#math-and-meta
1 messages ยท Page 584 of 1
but my current HT network doesn't go to a central place, so I am not sure the design would work for me
It would, but power requirements would go to the roof 
at the moment I have 11.4 GW... lets wait with things like this until I get more power ^^
That should be enough
11.4 GW total... not 11.4 GW left

and even then, something is off... I sometimes miss 300-400 MW... and I cannot find why.
Ok so I have done some semi bad tests and I might have found the amount of speed increase per segment of two entrances.
Which is about 20% faster through each one.
So to found the rough output speed of n segments the equation would be: max(inputSpeed, 1500) * 1.2^(n-1)
And it actually is very very insanely accurate
Now we need this equation on the wiki page ok ๐
^^
Funny thing they already have the equation on the wiki, but it's a bit off imo because it uses 12.3951 m/s as the base speed which the first segment would always limit velocity to 1500 u/s
I think I found the problem... something in the water production of my 1st coal powerplant is strange... one of the three pipes is nearly empty
btw 100 u/s is 1 m/s
Because it was tested and plotted in excel and then trend line magic
Its not 100% accurate
Same thing is happening to mine so I'm rocking a very unstable coal plant supposed to produce 3.6 MW but instead it's at about 3.2 MW
But mine was ๐
And I did the same thing sorta xD
The calculations I did
I just overclocked one water extractor per pipe to 150%... lets running all tanks full and then see if they drain again with 100%
They stay at about 20% improvement since the last segment.
The last one is wrong tho, I failed at recording it xD
hmm... I have ONE pipe segment in my water system for the coal powerplant that doesn't fill up completely
Again ran the numbers for 32 segments which I have flown through lots of times, and the value is pretty much what I expect going out the other end ๐
Rebuild it. Sounds like a bugged pipe.
I will replace the whole network with MK2 pipes... That should solve it
Due to the variability of speed (running in, jumping in, jump pad, blade runners), the quick and dirty method worked for most purposes
Buuut good to know i guess
I didnt measure any speed or anything though
I measured launch distance for 45ยฐ launch angle
The rest was mathed out based on that launch distance
Now we all know ๐
Wanna go ahead and verify the math for pipes too? 
Like when you launch into another tube?
No i mean fluid pipes lol
Try and find out the viscosity of each fluid ๐
And what viscosity even affects
Is there even viscosity in sf
yes
How and for what?
it's in game data and for fluids
Oh lmao
I'd believe it would maybe change how fast the liquids travel through pipes
I have a total of 52 assemblers, each split into groups of 13 -- making for 4 floors, with 13 in each. Each floor has their own box where the quickwire goes due to mk 5 belt limitation which is capped to 780/minute. Each assembler makes 90 quickwire per minute. One floor is a total of 1170 per minute, split into two belts and going into one industrial container. However, the total number of quickwire is 4680 per minute -- which can actually be evenly split into a total of 6 belts with 780/min speed (4680/780 = 6) So my question is -- how can I evenly spread the existing 4 industrial boxes into either 3 industrial boxes or 6 normal boxes, to get an output of 780 (or double that in case of industrial) for each? Or am I overthinking things?
Or am I overthinking things?
๐
So how do I do this...
I'd just run two belts per floor and make sure no single line ever has to carry more than 750.
Nono, the final possible output from the destination box has to be 780 (or double in case of industrial)
Use overflows at the end then?
Merge two belts, then overflow the second belt into a merge with the third belt.
what route do ya'll take to recycle nuclear waste? i'm deliberating what setup to go for as i've just unlocked a few alts.
per the channel name, what's the meta ๐
If you search there is a lot of conversation about it.
I don't know the exact recipes choices, though. I think it depends on what your goals are?
Like MJ/uranium vs Points/uranium.
fair. (search on discord in this channel isn't producing anything). i may go points/uranium .. i've got fertile uranmium and instant plutonium which seem to push in that direction
thanks
i see there is no real answer ๐ i'll just do what feels right, like usual ๐
Yup, pretty much.
At that point it's "do the math, and figure out what fits your scenario best."
yeah. think i'm going the fertile/instant route simply cos it's a simpler setup with the parts i can access for it right now (and not need a new big drone setup)
You can't get 780/min for more than 1 belt segment, items will pile up in any 780 segment you make if followed by another belt segment
I figured it out
Try searching "plutorium" for an in-depth analysis of max uranium vs max plutonium. I think it can help you in your recipe choice even if you want to may use both (though it seems to me you're looking for the "max uranium" route)
If you want I have a tool that you can use to analyze nuclear production lines. Nuclear depends a lot on your exact goals... My roommate and I are currently building this in order to maximize power production (because it's fun):
https://www.satisfactory-planner.net/?f=v3_U5,7fffffffbffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff,plutonium_waste:maximize:20,,70380:100:0|28860:243:0|52860:133:0|30900:227:0|11040:637:0|10500:670:0|6840:1028:0|11700:601:0|9780:719:0|2100:3351:0|12000:586:0|0:1:1,0,1000:1:0:0
A tool for planning factories in Satisfactory
Basically we've opted to not use fertile uranium because it's less power overall
Ah excellent. I'm not really a min maxer but I like efficient! BTW, your tool is excellent
But if your goal is to irradiate the world it produces more waste xD
Yeah the fact that fertile uranium uses up more of the uranium makes it produce less power, but it can definitely be more convenient if you're not trying to maximize uranium-to-power conversion
satisfactory has a lot of these tradeoffs though so pretty much just down to preference ๐
What the fck is this path? Did i missed so much? O.O
I looked at this and my brain is burning...
haha
any tips for when i have a storage system with smart splitters but the belt is maxed but i need to add more towards the belt that goes fromn smart splitter storage?
Filter high-volume items before they get to that belt.
I have an ISC connected to my train stations that divert half the quickwire and wire off the line straight to the sinks.
More lines, have you a picture how you do it now?
OH you did building weights
thank you so much โค๏ธ
wait its doing rubber -> diluted fuel -> recycled plubber WTF i never even thought of that
hm seems like TPRs is actually better than pasta
TPR is 13.766m2
pasta is 13.822mยฒ
for same amount of awesomepoints
BUT
TPR is less resources (145 instead of 193
and TPR uses ALOT less power (1399 instead of 4280)
kinda makes sense since 0.5 pasta/min takes 1000MW on average in the particle accelerator
No problem! And I made complexity behave more reasonably as well. However solving complexity is very slow for large production chains and will time out (because math -- aka linear optimization with integers is not fast ๐ญ )
wait if i disable TPR recipe the Total Build area goes down 
https://www.satisfactory-planner.net/?f=v3_U5,7ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff,points:per_minute:100,,70380:100:0|28860:243:0|52860:133:0|30900:227:0|11040:637:0|10500:670:0|6840:1028:0|11700:601:0|9780:719:0|2100:3351:0|12000:586:0|0:1:1,0,0:0:0:10000
vs
https://www.satisfactory-planner.net/?f=v3_U5,7fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff7ffffff,points:per_minute:100,,70380:100:0|28860:243:0|52860:133:0|30900:227:0|11040:637:0|10500:670:0|6840:1028:0|11700:601:0|9780:719:0|2100:3351:0|12000:586:0|0:1:1,0,0:0:0:10000
even though im optimizing for Buildings
A tool for planning factories in Satisfactory
A tool for planning factories in Satisfactory
oh damn steel screw -> bolted frame actually looks pretty good compared to steel rods -> def. frame
its using a bit more steel but reduced the amount of buildings by alot
Ah yeah two things:
a) it's going for building number rather than building area
b) due to the integer thing I mentioned earlier it's not optimizing the integer number of buildings because that's way slower. So it gets more inaccurate for smaller production demands (because then you end up with lots of, like 0.001x buildings).
oh why not just minimize building area?
Well building number is more useful imo, since it translates to effort as well as UPS (for people trying to go really big), and build area is reasonably closely coupled to it
but building 1 manufacturer takes longer than 1 constructor?
mostly cause of the inputs i guess
That's true, and there are some recipes where you have to choose between assembler vs manufacturer, but usually adding more inputs in general also increases the total building number elsewhere
So it seems like it's pretty good at minimizing both (at least in my testing)
It would be possible to add both, but my thinking is that it would be unnecessary options (which adds complexity -- both to maintain and to use)
ok with that tool we can look at different ways of getting awesomepoints
- ADS using all minmax recipes like iron wire etc.
this is our baseline so we will call it 100% resource usage (weighted) and 100% Building Area - ADS but we use Insulated Cable instead of default Cable
this is using 103% of the resources but has 91% of the Area - ADS but we switch from def. Frames to Bolted Frames with Steel Screws
this is using 103% of the resources but has 90% of the Area - ADS but we switch from Iron Wire to Fused Wire
this is using 108% of the resources but has 85% of the Area - We do 42% ADS and 58% TPRs
this is using 117% of the resources but has 72% of the Area - We do only TPRs
this is using 122% of the resources but has 63% of the Area - We do TPRs but use Radio Control System instead of def. Radio Control Unit
this is using 123% of the resources but has 60% of the Area - We do TPRs but use Turbo Presure Motor instead of Turbo Electric Motor
this is using 128% of the resources but has 54% of the Area
Note that alot of these resources are Nitrogen which is inflated because Nitrogen is rare - We do TPRs but use Copper Alloy instead of Pure Copper and Rubber instead of HOR
this is using 145% of the resources but has 47% of the Area - We do TPRs but use def. Caterium instead of Pure
this is using 163% of the resources but has 46% of the Area
I was between 4 and 5 as i did 20ADS and 2 TPR but used Fused wire + insulated Cable
everyone can make their own decision how hard the want to min max
Interestingly some recipes were always used like Pure Iron/Pure Quartz/Diluted Fuel/Steamed Copper Sheets because while they are complex they still have lower Building count than the alternatives
Also def. Alumina Solution was always used with the silica going to Silicon Circuit Boards but using Caterium Circuit Boards once that Silica is used up.
that's a lot of acronyms
also, i dun goofed my math, and managed to overproduce screws by like 3x
i can always just escort them out of the building to somewhere else
My first water supply line to my pillar is up and running. This key pipe trick is amazing, saves me several GW of power on headlift
Load Balancer, 8:6
Though if all 8 inputs are already even, then you need to do an 8:6 exchange which would be...
Probably would end up looking a lot like an 8:6 load balancer anyways tbh
i'm fairly sure my biomass burners went for longer than 50mins, i just fed 11 of them, and only need max of 10, i'm gonna time it
1:20pm qld time, mark
Remember though, they throttle based on demand, unlike other power plants. Though the others used to do that.
If they last longer, it's because you don't need all of their power.
i thought they only did that if there was another power source like coal
Nope. They always do that.
so if i fill up 36 of them, and the max capacity is just under 10 for power usage, they could last hours?
the time is 50 * Capacity / Consumption
You can underclock them to make them last a lot longer, too.
What?
You can clock biofuel generators?
they underclock themselves you dont need to udnerclock them
biomass? there's no option for that
Oh, wait, can you clock them? ๐
*biomass, yea.
Though biofuel is still technically accurate.
but ye in my example i have 765 capacity and ~200 consumption so my burners will last for 50 * 765 / 200 = ~3hours
Pretty sure I had it last hours with less than 30 generators? Course though, the biomass burner setup is LONG gone and I don't remember what the power production was around the time when I started setting up coal generators.
IIRC, I had like, 8 I think, not including the two on the HUB.
hmm, well i guess i'll see
I mean, it's entirely dependent on consumption. Every non-burner power source you add extends how long your burners will last until infinity. ๐คทโโ๏ธ
They're essentially non-rechargeable power storages.
Hey, I'm not dumb.
You can clock them.
And if you run them underclocked, you extend how long they can run for.
Then again, you'd have to build twice as many and then they'd run half as fast anyway, so probably not a major gain. ๐
But still. I'm not dumb. ๐
well no
lets say you have 15MW consunption
1 burner at 50% will run the exact same time as a burner at 100% since that burner will just regulate itself to 50%
Then again, you'd have to build twice as many and then they'd run half as fast anyway, so probably not a major gain. ๐
Hi, guys. New here. Is this how I would split 5 into 4+1?
That would net you 3.333 to the right, not 4.
but underclocking is just straight up worse
if you have enough power its EXACTLY the same
if you have less your fuse breaks
What?
a burner at 100% thats connected to 15MW consumption will last twice as long
so it doesnt matter if you underlock it or not if you have 15MW
Yep.
"no gain at all" "only downsides"
Okay? Yes. You're right. No gain at all.
Not even really any downsides, though. ๐คทโโ๏ธ
yes if you consume more
Yes, the downside that exists for one state exists for all situations with that state. That's not a downside unique to this situation.
it basically makes it so you build half as many burners
is there anyway I can do it , or do I need to double my production to 10, and then split into like 4+4+2 (I'm making reinforced plates -> smart plates, trying to save that one excess)
Look up prime splitters on the wiki.
ty
And in case it needs said, @thorn bane, I agree that it's entirely pointless to underclock burners.
Honestly, it might actually be worth overclocking them though.
well you said
"And if you run them underclocked, you extend how long they can run for."
but thats just wrong ๐คท
Well, 1+4 is 20% and 80%
Yes, and I've agreed with that.
So if you split one quantity in half, and then take one of those halves and split it into three
well you kinda dont have the shards for it that early
Splitters can do 50% or 33%.
That's.. not how math works..
!wikisearch prime splitter
0.5/3 is not 1/5..
Derp yeah you're right
You missed his point, with double the burners at half the clock yoh need to come back to refuel half as often (each burner "lasts" longer)
That's not actually true if you work through it.
but double the burners at half the clock is the same as double the burners at 100%
The "gain" is the more buffer for biomass pretty much
They fit double the fuel ๐คทโโ๏ธ
underclocking burners is never worth since they just regulate themself
If one is just interested in how often they have to refuel the burners, underclocking is the way~
no.....
underclocking does nothing
building more burners sure
but you dont udnerclock them
Suggest a better option to reduce how often you need to refuel your burners ^^
building more burners
at 100%
because underclocking does nothing
a burner at 50% will take the same time as a burner at 100%
Ah, I see what you mean. Yeah, just as you said, weird how I "fell for it" the same way 
they should just remove the option to clock biomass burners
One might still want to OC them
Eh. Overclocking at least does have an effect.
actually ye youre right nvm
It's like every other generator. There's just no reason to underclock them. ๐
What if burners gained fuel efficiency when underclocked? 
well kinda for other generators since it lowers the consumption of fuel
was one thing that I suggested already - for gens fuel efficiency would scale instead of fuel production
so if you clock it to 250%, you'll get 250% power at the cost of more than 250% of fuel
would then behave similarly to other machines
wouldnt that make it so you never ever overclock them?
I was referring to biomass burners specifically
it's the same for normal machines as well ๐คทโโ๏ธ
you overclock them to save space but lose power
it would be an actual tradeoff instead of "hey have weird numbers but otherwise no change"
Yeah.. I'd like them to go one way or the other.
Either make the numbers quit lying, or give us an actual tradeoff.
hm i see it as they are not as power shard efficeint instead
I'd like overclocking of gens to have disadvantage, same as machines do. Since you save space
I mean, power shards aren't really a significant limit.
yes they are wdym?
There's, what, 1500 on the map alone?
And doggos can provide an endless stream of them.
yes and you need 90% of those for miners
I mean yeah you use 3 shards to double outcome, but you usually either have tons of shards (and clock all the gens) or very limited shards (and don't clock at all)
You're overclocking every limestone miner on the map?
you have all 1500 slugs?
doggo farm = extra slugs
I mean, no? But I also carry 40+ shards on me.
So... never really been concerned about it.
...I.. in fact do, actually, have more than enough to overclock all I want to.
Well from the map alone how many power shards are there total?
1500ish. ๐
1401
We can math out how many shards it takes to 100% every miner
last time I did the math (but probably stuff changed between that) it was like 80% slugs go to miners
So assuming you are maxining out Mk5 belts, that means:
Pure nodes: 2x slugs
Normal nodes: 3x slugs
Impure: 1x slugs
258 of those to limestone alone.
bro if you use 1145 miners im guessing you have more than 400 machines running
Sure, you have at least 1145 machines running. ๐
Are you overclocking producers too?
I don't get why you want to mine every node and then just piss away that many resources in power.
cause you can just make more power
or overclock your power
No? Power costs resources man.
by that logic you would underclcok everything to 1%
I mean if you are at point where you're using the whole map and played with the intention to clock a lot stuff, you probably had doggo farm running for a long time and have way more than 1400 slugs
We're talking about using every node. That means every MJ of energy you burn is a resource that can't be turned into something productive otherwise.
If one maxes nuclear, running out of power is kind of a challenge...
yes by that logic you would underclock everything to 1%
but im guessing you dont do that
No, I don't. I also don't make decisions based on every node on the map.
I also don't waste power, or overbuild power like a lot of people in here do.
if power shards are free you either do 250% or 1%
theres no breakpoint at which one gets better than the other
I understand the math.
Are we assuming a most efficient recipe strategy or like what? One could also do a power savings strategy, but low power recipes aren't always the most efficient.
I kinda assume anyone interested in using all the nodes on the map (for whatever reason) has plans for max nuclear 
That's why I don't make decisions based on slugs.
We haven't actually had a thing we're optimizing for at this point, so no idea.
It's just a fact that if you have no additional resources, power is fungible to resources.
yes and people dont care
otherwise they would underclock to 1%
Those two things aren't related.
People can care while also caring about other things.
I care. That's why I don't throw shards in every machine.
there's also time to build and gather resources, and also fps
Lol at reaction zyra. It's not even a pun.
But I also don't run every machine at 1%, because I also care about space.
yes if you care about any of those you do 250%
time to gather resources involves time to find slugs
Must be weird seeing everything in two colors.
?
i meant in the situation where power shards are free
Black and white. He's saying if you do care, you should always overclock, if you don't care, you should always underclock to 1%.
When neither of those is ever the correct answer.
well youre not in that situation since slugs exist
do you also include time to build the extra power if talking about clocking everything to 250%?
yes
but also overclocking those gens to 202%
which means finding more slugs, which means more time spent, which means it takes way longer than 100%
Space limitations?
250^1/1.3 = 202%
Okay, so you clock them to 250%.
again i meant in the situation where power shards are free
which they aren't
It also takes more power, so, makes sense to not unless really needed, or just for like the extractors.
I OC all my power beacuse I OC all my machines and I OC all my machines so I can feed all my OC'd power. 
well ocing power doesn't really help you feed your machines ๐คทโโ๏ธ
if you OC power and OC machines youre using 50% of the machines for 100% of the product
You aren't, though.
wanna bet? xD
you're also using more than 100% materials
I know the math. I promise you, you aren't, unless you're disregarding the resource costs.
You need way more than twice the power, so it isn't half the machines to begin with.
well 250% machines is also 2.5x increase, not 2x
probably even leess
That doesn't offset the 4x increase in power consumption though.
if power was hard to get then yes id agree you wouldnt OC to 250%
it depends what machines and power you're using I guess
yes
How..?
the cheaper the power the less impactful it is
if you're talking pure machine count
I mean, aside from breakpoints from recipes, I'm assuming you're not changing the recipes between OCing everything and not OCing anything.
running clocked particle accelerator from coal gens would add A LOT of them, but running clocked constructors from nuclear plants would hardly add any
ok so im getting 0.14 buildings for 2500MW
how many buildings can you build with 2500MW
Does that include the fuel production?
50.4 uranium fuel rods and 12.6 plutonium fuel rods takes 1786 machines
It kind of begs the question of why you're even using coal gens to power particle accelerators...
NPP?
nuclear power plant
Nuclear Power PLant
Right.
or ~0.64 if you oc
im guessing the number of machinees you can run with 2500MW makes that 0.64 irrelevant
indeed, but still is relevant to show the two extremes ๐
Can anyone help me with my factorys i can make them work its just im so terible at keeping them organized i need to tear them down every so often i dont have any mega basses or anything
How much power is left after those 0.64 machineS?
i dont know
Okay. Well, let's go with 2500MW anyway as a hard upper limit.
That can power 146 constructors at 250% clock speed.
That can power 625 constructors at 100% clock speed.
Tearing down and upgrading from time to time is normal, and a lot of people aren't great at organiztion either.
So you're producing almost half of what I am. 365 units/min vs 625 units/min.
For the same power costs.
yes but you just build more power
and that takes less buildings than the extra constructors youre building
Okay, sure.
For the record, Greeny's tool's got 0.2 UFRs/minute at 26 buildings.
And that includes a bunch of refineries and blenders.
Versus my extra constructors.
ok in my save its on average 28MW per machine
so thats 87 machines at 100% per nuclear power plant
a nuclear power plant needs 7 machines to run
if you now use 34.4 machines instead of 87
you need 1.73% power
so thats 12 machines for power instead of 7
so instead of 87+7=94 you build 34+12=46 machines
thats counting a constructor at 0.0001% as 1 building
i measured with 50.4 and then divided by that
and now if you divide 94 by 46 you get 50%
tadaaaa
mathed
Okay, fair enough. ๐คทโโ๏ธ
I still don't build my power in a way where that makes any sense, but more power to you.
its obviously different if you use less power efficeint power generators though
i think thats where alot of people get the intuition from and then never update it
making 2500MW in coal takes alot more effort than 8 buildings
I mean, the intuition comes from power being something you generally build in large chunks, not in small chunks.
So it isn't a matter of building 12 machines vs 7 machines.
It's a matter of tapping a whole new node of something for more power.
ye true
In that context, it just doesn't make sense to burn twice as much power for no gain and half the buildings.
that also explains why alot of people think power is "free" in the lategame
Overbuilders. ๐
well its impossible to not overbuild nuclear xD
Don't make me go build a 0.2/min UFR factory just to prove you wrong.
i dont think ive ever see an single person go "oh damn i didnt build my nuclear big enough"
Don't make me do it!
The smallest convenient "chunk" for nuclear power is 150 uranium/min imo (3.6 fuel rods)
ok here you go
You know my pettiness knows very few bounds!
mostly because using 30 uranium/min just feels kinda small even though it isnt xD
% of saved buildings, depending on gen and buildings built
the numbers were chosen as such:
total production is 5 buildings (at 100%) or 2 buildings (at 250%)
thats where the 73% comes from but ye
That's interesting data, though.
Particle accelerators power also swings wildly, so....
particle accelerator was averaged
the oc ratio is const though
always 2.5^0.6=173%
yeah I took average consumption (as you'd probably build some power storages)
wait so in all cases you save buildings?
(C*a + C*b)/2 is the same as C*(a + b)/2, yeah?
even running a parcticle accelerator with coal pwoer?????
Looks that way. ๐
it doesn't include building increase to generate fuel
i thought that was the whole point
since that varies a lot depending on fuel and alt recipes
well duh
Yeah, that's a really hard number to actually get.
but thats the important number
but I could add that too ๐คทโโ๏ธ
making fuel is way easier than consuming fuel
alright, give me a minute lol
1 coal gen costs, what, 3/8 of a water extractor plus n/x of a miner?
do we assume coal / diluted fuel / nuclear with "most resource efficient" recipes?
And if you're gonna do that, you should subtract out those power costs too..
wait if thats not included what even are these numbers?
Yeah, definitely most efficient recipes IMO.
ye
TF relevant as well?
Ugh, gross, no.
I have the vehicle christmas skins, but no star production set up. ๐ฆ
hm, calculating clocked power cost for production will be fun
also, what about miners?
LOL!
how to count miners? ๐ค
Assume normal for simplicity's sake.
normal mk3 max clocked?
Yep yep.
but I'm gonna do max clocked for both 100% and 250% since miners make sense to clock
Yeah, I think that makes sense.
well you just calculate the power to make the fuel and then *1.73% for the 250% column
..not to be too pedantic, but it's either x1.73 or *173%. ๐
ops
*1.73%'s gonna be a ridiculously wrong number.
multiply by 2.5^0.6 ๐
can someone check my math just to be sure I have the excel formulas right?
send me the sheet
cost to run one coal gen (miner mk3 normal + water extractor):
100%: 7.525 MW
250%: 13.02145 MW
(only thing changing is the extractor's clock speed)
also I just realised that idk why I'm doing this xD
because I need both power required AND building count ๐ค
I'm not sure if excel is enough for this
lulz excel is enough
because if we're talking building count, then we need to count buildings to produce the fuel, which then cost power, which means we need more fuel, which means we have to recalculate buildings and we're stuck in infinite loop ๐
You only need that cost once though, generally.
Once you've got it you can just use the static number.
not really
at least if I understand it correctly
I mean, it's not exactly correct, but it's close enough that it solves the problem.
well you calculate the machines/MW
and then multiply the extra MW you need due to constructors etc. by that machine count
Like, you know a Coal gen's always going to need 15/coal/min if you don't OC it. So you just need to figure out how many buildings it takes to produce that coal, and subtract the power they cost from the coal gen's output.
That's why you go with static costs for all extractors.
yeah I'm just retarded and can't do math
it do be like that sometimes at 7am
The irony in there could make someone rich.
you should all stop using my tools bcs they for sure can't give right numbers
That's it. Everyone go home. Throw it all away. We'll start over on Monday.
rm -rf /var/www/www.satisfactorytools.com
fuck this
only bioburners from now on
Underclocked bioburners. ๐
๐
damn this table is getting complicated
YOU'RE GETTING COMPLICATED.
that as well
I'm so not sure about this lol
so, one gen produces 75 MW
it costs 10.75 MW to produce coal + water for one gen
so in total it produces 64.25 MW
it also costs 0.4 buildings to produce coal + water for one gen
now for 100%, I have 5 buildings (by default) that eat 20 MW
is the correct formula to total number of buildings 5 + (1+0.4) * (20/64.25) ?
I guess it is, but want to check with people that can do math ๐
ye seems good
Yeah, I think so.
updated numbers for coal then
Still matches the intuition y'all had.
i didnt think of it (but makes sense) that making power uses half the machines if you oc everything to 250%
coal is kinda special case for this since it's just miner + water extractor
we'll see for fuel and others
true
I don't think it's that special, it's just simplest.
I really am curious to see the results, though.
Even if I still think it's a perverse way of looking at power and clockspeed. ๐
wait is it actually less machines to make nuclear power with uranium waste or plutonium power with plutonium waste?
(not that i ever would)
yeah give me some time, these stupid tools can't do overclocking
You should have words with the guy that wrote them.
(not that it would help since it calculates the buildings as underclocked anyway)
Wiki says max waste you can produce/minute is 2520. With 2520 waste/min, you can produce 59.7 PFRs/min.
That takes 1844 buildings + the buildings for all the uranium rods + the power plants.
wait its actually super similar
uranium waste is 4.4
plutonium waste is 4.0
for reference sinking the rods is 7.0
i could have half the machines if i didnt care for the environment ๐ฆ
actually alot of the buildings in plutonium are particle accelerators though
how do you link a cell from different sheet in google excel
like =Sheet2:D4 for example
=Sheet2!D4?
thanks ๐
Don't thank me yet. ๐
it works ๐คทโโ๏ธ
I wouldn't thank if I didn't check first ๐
Fair, fair, fair.
burned myself too many times like that
Same.
Trust, but verify.
Single quotes if there's a space.
='Sheet 2'!D4 for instance.
I renamed it to Data to not deal with any of those
I enjoy how closely you're tracking the SWAG numbers from before that you shared. ๐
wdym?
Like.. your wildly wrong numbers are 58% - 20-something%.
Basically the same, and moving the same egeneral directions.
is this acceptable "best" turbofuel?
Is for me, sure.
yeah idk the advanced recipes really, so I just put stuff in tools and check if there isn't something really weird
like e.g. coated plates ๐
yes
I like coated plates tho.
I like them as well, but it's not what majority would build, so I guess doesn't make sense in terms of "general building saving %" analysis
i wouldnt do diluted fuel but im accepting that im weird in that regard ๐
I still think that's such a weird preference. ๐
2 resources > 3 resources ๐คท
I can't throw too many stones. That's why I like steel rotors.
im still amazed that the tool suggested me bolted frames with steel screws
I mean, it's optimizing for what it's optimizing for.
Can't really argue with that. ๐
TF costs more per gen ๐ค
It does.
but switching from frames to bolted frames was better than switchign from iron wire to fused wire
Wiki actually mentions that fact. ๐ People don't realize it.
wait what?
well its another of those cases where WR != good since sulfur is kinda free
I meant power cost
18.1 MW to produce fuel for 1 gen
25.4 MW to produce TF for 1 gen
"Sulfur is kinda free"? ๐ค
god i really hate that your tool says 1 refinerery even though its 0.01
hover over the node ๐
but then i need to add them up
Guessing he means the overview?
which is why it's taking so long ๐
and for the overview imo it makes more sense to round the buildings up
Could put the exact number in the tooltip in the overview.
water extractors are clocked
I mean, Sulfur's the main power limiter at the end of the game. ๐ค
but thats the point its only used for power
so not using it in power means its "kinda free"
Max UFRs require 2100/min. Max PFRs require another 2268/min.
for nuclear do we do uranium only?
There's only 6840 on the entire map..
wanna make both? xD
no
ffs
ummmm
need to add the waste as input
This is a heck of a way to stress test your tools.
YOU DON'T SAY
๐
Hey, you might not be familiar.
im gonna shut up now ๐
that's like number one thing I have to tell people when they ask me lol
ah nvm figured it out
best production needs 66.6666 repeating waste, so I input 66.6666, but had to do 66.6667
now please someone who's familiar with the game take this and turn it into normal recipes thx https://www.satisfactorytools.com/production?share=FG9tKLkp0aqtI0WZZlZc
there's funky stuff like rubber concrete, so... ๐
concrete
plutonium alts
coke steel
rest is fine but minmaxy
Hey look, coated plate. ๐
if you wanna skew in its favor remove iron wire and cable-> insulated cable xD
I disabled rubber concrete, coated+adhered plates, coke steel and both plutonium alts, what about this? https://www.satisfactorytools.com/production?share=YZBBZKo1LzXrkeGcS6TW
That's a hit list of all my favorites. Damn man.
id leave the plate recipes in
are we doing "best minmax" or "minmax players build usually"? ๐
eh just do minmax
then I should put all the recipes back? ๐
wait theres no plates in that planner?
you can check the cool new item overview
well you need to disable the plutonium recipes since otherwise it wont use all the waste
oh i was looking for rips ye youre right
idk just wet concrete i guess
There's RIPs too.
since oil WR > limestone WR but any build uses less limestone than oil
there's second link tho ๐
Oh. ๐คทโโ๏ธ
ye PCP -> plutonium fuel unit
which you dont do if you sink them
so put oiled plates back in?
ye
coke steel as well?
sure
plut and rubber concrete kept disabled
yep
check this and I'm gonna start counting sigh
btw i still dont get how fuel has the same amount of machines than turbofuel
if only you could go to power overview and take that number ๐
looks good
yeah I can't really ๐ฆ
since it's "machines are underclocked"
which doesn't work for ratioing
lowest amount of buildings gives this
https://www.satisfactory-planner.net/?f=v3_U5,7fffffffbffdff7ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff,plutonium_fuel_rod:per_minute:12.6,,70380:100:0|28860:243:0|52860:133:0|30900:227:0|11040:637:0|10500:670:0|6840:1028:0|11700:601:0|9780:719:0|2100:3351:0|12000:586:0|0:1:1,0,0:0:0:100
A tool for planning factories in Satisfactory
wait is alumina solution actually giving more silica than the default recipes?
thats stupid
Isn't that the default recipe?
*default silica recipe
xD
Oh. You produce enough aluminum, you can get a lot of silica from it.
no as in making silica from bauxite is less machines than making silica from quartz
so if you optimize for buildings it uses alumina solution and just sinks the solution
Oh. Huh.
doublechecked everything, was missing one 0 at blender count
ye its 37.5 in constructor
26.25 in assembler
but 50 in refinery ๐
Yeah, that.. makes sense. Alumina produces 50/min, silica 37.5/min, cheap silica 26.25/min.
So if you want the most silica in the fewest buildings, alumina's the ticket.
ye kinda showing that just optimizing for building count is kinda stupid xD
Been trying to tell you that for awhile now. ๐
btw did you read #math-and-meta message
actual actual TF numbers_final_final_new_latest_final.png

I saw it but hadn't read it.
I really really don't want to do the nuclear one tho ๐ค
Nuclear!, there is light at the end of that tunnel, last building is going up for fuel creation ๐
What about it?
I haven't approached nitrogen just yet, the last building for the creation of uranium rods is going up now, then I look at reprocessing ๐
what building count is required to get 12 nitrogen gas (and how much MW that takes)
I wonder, is it worth sinking uranium fuel while I get the waste reprocessing worked out & build.
Go with 650 MW per 1800 Nitrogen.
and building count?
alr
That's assuming 6 pure nodes per well, max OC'd.
The numbers are higher than that, but I think that's a reasonable starting point.
Wiki has this completely unsourced number. ๐คทโโ๏ธ
its 2000 nitrogen per pressurizer
Is it exactly?
I'm hoping there is nitrogen at least remotely close to the grasslands & waterfall otherwise it's going to be one of those epic treks and transport ways again.
There is, actually.
that's average when doing max map extraction
no on average
its 6 spots and 12000 total
Sweet! , that is a life saver, thankyou ๐
but a pressurizer is 650MW at 250%
so its 0.3MW per nitrogen/min?
How's that turn into 19.49MJ? ๐
i dont know?
If you don't, then who does? ๐ญ
it's not even two refineries if summed up
The reprocessing step should be trivial once I sort acids, since my existing control rods factory and others already take the last step in to account ๐
so 2 refineries per 1 NPP
whos Kwjcool321 
person who did all the wiki analysis
Yeah.. seriously confused how he got that power cost for nitrogen.
This is how far i've got so far, the under construction bit is for iron ingots to make solid steel, then I can turn the whole thing on.
It's not even that wrong...
max map extraction doesn't work?
No, that puts it at like 0.32?
12000 nitrogen takes 3900 MW..
also maybe it's not updated, previously max nitrogen was 12300?
Did they change the power cost of pressurizers?
doesn't seem so
lol yeah I just didn't bother trying to guess that since it's so specific to the exact location/setup
this is not even about automated stuff, it's just for manual calculations ๐ I have some ideas about tool tho ๐
I see, haha. I do think the best way out of any is just figure out max power for max production and then scale proportionally. But still that's gonna overestimate by maybe quite a bit.
fyi this is number of machines needed to provide uranium fuel rod to 1 NPP + process waste (miners not yet included)
have come to terms with the nitrogen?
this still valid?
You could do 650/2000 if you want.
?
7 buildings
Oh, uh. 51 / 6?
8.5 buildings?
you could do like 649.82 * 6 / 12000 for MW per resource at max consumption
Sounds good to me. ๐
(for nitrogen)
650 MW per 8.5 buildings per 2000 nitrogen then?
45 extractors, 6 pressurizers.
8.5
this true? final call ๐
yep
btw math like this is why this game is the best singleplayer game ive ever played โค๏ธ
bet you cant do math like this in factorio xd
sweats when doing excel math for last hour and half and never played SF properly
yeah I agree
you can, but most things are made by just one recipe, so there's not many "alternate paths". Exception being oil where it gets a bit tricky (byproducts and stuff)
there's other fun like productivity modules, miner productivity, endless techs, beacons, etc
basically there's 60% flat machine count save on clocking everything to 250% with nuclear power (unless I made a mistake somewhere)
well yes if power was free it would be 60% since 40%*2.5=100%
whats the gen machines per MW?
wait that does mean that more than 60% is bullshit then
yep
D'oh, I didn't even consider clocking anything other than the miners.
I'm not really sure where the mistake is ๐ค
welcome to the last 3h of heated discussion xD
yeah nobody did except for zyranex so we had to do math
not really sure where the error is if it's showing 60.1% ๐ค
Oh well, sunk cost and all that, I'm not demolishing weeks of construction because of an oversight ๐
well theres tons of people that cheat in an ISC of shards
but most people do it for fps reasons
amelie of the sea did it for the max turbomotors in s3
kibits does it always pretty much
Probably explains where people get the shards, I just about got all my mins and the nuclear power stations water extractors clocked.
well doggo farms are a thing
Wait so what is the discussion about? I think I didn't fully read what was going on
is it worth to overclock buildings
% of buildings saved when clocking everything to 250%
in my opinion the time save you get from building less machines is more than enough to build more power
ohhhhh I see that makes sense now
the table above shows % of buildings saved depending on which buildings and which gens we talk about
(includes all the buildings needed to produce fuel for the gens as well)
Once my nuclear is producing, I should go shard hunting and actually overclock more crap.
No point having an over abundance of power and being conservative with it.
you sure about 2.84 for the machines at 250?
all the other gens have ratios of ~50% for 100->250%
yeah the way I read the table is that you probably shouldn't overclock stuff unless getting closer to nuclear (or knowing you'll have nuclear sooner or later)
that only applies to when you're sure you can spare the extra resources towards fuel production tho
but isnt the point that its always less buildings?
yeah, but early you are very much power capped and the save % is smaller
I mean even if it was wrong, it shouldn't be possible to show more than 60%, right? even if it was 0, it should still be just the 60% you said
oh nvm found the issue
it's 2.95 instead
I accidentally did /2.5 for miners and extractors
but those are fixed
since we assume they are max clocked for both 100 and 250
Is this assuming free/infinite shards? Because overclocking the entire nuclear production chain awakens a deep fear within me lol
yep
well if they arent you just do this until you run out of shards
i think?
hm what is the best to overclock if you have finite shards
I overclocked miners first as a priority because the number of nodes is finite, then water because of space & certain numbers.
Sorry if I'm rehashing things from this 3hr convo, lol, but imo I feel like the main downside of overclocking power buildings at any scale is the time it takes to gather slugs... I was considering it for my nuclear plant but it's just so many shards when building more buildings isn't that much more work.
yeah, time to gather slugs is a big downside
also the amount of slugs on the map is nowhere near to overclock everything
yeah there's no way to do the whole chain lol
but if we start adding everything together we're pretty much matehmatically solving the whole game which is pretty much impossible ๐
you dont have to do the whole chains though
just as much as you can
it's the colored cell
awesome thank you
The ficsmas shards helped me out a ton by allowing me to clock the last of the nuclear gens water.:D
I see, so essentially you're trying to figure out where it is best to spend the shards you happen to have?
so fuel power needs half the machines as coal (if you have the alt recipes)
and nuclear requires a third of the machines of fuel
good to know
actually, let me make that for both 100 and 250
I clocked the water to cut the number of extractors from 315 to 210, 1 shard per.
This is completely unrelated but it would be a fun challenge to see how far you could get with a minimal coal (or even biofuel) setup by ridiculously underclocking everything
@thorn bane this better
I've never ridiculously underclocked, but I have underclocked some machines to make the math work. (and I dislike odd numbered machines that don't go in to neat rows.
did you want something else than number of buildings needed to produce X MW?
alright I now also have something to show to people saying "but nuclear is too many buildings"
yes 
I don't mind the nuclear building count, I just took it as a challenge and rose to it ๐
That's actually really interesting
I mean yeah it's complexity is insane compared to turbofuel, but the gain you get from it...
thats the point
nuclear is using super few buildings
its just that everyone overbuilds xD
also keep in mind the numbers are with processing of waste. With storing waste it would be even less
I'm no doubt over building, aiming to produce and burn 21 rods per minute.
and no I'm not recalculating it with storing waste
hahaha
I'm not storing waste ๐
thx greeny โค๏ธ
(though I could do it for burning plut fuels)
(but that would be the inefficient recipe ๐ฆ )
ye my rough math was that uranium waste and plutonium waste is roughly the same amount of machines
Ovverbuilding? What's that? What's the point of nuclear if you're not going to max out the map ๐ค
maxing nuclear is like maxing coal
who dafuq is building coal gens worth of 30900 coal/min
lol
Burning 30900 coal is impractical, 2100 uranium isn't out of reach.
but ye building 5 particle accelerators at 100% takes 114 machines with coal
building 2 at 250% takes 77 machines
expanded the table with "burning fuel rods". It's using the inefficient plut fuel rod recipe since I couldn't be bothered to recalculate everything
just because uranium has a way higher compression doesnt mean the max build isnt just as out of reach
Not that out of reach right now, at least for me, one more building and all that uranium becomes 21 fuel rods.
(isnt 50.4 max?)
I'm not using alts and I'm way too far in to the project, all 2100 uranium with my recipes gets 21
wait why is the % lower for burning the rods
shouldnt it be more efficeint so the numbers should be even closer to 60%
Urgh bah, fell to my death expecting my hover pack to draw power from the ceiling grid (I never plugged the bloody thing in) ~whoops!
burning rods is more buildings (+50% NPPs)
oh I also realised I forgot to account for water needed for NPPs
I use 2 extractors per npp, 1 shard per.
huh?
180+120=300
you only need 1 shard in total
Hmm, shows I didn't look at the big picture math wise, damn that's going to free up 100 shards!, I'd clocked both to 150 haha.
I need to revisit that bit anyway, Mcgalleon gave me a suggestion to halve the pumps i'm using as well.
also _final.png (also adds in water extractors for NPPs)
nuclear is still great, just not totally great
the sheet if someone wants to go through it and find all the errors https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BfHHBMAusRZy0q6DdWw4-B00irJlmp64ssamWoShj_g/edit#gid=0
also sourced the SFtools tabs in Data sheet
so ye OCing Constructors and just making more coal power results in 42% of the buildings needed
thats pretty good
also results in more coal consumption though, so depends on player's preference
hm shouldnt the machine cost for one gen at 250% make 202% input instead of 100%?
since the gen will also take more to make more power
...
How much of a setup does it take to have a proper 7:8 pipe balancer? Is it literally as simple as just connecting all the pipes to each other?
I want to evenly flow out (passing through valves at the output set to the right value) 6.75 pipes worth of fluid, to 8 pipes
8:3 "balancer"
specifically its being piped into a train station so Id like to as close to evenly distribute the oil to all 8 of the inputs of my station
Pop a buffer before each one?
Does it work just as well though for when I am balancing up and not down?
Im going up in pipes (so less fluid per pipe), not compressing down to less pipes
If you buffer it, the buffer will saturate the pipe as long as it's able.
should โข๏ธ work by just having a pipe between them all
So I have 4050 oil coming in, which is going to be 6x 600/min pipes + a 450/min pipe
I want to distribute it to be 8 pipes on the output, with 506.25/min each
Ok but how well will it actually work in application?
this changes EVERYTHING
ye i know xD
(because I also realised that for clocked gens I accidentally didn't increase fuel consumption)
id do this and pray to mcgalleon that it works ๐คท
Buffer buffer buffer.
buffer?
Buffer.
๐ค
interesting
yeah so don't clock particle accelerators if you're powering them with coal
but also, particle accelerators give you 21% savings at most
(well 28%)
well normaly you dont just build particle accelerators
you have some other buildings
and clocking pretty much anything other than constructor or smelter in coal stage is under 50% savings (which is what you claimed)
Only accelerator.
Im debating whether or not to build a second train station so I can achieve 100% efficiency on my oil throughtput
Buffer
i claimed 50% for nuclear
buffer wont fix 100% efficiency problem
you need 2 train stations to get 100% efficiency
yeah, doesn't work for manufacturer and higher
It'll fix your pressure concerns though.
Well, at least if you are fully loading the stations
but you dont just have manufacturers
you have a mix
so unless youre 100% only building manufacturers its gonna be 50%
I have to actually make the spreadsheet at some point to calculate the maximum true throughput a train station can achieve based on mk5 belts and stack size
I wonder which ratio of buildings could be used to average the savings
i did my initial math with 28MW per building
cause thats what my planner has
with that its 45% at coal
58% at nuclear
just pure averaging the savings (except for PA which I counted only the first row), it's these
but you probably have tons of refineries and way less PAs ๐
but you dont use the same amount of manufacturers than you use constructors
hence why I said
I wonder which ratio of buildings could be used to average the savings
it's per-setup I guess
what's so magic about 28?
thats my average power use/machine in my planner
I see
also the PA cases is just kinda weird cause youre comparing 5 buildings that are PA to 7 buildings to make a nuclear power plant work (but those are not PAs)
fixed one more math issue
nuclear's slightly better now
than it was before math issue was fixed
now the plutnoium rod burner as is actually closer to 60%, as i expected it to be
it's probably a bit more since crap alts
aslong as its more i dont care xD
was just weird that it was less
also this is cursed lol https://www.reddit.com/r/SatisfactoryGame/comments/rdj3cn/protip_store_your_excess_nuclear_waste_in_the/
hahahaha
So it seems you simply cannot exceed 648 items/min per belt feeding into train depots at 100 stack size
I gotta calculate now for fluids
Assuming the wikis 25s loading time is still correct
got dammit ondar
You need to pick a cycle time, too.. if the station is unoccupied for 5 minutes vs 5 seconds..
Doesnt matter for the "Exceed" calc, this is the "maximum" you can achieve with perfect setup
And for 500 stack size?
749.55 items/min per belt for 500 stack size
its 28s i would assume 30
here is me talking about it with the guy that put 25 in the wiki
#math-and-meta message
kk I will punch in 28s instead lets see here
famous last words
It says 27 for me...
11/21/2021 triggered ๐ก
at 28s delay, 746.05 items/min for 500 item stack size
thats why you use an ISC with 2 connections to the station
then its 780 (well actchually....)
ISC?
yes i just rounded up from 27. something cause you want to make sure you can put stuff in
Industrial Storage Container
That doesnt fix the issue
buffers wont help you exceed this value, its the hard upper cap for a single train station setup
Buffers allow you to hit this upper cap though, but thats it, cant exceed it no matter what, per station
I assume per platform?
It was updated today, yeah? 
and for fluids using 28s as the delay, hard upper cap of 444 kL/min per pipe
you mean instead of Dd (21st = 21), you would do dD (21st = 12) ? ๐
You wanna do dates backwards, do dates backwards. ๐คทโโ๏ธ
that's evil
-
1.33... min to 100% a freight car with 2x pipes (1600/1200)
-
28/60 mins delay
= 74.07% uptime
600*74.07% = 444.444
also something I'd believe americans would do
your max items/min per platform is functional of stack size
It's about time spent loading the train is not spent loading the platform. It's got an asymptote.
Bigger stack size = more efficient, small stack size = less
So as stack size goes down, max items/min it can handle goes down
didnt sev and me do the math for this?
hold on
Since it takes less to fill up a freight car
Round trip time has no bearing on this, that simply lowers your throughput
This formula is your maximum
The absolute max you are capable of no matter what
Basically, this is your choke point, exceeding this will just result in backing up of items before the train station, even with a buffer, if you exceed it the buffer will just slowly back up over time
The real solution is to either:
A. Increase the size of your train station and add more platforms, to distribute items more such that you now are below the choke point
B. Actually make two train stations that all items split and go into both, to once again lower each individual input below the choke point
The only variable for this formula is stack size, assuming Mk5 belts. Theoretically belt tier is another variable but by the time this matters its safe to assume you are using mk5 belts
im getting 747.8 plugging in the values from the wiki page
well thats what i got when i pressed stop and start on a google timer
you can trust that how ever you want xD
If I swap to 27.08s delay then I get this
๐
I mean we can calculate the exact delay by just making an item sink loop that pumps 780/min x2 into a platform, takes it to another, sinks it, and let it run for a bit and check its "items per minute" value on the output
mk5s are not 780 though
Well doesnt actually matter
every belt at max capacity as throughput issues
We are still well above the choke point even if mk5s are slightly off
Should still be exceeding 750/min or whatever with Mk5s
well at that point you can just start and stop a timer xD
No because that wont be precise enough, will have human error
or just assume 30s to be save ๐คท
but that depends on mk5 speed right? which we dont know
if you could make 300/min of something 
No, stops mattering once we exceed the choke point
Or well I guess it is your right
oooh i see
Fluid freight cars really should be like, a lot bigger ideally
Even at only 100 stack size for items it takes 2.05min to Mk5 belt a full car of items.
Whereas Mk2 pipes move a freight car of fluid in only 1.33min
So...
At 6.75 pipes of oil coming in, that works out to a bit over 506 oil/min per pipe.
Which means I am exceeding my platforms hard cap, so I /have/ to split my oil out to two seperate train platforms
ok how the hell do i time this
my first guess was to do a wait until full train and then measure the throughput
but the issue is they dont actualyl wait until full they wait untill all the stacks are in but the last can be 64/200
oh shit seriously?
it still gives a decent guess though (31*200+64)/((31*200+64)/1560+(x/60))=1402 gives 27.15 seconds
ye i was looking at the trains and its never completly full
also it now updated to 1401 throughput and thats already a change from 27.15 to 27.34
so its pretty much impossible to get a number thats more exact than 1 decimal place
Is it moderately random or at least consistently close to the same extra?
it takes like 4min to be full hold on xD
but so far it was anything between 1 and 70 i think
this time it was 4
but ye anyway not good enough to measure the docking time
even then the display of 1401 items/min already makes the loading time be +-0.2 seconds
while waiting my buffer filled up to 712 items
so filling at 1560 thats 27.4 seconds
So yeah it seems like mostly its a matter of just having 2 loading stations, or just enough platforms to get yourself below the hard upper cap
well the limit is ~1500 per station (if its 500 stack size) so you just keep adding stations until youve made your throughput
shipping 4000/min? 3 stations
ez
Basically yeah
Though for single station approach you also need buffers, double station approach you dont need buffers as the "other" station is the buffer
so your choice which is easier, for fluids fitting the buffers in is actually kind of a pain
This should be a solid way to load balance 7:8 strictly right? I just have to set each of the valves to be the target flow rate right?
So in this case 506.25 each
@thorn bane Try with fluid perhaps btw? It might actually do a proper 100% since it doesnt have a "Stack size"
498.45
you only use the stacksize to calculate Time to fill
for fluids thats just 1600/600
Point being you wont get that "extra" problem, hopefully
it should actually wait until >1600 in the station and load full carts each time
oooooh thats what you meant
which will give you better precision no?
ye true
now i have to build a fluid train though ๐ฆ
:x
I think this should work now
(half the pipes go to this one, the other half to an identical one beside it)
This should allow me to achieve 100% throughtput of my oil coming in
Shoot nope, not good enough still
I need to have it split into 16 pipes before, or at, the buffers
I need to be able to jump up to full throughput to actually be hitting 100%
Okay... attempt #2... this one should work
Hmm... working on this FICSMAS factory.
38 Constructors with 25 Gift Trees feeding into it... to make 375 Branches/min... what do I set the Constructors to?
38/25 = 1.52, according to the in-game calculator...
it just works if you leave them at 100%
if you really want to save 0.7MW underclock the last constructor to 50%
or if you want to save another 1.1MW underclock all of them to 375/38/10 = 98.68%
yeah, better do the adjustment on the last machine in the manifold than on everyone
actually the other way around
or just dont ๐คท
like you do in every other game that doesnt have overclocking
yes, if you do it first the manifold find its equilibrium quicker... but wherever you do it, do it on one machine
Thats a bit high.... Got pumps?
I think the discussion was about saving power, not about speed to fill
Thats a total of like 20 m
but also, I don't think there will be much difference in time to fill manifold depending on different clock speeds. I'd say it may even be faster if you underclock all equally
it will be even faster if you feed the manifold from more than one entrypoint
just today I had my complete rubber production blocked because one damned Refinery had been set to the wrong clock value
Lul
Apparently my maths skills are great rn.
So with hypertube cannons I found the formula for how fast you fly out n number of entrances.
os = max(is, 15 m/s) * 1.2^(n - 1)
And I just transformed it such that I can find how many entrances are needed to reach a certain speed.
n = (log(os / 15 m/s) / log(1.2)) + 1
Yay logarithms ๐
So to reach 4 km/s you need 32 entrances.
Now adjust it so you know how far you will fly with a hypertube cannon at angle Phi 
Could you gimme the acceleration constant due to gravity?