosty owl]

Oh yeah, I totally forgot the one I mentioned was the power ceiling INCLUDING plutonium, my bad.
Sorry if I'm lagging behind now, a tad busy

[bleak coral]

no problem 🙂

also I found silly's numbers: #math-and-meta message

so maybe fertile uranium isn't viable cause of the nitrogen limit

I had thought even with the nitrogen limit it was used for max, but I guess not

[torpid robin]

and using all your bauxite pretty much

so max nuclear is actually out of the question now

[wicked tinsel]

Feasible max power is much much lower as you need both bauxite and nitrogen for actual items

[torpid robin]

thats exactly right lol

[wicked tinsel]

Fuck autocorrect

[torpid robin]

dammit, what am i going to do with my 207 nuclear reactors just chlling here now lol

i guess there is the option of just going max nuclear which is pretty cheap

but still gotta deal with te waste

you could then turn to plutnium and sink.but gonna cost. and then you may as well just burn for power

[frosty owl]

How much value that will have depends a lot on how they'll balance the pellets. I don't think it's worth it atm, since plutonium rods are so weak
Also yes, the extra sulfur-and gas are a pain

[torpid robin]

well no hold up

so 10 rods pm will make 1000 waste pm right?

[bleak coral]

right

[torpid robin]

burn time is .4 for plutnium ae?

[bleak coral]

yup

[torpid robin]

from 10 rods you can get 66.67 plutnium rods

like. thats alot

[wicked tinsel]

The whole u4 nuke rework feels completely pointless imho

[torpid robin]

the plants still make 2500?

[bleak coral]

yearp

[torpid robin]

so 125,000mw from 10 rods.

[wicked tinsel]

It got more complicated, power output is lower, we got 4 times more waste if we dont go all the way and we still got premium waste if we do

Like why

[torpid robin]

turns into 416,687 mw from plutonium

it gives you the choice to sink if you want

[bleak coral]

I'm not sure you can make that many plutonium rods, I think you run out of nitrogen first

[torpid robin]

it will give just under half the amount fo waste

that uses 8800 gas

[topaz hedge]

from what i've heard the waste is super nasty too :3

[wicked tinsel]

I feel the whole sink plutonium was added to spite people who disagree with game designer’s bad ideas

They could had addressed whole process properly but we are left with old stuff with extra steps

[topaz hedge]

I dunno, I kind of like the rework.

[torpid robin]

suppose to be way more radioactive

i like the rework too

you gotta think about it all a bit more

cause you also cant go max cause you need the other resoruces

[bleak coral]

oh you're a never-waster

[topaz hedge]

it shifted the bulk of the power from uranium to something else you can't sink and it gives us a choice

also if you do no alts on plutonium processing, no fertile uranium, and it's a nice 100:1 ratio rather than 100:6.666 or something

[torpid robin]

it makes my massive turbo fuel set up so much more worth lol

[wicked tinsel]

Yeah, i dislike the shredder, but obviously the game is designed around it so cant be helped

[bleak coral]

oh I misunderstood, I thought you hated waste not the awesome sink

[torpid robin]

so the no alts op[tion may very well be viable

gets rid of the waste

[bleak coral]

wow, I haven't seen anyone hate on the awesome sink before, now I'm curious why you don't like it

[torpid robin]

without making a heap more. so either sink or use for a small amount of waste

and saves on other resources you need

and the sink was added so all factories could just keep on running cause people complained so much IMO. but then its nice how they added the store to it. gave it a bit more of a use

[bleak coral]

compared to U3 the 100:1 option makes half the waste, but I think you actually end up making more waste compared to U3 if you make plutonium rods efficiently enough

which I think is good, maybe the specific numbers need tweaking, but I like this dynamic of waste reduction vs power production

all the way from sinking plutonium rods to making even more waste for more power

[bleak coral]

didn't they added the awesome sink/store with U3 and refineries/byproducts?

[torpid robin]

that is actually a good point

[bleak coral]

I always figured the main purpose was byproduct disposal and the awesome shop was a bonus

[torpid robin]

but. at the same time. i have never used a sink to keep my factories going from by products. i always re use my by products

[bleak coral]

if you don't have byproduct disposal everything turns into nukes that aren't closed loops

[frosty owl]

Max uranium rods is actually pretty easy. It's the plutonium part that's complicated imo 😆

[bleak coral]

and that's really annoying

[torpid robin]

yea. well this is what im thinking. go max nuclear. cause its pretty cheap and easy. then turn all of that waste into plutonium. using no alts. deals with alot of waste. makes a little more power. and very little waste

[bleak coral]

(problem in DSP at the moment, cause there's processes that make byproducts than can't be turned into closed loops and no awesome sink equivalent)

[frosty owl]

Tbf, the rich uranium recipe kind of sounds like a way to get lots of plutonium power and consume nornal waste efficiently for whoever has a small/medium sized nuclear plant

[bleak coral]

rich uranium? fertile uranium?

[frosty owl]

I'm thinking of actually using the instant pellet and pressure cube alts.
I might rule out the first considering how much more waste there is
But the second is convenient for the reasons I said before (it's convenient to have heaps of those cubes)

[torpid robin]

ok. so correct me if im retarded please

[frosty owl]

I'll try to be less retarded then you

[torpid robin]

but max nuclear uses the 2100 uranium and makes 31.5 rods

that will make 393,750mw of power

with waste of 3150

using no alts for plutonium

you use only 2.5k bauxite

no uranium

and 3.4k gas

thast not bad.

you then get 47.25 rods from that

you either sink. but hay why not make more power

that will get 295,312mw from that