math-and-meta

[wind spade]

would be a pain to build around that. You can just make machines to produce stuff and turn on those that you need

[gloomy palm]

Wha

Yeah the power gen buildings

They have inputs but no outputs

[remote ice]

power gen buildings can't really have a recipe set though

[gloomy palm]

Except nukes

[wind spade]

changing recipes on machines is just not really useful in any way I can think of

[remote ice]

i mean i gave you a build case

[gloomy palm]

Ohhh

[remote ice]

a programmable factory is a genuinely interesting idea that people would attempt

no it might not be as efficient as a single-output factory in terms of entity count or raw speed, but people do challenge runs so...

[gloomy palm]

Hmm the issue is it would need to be highly modular because machinery required to build a recipe is not static

You'd simply have "constructor farms" and such

[wind spade]

it would be just pain to build with no real advantage. Adding things just because they are cool is not always the way to go

[gloomy palm]

They wouldn't be in any specific configuration of buildings and it would take longer for things to travel between building farms

[remote ice]

if we had circuits people would build giant tv screens and entire processor blocks and memory just to play tetris just because they can

and i know this because this is exactly what people do in factorio

and that's not even getting in to potential usage for actual factories

devs not wanting to add circuits because it would take a lot of effort is reasonable, but that doesn't mean that circuits are pointless

[wind spade]

this right here is my problem with the suggestion. In factorio there's tons of places where you can use the logistic network and it even kinda makes sense for the game. In Satisfactory, we have unlimited nodes, 100% return on used materials, we don't really need any fancy stuff like Factorio has. I don't see a valid usage for such a feature, at least compared to Factorio

[remote ice]

that's fair, Satisfactory is designed to work well without circuits, whereas for something like Koravex Enrichment circuits are arguably the easier option.

still, people would use them if they were available, no doubt.

also apparently we're still getting another tier, so maybe that could take advantage of them as a sort of final challenge

[wind spade]

people would definitely use them, it's just the matter of "adding things because they are cool" vs "adding things because they are useful"

you need a bit of both for the addition to be worth dev time

[remote ice]

do you want a list of things that have been added that are cool but not useful?

because there's a lot.

[wind spade]

f.e.?

[remote ice]

lights.

actually literally all decorations for that matter

[wind spade]

I'd call "seeing where stuff is" useful

[remote ice]

cyberwagon

and the factory carts, barely useful.

[wind spade]

cyberwagon is easter egg

[stark bronze]

its not a community suggestion for that matter

[wind spade]

factory cart is a transportation vehicle for smaller tight places and factories

[remote ice]

you can see everything in the game perfectly without factory lights, except maybe for that brief 30 seconds once every hour where both suns are down

[wind spade]

hence - lights are useful, just not 24/7

[remote ice]

it's called running - sprinting is nearly as fast as the cart and much much more manuverable

i think sprinting with bladerunners is actually faster

[wind spade]

I mean at some point you can call everything "not needed". You don't need machines if you can handcraft

[remote ice]

yep, and that's what you're doing with circuits.

circuits would be twice as useful as lights even if you didn't go really in-depth with them

[wind spade]

how do you measure usefulness 🤔

[remote ice]

if you can't figure out how to even measure it, maybe don't reject circuits on the basis of not being useful

[wind spade]

I don't measure it, because it's not a scale. It's a yes(/situational)/no question.
Are lights useful? Yes, because there's some time where you can't see. Without lights, you can't see no matter what you do.
Are circuits useful? No, because pretty much anything I can think of you can do without them.

[remote ice]

rendering lights unnecessary with a single setting

[wind spade]

... that's not how it works

[remote ice]

also, again, all decorations. There's a huge number of decorative items. You don't need to recolor machines, you don't need to change foundation textures, etc

to quote, "pretty much anything I can think of you can do without them."

[wind spade]

you can't have a window without building a window 🤔

[remote ice]

windows are not useful for factories

[stark bronze]

just remember that everything said here is invalidated when devs made their final decision when the time is right
use the energy on hating on visual glitches or something

[remote ice]

you do not need a window at any point when building a factory

nor roofs, and walls are marginally useful only

[wind spade]

I never said "it needs to be useful for a factory" though... I said "there is no other way to currently do that in the game"

you can already turn on/off machines with power networks, for changing recipes I've already expressed a problem that would need to be solved first

[remote ice]

there is no other way to currently do circuit stuff in the game

[wind spade]

what kind of stuff?

"do circuit stuff" is as generic as "playing the game". Give me a concrete example of what you want from circuit network

[remote ice]

https://youtu.be/K1oRQX8xQeg?t=18

[wind spade]

we don't have speakers though

[remote ice]

... that's a circuit object

[wind spade]

so your suggestion isn't "add circuits", but "add speakers"

[remote ice]

why would we have a circuit-controlled sound source with no c-

... no

[wind spade]

because originally it was "I want circuits to control factory"

now it's speakers 🤔

[remote ice]

i'm not suggesting anything. i am trying. to get it. through your thick skull. that people would use circuits even if there was literally not a single goddamned use for them for controlling factories.

and there are uses for them for controlling factories, even if they're nonvital

[wind spade]

I get that people would use them. But people would also use fly mode and cheats and setting that replaces every critter with Thomas the tank engine. But "people would use it" is still not a valid point for adding it

it needs to add something to the game, it needs to follow dev's vision of the game and it needs to fit in the game. Jace talked about this in the "6 things we're not adding to SF" video

[remote ice]

"I don't see a valid usage for such a feature, at least compared to Factorio"
A valid usage. If painting foundations is valid, circuits would be

[wind spade]

you still haven't said anything that I could do with the circuits other than playing a Portal song

[remote ice]

you haven't said anything i could do with painting machines

organization? Signs. Or memory.

aesthetics? bah

[wind spade]

.... you don't get it. I'm asking concrete examples. What do you imagine under circuit network. So that we can talk about concrete examples, not "circuit network". Painting as a feature is known what you can do with it. you can paint stuff, you can change colors and swatches, etc. We have concrete examples what you can do with it. "Add circuit network" is super generic and unless you answer me, I don't really know anything about what exactly would the network do

[remote ice]

i've given you examples, a thousand examples exist in factorio. People use it for stuff that has not the slightest bearing on producing iron plates. They play the Still Alive theme song, they build microcontrollers, they play tetris, they create full-color screens that lag the game if you just use them, they make devices that print text onto belts

[wind spade]

factorio is a completely different game though

[remote ice]

in the hypothetical Satisfactory with circuits, we'd get all that stuff

[wind spade]

so you're asking for "exact copy of circuits with everything they have in factorio"?

[remote ice]

it's in the same vein where some people build giant blocky factories of foundations and never touch the 'customize' tab, and others make giant artistic buildings using painting and foundations and stuff.

[wind spade]

if yes, then I don't like your suggestion

[uncut sigil]

How about: change lighting colour of this building according to average (or minimum, or maximum )machine efficiency?

[wind spade]

they would have to fix efficiency meter first 😄

[wind spade]

I get that. I get that some people will use it and some won't. Doesn't change the fact that I'm asking what you can do with it, not if it will be used

[remote ice]

sure, why not. And again, i am not suggesting anything. By all means, go never ever add circuits to Satisfactory ever. I am fine with the devs saying 'yeah nah it'd be a ton of work sorry'.

But do not pretend even for a second that it would not be used

[remote ice]

ok fine, i've given examples that don't do with factories, so examples that do:
field programmable factories like that idea earlier
adjusting resource usage by changing beltss, so you can switch iron from say making rotors to making steel
monitoring your factory, knowing how much steel pipe is being used, how much is in buffers, etc from a nice central control room
controlling trains remotely maybe? depends on how the circuit network can interact with factory stuff

[wind spade]

I never pretended. I said that I don't see a valid usage for circuit network in your factory lines because we have infinite resources and 100% return on invested resources.

Sure you can do anything with them and people will use them. I never said that isn't the case.

I just said that adding a feature so big that has so little gain in terms of main gameplay is not really something that devs would do (in my opinion)

[remote ice]

i dispute that last point, because you can argue against the entire Customizables tab on the same basis.

But there are still uses in the factory lines for it in the same vein as Factorio, in the examples i gave for instance. There are a lot of parallels with Factorio and Satisfactory, and you can go the entire game without using circuits in Factorio as well. But they're still useful.

Alright, how about a really, really useful use for circuits? Let circuits count items passing through splits and belts and mergers, and control those to some degree. You could use this to easily make ratio-perfect, item-perfect splitters

look at how much work goes in to getting item distribution right. Circuits could become the dominant means of doing all of that if they work well for it.

you could synchronize different belt streams so you always get exactly enough items for each machine to process.

[wind spade]

I don't think that's relevant feature given how the game is inaccurate in those fields

also, you can already do that, because we have infinite resources and fixed output

[remote ice]

yes you can just manifold everything, but people still go for perfect ratios and balancers and stuff

and you could do if circuits could, say, do basic math and memory operations with belt and merger/splitter contents, and also could do stuff like pulse a splitter to let 1 item through on a specific belt

Hypothetical Recipe needs 3 iron plates and 1 rod, have circuits monitor the output, every time a item exits it pulses the inputs to let 3 iron plates and 1 rod in. Or a dozen other ways to do it

there's a whole tutorial page on the wiki for prime number splitter and how to turn that into perfect ratio splitting: https://satisfactory.fandom.com/wiki/Tutorial:Prime_splitter_arrays

imagine if you could replace that all with circuits.

[wind spade]

shame it doesn't really work 😄

[remote ice]

it might with circuits. Depends on implementation, but done right it would be easy

[wind spade]

but yeah maybe they'll fix the splitter bugs 🤔

but done right it would be easy
sure but doing it right is the hard part 🤷‍♂️

[remote ice]

something as simple as "pulse this circuit line for this splitter to let 1 item out of the buffer along output B" would be sufficient, provided circuits also support operations and memory

[wind spade]

I like how you use the word "simple" in combination with pulses, memory and operations

[remote ice]

well we're talking about a wiki page with sections that look like

if some math and formal logic scare someone away, we're already walking through the land of cats

[wind spade]

given that the formula is completely unnecessary for building a balancer, I don't see a problem with that

[remote ice]

i didn't read a ton of the context but it seems to be a explanation for why one of the simpler equations, which is actually used, works

a similar analogy would be a premade circuit diagram that splits for you, and users who don't understand it just follow the instructions to "copy exactly as seen, and swap out the Beryl Nut filter for whatever item you need"

[wind spade]

one of the simpler equations, which again, is unnecessary for building an actual balancer

[remote ice]

unnecessary for building, more necessary for designing

[wind spade]

for building and designing a balancer, you just follow a simple "splitter splits in ratio of 1:2 or 1:3"

[remote ice]

yeah but understanding mathematical series and converging is certainly useful

[wind spade]

which is a mechanic you already know from the game's tutorial

[remote ice]

we're not just trying to make a splitter here, we're making a perfect ratio splitter which is a much more technical thing that legitimately uses this stuff

[wind spade]

I've never needed any of those for designing nor building

[remote ice]

nonetheless, there is a whole, in-depth tutorial page on the wiki for this.

this is exactly the sort of thing circuits would come in and do better

we are literally in the " #math-and-meta" channel for discussing involved technical solutions like this.

[wind spade]

that's in depth tutorial for people that want to play with math, not for people to know how to build one

theory and practical application are two different things

[remote ice]

you don't need to know how a circuit would work to build one, you could absolutely have a page of circuit diagrams or w/e that just say "copy exactly as shown here to get a perfect 5-way splitter"

[wind spade]

I could write a tutorial for building such splitters that's like two or three sentences and you would get the same result as the linked wiki article

[remote ice]

we have a balancers page which goes into graph theory or w/e that particular diagram form is called that i can't remember, and then further down on the page is "here's some prebuilt balancers just copy as shown"

exact same thing

[wind spade]

again, the tutorial there is weird, I'm honestly not even sure why they go into such a deep theory if they could just write in two or three sentences how to build a balancer on top of that page.

[remote ice]

why do we have math class if calculators exist

yes they can tell you how to build it, and nothing else. Doesn't exactly help the technical not-so-minority who want to understand it on a theoretical level and possibly make a better one

[wind spade]

for the technical minority, the rest of the page will be useful

but you can't argument "you need to understand all of this to be able to build a balancer"

[remote ice]

then it's a good thing i'm not arguing that

[wind spade]

then how is talking about wiki page with math relevant to the discussion?

[remote ice]

because you argued that people are going to be scared away by how technical circuits are, and so they're not viable for building perfect splitters and mergers and such

people who are scared away will just copy the design like what already happens with balancers and such. People who are not will design those things.

[wind spade]

given how many people know and use balancers vs how many people know and use circuit network in factorio, I don't think that needs to be argued

[remote ice]

factorio barely needs the circuit network for this stuff because it doesn't have stupid 1-3 and 3-1 splitters/mergers exclusively

[wind spade]

and my point was about the "easy", imo it's definitely more complex to make a balancer using a circuit network, than it is by using splitters and mergers

[remote ice]

large balancers still get extremely complicated and technical

[wind spade]

now make that one with circuit network. Would be even more complex

[remote ice]

except people don't make circuit balancers much because it's unnecessary. But satisfactory has less potent tools for that stuff, so circuits would be better for some things

[wind spade]

we have the same tools as factorio has. ability to merge, ability to split, ability to filter and ability to prioritise output. Only thing we don't have is the ability to prioritise input

[remote ice]

also the circuit balancers aren't that bad, here's a circuit 1-3 splitter:
http://i.imgur.com/eSgiEOZ.gif
and the same thing using only belts and splitters

it's actually smaller i think

[wind spade]

size has nothing to do with complexity though

or rather it is part of it, but pretty small part

[remote ice]

it's really comparable, i... think this is a 6-6 balancer using circuits

and no actual logic elements, just what belts can do internally

versus a 6-6 balancer with belts

that's comparable.

[wind spade]

complexity = how hard is to understand it and build it

[remote ice]

...

[wind spade]

I'm not talking about size and I never was

I was talking about your "easy"

[remote ice]

i get that

and here's some of what understanding a belt balancer looks like

at least classes for programming are more common than classes for... whatever fucking field of math this is, something to do with graph theory i guess

[lapis jay]

wait is this the satisfactory discord?

[remote ice]

neither are simple, both are very technical.

circuit solutions involve more logic and programming, belt solutions involve more math. I would not say either are more complicated, just different fields

[wind spade]

for splitters you just need to know how to multiply and divide. For circuit network you need to know much more. There's no debate on which one is easier to understand

[lapis jay]

after my bad joke i have a legitimate question about oil processing, i'm about to set it up for the first time since pipes are a thing and idk how to divide the crude oil, I have 360 crude oil/min at hand

[remote ice]

and if you want to design a perfect ratio splitter for a weird number and you start getting into series and convergence?

[lapis jay]

(Yes i haven't played in a looong while)

[wind spade]

no, you just design 1:[whatever is next non-prime number] and loop back excess

or 1:[whatever is next nice number to split to]

[remote ice]

and i just design a "pulse line 1, next step, pulse line 2, next step, pulse line 3... next step, pulse line 37, next step, goto start"

[wind spade]

yeah, but you actually need to understand how the pulses work and stuff. I just... split until I have enough

[earnest glen]

junctions work as mergers/splitters, so as long as you have headlift/capacity in pipe just connect machinery

[remote ice]

look, we're in a highly technicaly factory building game where normal gameplay already involves a great deal of technical planning and at least some math. You can only do so much. Asking for basic programming skills for a optional thing that some especially technical users choose to do is not much.

if you just want everything to be fed, you're not going to use perfect ratio splitters at all. You're just going to manifold it

but clearly, some fraction of people want this stuff and use this stuff and design this stuff and understand this stuff, because there are entire in-depth pages on the community wiki dedicated to it.

[wind spade]

you got it wrong again... I'm not saying it doesn't fit. I'm just saying it is harder to grasp and more complex to build a balancer with circuit network than it is to build just with splitters...

[remote ice]

it's really not, it's basic programming and logic

[lapis jay]

yeah i didn't have any doubts with fluid physics but with what should be the best ratio of products out of 360 crude oil. What resources are more necessary to get early on

[wind spade]

basic programming and logic is still more complex than basic multiplication

[remote ice]

you're not designing a functional microcontroller here, the logic behind a ratio-perfect splitter is not that bad for likely implementations

and again, this is adding functionality that doesn't exist anywhere else. Your basic multiplication splitters are only perfect ratio as they approach infinity, and that's leaving aside issues with splitters. Some people want more than that and they can't get more than that as-is.

[earnest glen]

well, if not planning ahead you could do roughly same amount of plastic/rubber. Rubber is a thing in many alt-recipes, but all depends on what you want to build next, so is hard to choose which item needs priority

[lapis jay]

hmm i see

fair

[wind spade]

I'd just leave the oil until I know how much I need exactly

[uncut sigil]

For the inital setup I'd say err on the side of plastic as it's needed for manufacturers. Other than that, adjust to what you have the most recipe need for.

[wind spade]

plan backwards, not forwards

[earnest glen]

in a certain way i'm on same boat, but with all alt-recipes unlocked. So from 1200 oil i'm gonna do 1800/min of each and then connect a train to oil factory to deliver products where needed

[lapis jay]

i mean is a temporary setup until i have trains, once i do. I will move the production to the coast leading to the rocky desert, as right now im in the desert cannyons

So yeah thanks for the help! all the tips from all of you were very helpful :D

[uncut sigil]

The coast? As in the spire coast? Maybe delay that project by a bit 🙂

[lapis jay]

no the other side

where the islands are

i know the spire coast is gonna get completely changed

[uncut sigil]

Ah, Gold coast. All good then 🙂

[lapis jay]

yep

[thorn bane]

oh imagine
circuit network that disables freshwater pump for aluminum if the buffer is >50%
so the recycled water gets priority
no more stupid fluid dynamic bugs that just break your alu factory for no apparent reason

definitely seems easier to do than designing a VIP on your own

[lapis jay]

I mean you could also use that used water for wet concrete

And sink it

[wind spade]

or for anything else (pure recipes, generators) and don't even sink it

[lapis jay]

Yea true

[median heath]

Designing VIP junctions is difficult?

[lapis jay]

What is VIP junctions btw?

[median heath]

Bottom pipe has flow priority and top will add only if bottom pipe can fit more.

So if you're recycling the Aluminium water byproduct you use them to have Water Extractors adding more without backing the system up.

And if you do them without adjusting the Extractor, it automatically turns off when the top pipe is full. 🤷‍♂️

[frosty owl]

Answer to both: output them. User will have to deal with the "overflow"

[wicked tinsel]

due to how primitive the game is overall, i dont think factorio's circuit network would fit at all

there is nothing to control really, maybe only water input into alu production

the only thing i could potentially see as controllable is disabling nuclear powerplants when they idle

[burnt wraith]

like biomass burners?

[wicked tinsel]

yeah

current design is pretty damn bad

[burnt wraith]

I think a lot of people prefer consistency over efficiency

[wicked tinsel]

not sure what that means tbh

[burnt wraith]

for example sinking

some people use the sink to make sure the machines run 100% of the time

but when you sink items, you aren't using them for production

[wicked tinsel]

its a design problem that sole existence of sink produces

[earnest glen]

here i am.

[wicked tinsel]

concept of sink throws away large part of game and makes a lot of things trivial, imo

but its too late to fix design mistakes

[earnest glen]

well, it cope well with the infinite resources

[wicked tinsel]

imo, if getting rid of shit needs to be a core game mechanic, then it should be delegated and limited to space elevator

then it would actually make sense setting wise and offer for interesting factory designs

[burnt wraith]

I think the sink should stay as is

[remote flame]

Once you cap every node in the game, sink all the outputs. Satisfactory cookie clicker, watch the numbers soar and get doggo statue along the way

[oblique hollow]

the alternative to sink is everthing people did before: store all the shit and then empty containers

[burnt wraith]

you can let things back up, and when they are needed they start flowing again

[oblique hollow]

i mean, a lot of people's solution to clogs isnt "let me reuse this somewhere "

its to drag it in the trash can

due to endless resources alone, there is simply no incentive to recycle things normally.

package and unpackage is a different story, as thats continuous

[remote ice]

hmm. Well, i'm certainly finding some interesting things here

but not yet how to get the full 1200 items/s out of a miner

[median heath]

You can't without cheating.

[remote ice]

you can with cheating? What is 'cheating' exactly?

[burnt wraith]

take them out by hand of course

[median heath]

Mods or Save Editing.

[remote ice]

ah, yeah i agree those feel like cheating

[median heath]

1200 was set before they knew that 780 would have issues.

[remote ice]

ofc with mods i could just add a 400000 item/sec belt or something

[median heath]

So it will be addressed prior to 1.0

[remote ice]

i think there's, possibly, a way to get the 1200 items out though. It's just tricky

[median heath]

Not without cheating.

[oblique hollow]

base game (no editors, nothing) its not possible

[remote ice]

well hear out my thought process here. If i can find a way to put a splitter directly onto the miner:

that might get you the full output. There's no belt in the way to limit throughput

[burnt wraith]

what we are saying is that you can't

[remote ice]

and i get that, but what i'm saying is i'm searching for glitches that will allow it, and i've found things that at least seem to be along the right track

[frank mesa]

I hear an idea for a mod

[burnt wraith]

what we are saying is that aren't glitches that will allow it

[shadow prairie]

Ask for mods over at the [official modding discord](#welcome message). - <3 @median heath

May 31, 2022, 3:43 PM

[median heath]

^ @frank mesa

[remote ice]

you're sure? because i've found a way to stick a splitter at the beginning of a belt leading in to the miner

which results in very strange things like overlapping belts, but no max output yet

[frank mesa]

You should have pinged Buggy 😉

[burnt wraith]

putting splitters on a belt is fundamentally different from putting splitters on a miner

[median heath]

Brain read it as "I have an idea". Mb

[earnest glen]

if there's a belt, and it must be somewhere, you're limited.

[oblique hollow]

you need to connect the splitter DIRECTLY to the miner. which you cannot

[median heath]

@remote ice again, it is something they are going to address in a future update.

[frank mesa]

Adding an extra output on the Mk3 miner is one of the options being looked at

The other is rebalancing everything

[wicked tinsel]

at very least, there should be no reward for shredding stuff imho

[oblique hollow]

i mean if it wasnt called the sink but the "Ficsit Item Exchange Booth" where you "trade" items for coupons, wouldn't it be the same?

where you fill up a meaningless "research" bar

[wicked tinsel]

nah

imo, it should be integrated with space elevator

then it adds a reason to have interbase network, it actually adds an use to elevator

and adds possibility to play the animation more than 3 times

and is consistent with game theme too

[oblique hollow]

endless elevator parts or similar are still a possibility

[frank mesa]

Elevator parts for coupons

[wicked tinsel]

it would also add reason why waste cant be deleted, which is completely arbitrary in current design

[ornate shoal]

what if space elevator worked like current sink and sink would just allow shredding items for no points

[wicked tinsel]

yeah, that also works

currently, game is somewhat designed around sink so you cant really do anything about it anymore

its too late to remove shredder

[frank mesa]

You could still have a overflow that way for powerplants, when the resin backs up it gets shredded

[ornate shoal]

i don't think it's too late

[oblique hollow]

sink is an interesting design decision.
what CAN be done however is restrict more items later on from getting sunk

like.... maybe exclude all elevator parts?

[wicked tinsel]

you cant even make turbofuel without sink

its super integrated into game design

[oblique hollow]

wrong, its just much harder because nobody ever wants to deal with polymer resin

everyone regards it as trash

unless they WANT the plastic or rubber

[wicked tinsel]

you literally cant do anything with polymer resign if you just want power

[oblique hollow]

yeah. so use it for production elsewhere

[wicked tinsel]

you can convert it into plastic which gives you .. other thing to shred

[frank mesa]

I actually use the resin for rubber and plastic 😂

[wicked tinsel]

sure, i do so too

but this isnt feasible without shredder anyway

[oblique hollow]

i mean....
"which gives you X which you can make into other parts you can then shredd" is still 90% of everything

[wicked tinsel]

since if your main factory stops working for some reason, your power will crash

[frank mesa]

But there's a smart splitter and sink involved

[wicked tinsel]

ye

[oblique hollow]

a limit on the amount of sinks you can build would be.... interesting

[wicked tinsel]

sure, you would like to prioritize plastic from power plant, but .. there is no priority merger 😄

[oblique hollow]

but thats not before 1.0

[wicked tinsel]

well played

[burnt wraith]

90% of things can run by themselves even if everything else is backed up

[oblique hollow]

wrong for 90% of stuff above tier 4

since there you enter byproduct land

buuut it does show that resin deserves more love

[burnt wraith]

not if you build it a certain way

[oblique hollow]

which will hopefully be fixed with that recipe overhaul/rebalance they plan

[burnt wraith]

I wish you could turn resin into coke

[oblique hollow]

alternative: just feed that plastic 1 to 1 to whatever needs it and DONT mix it with other plastic

[earnest glen]

argh! When/Where? I missed this one

[oblique hollow]

Priority merger is the same kind of cheap-out solution that a sink is to overflow

[wicked tinsel]

imho, the root problem is, a lot of people., you included, only think about end result and never process of getting to it

if your end result is 100% efficient factory and you will build it in one go, then obviously, none of this matters

[frank mesa]

I actually find resin could use a bit more attention, it does yield a fair amount of rubber/plastic, especially when used to feed recycled rubber/plastic, it's also where one really needs to get the numbers right

[wicked tinsel]

but this is also how we got to the point that nuclear powerplants run at 100% efficiency always

[oblique hollow]

which begs the question of do you REALLY want to force players into having to connect everything back to the space elevator from the get go.

Because i only see multiple elevator or structures that connect to it as a valid option

[frank mesa]

In a combined power and rubber plastic plant

[wicked tinsel]

and you are forced to build ahead

[oblique hollow]

if we wanna talk about the inbetween steps, then yea
what are you gonna do about that poly resin if sinks arent a thing?

container sure works for.... however long

until you find a use for the resin

[wicked tinsel]

honestly, i would add more recipes that use it for something

its resin, so use it for some glued * recipes

[oblique hollow]

that i agree, resin is underused

[wicked tinsel]

glued frame, glued plate, glued whatever

[oblique hollow]

always has been

but that also means that you now start with the heavy interconnection again

now you need to to stuff with the glued whatevers

[wicked tinsel]

the other solution would be to have some basic oil processing that doesnt make resin

[burnt wraith]

that exists

[wicked tinsel]

less efficient but still working

[oblique hollow]

no. you will never take resin away from meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[wicked tinsel]

also tbh

[oblique hollow]

heavy oil i can see being easy, because coke

[wicked tinsel]

resin seem like rather outlandish thing

[oblique hollow]

its not that abstract

[wicked tinsel]

i dont recall oil processing in real world producing something like this

[burnt wraith]

the basic oil -> plastic+HOR doesn't give resin

[wicked tinsel]

sulfur yeah, but resin?

[oblique hollow]

there is petroleum resin

and that is a thing that gets left behind from distillation of fuels, afaik

not the same, buuut resin

[median heath]

@oblique hollow when you can check dms and tell me if I am an idiot or not it would be appreciated.

[oblique hollow]

yes, ill get to that

[median heath]

If I am right it gives me a bunch of ideas..

[oblique hollow]

here

[wicked tinsel]

i mean

[oblique hollow]

its a bit of a reach with the polymer part

classic dyno

[oblique hollow]

oh i know that chart

and its not complete

its a simplification

[wicked tinsel]

well yeah

[oblique hollow]

of course it leaves out all the details

[wicked tinsel]

but out of all things that could be produced, they went for some random stuff 😄

[oblique hollow]

asphalt is a choice of course

but i guess they wanted a split between heavy fractions and light fractions

The Fuel Recipe correlates to the diesel fraction. which leaves (probably) light fractions like naphta and such

aaaaaand naphtha, with some more processing, yields polymers

so i guess resin is simply their "light oil fraction but solid" solution

and they ditched sulfur cuz sulfur nodes

and making sulfur only from oil would make oil even more of a pain than it needs to be

severs that interconnection some more

if they went with real numbers, 95% of oil would only be fuel power anyway

all things considered, making resin is no magic

its a complex process compressed down into one machine

because no we do not want to get into real refinery stuff

[wicked tinsel]

i mean, yeah, that might had been it

or, given that its a factorio clone, they probably tried to clone the oil processing from factorio, that used to produce stuff you had to store for time being (ie. what heavy oil is here)

but then factorio discovered that its a crap design and changed it, and we got left with old design

[oblique hollow]

you do not have to store heavy oil. Did you forget coke exists?

they rather went with a different approach than factorio

they compressed the plastic production part, but gave us a more realistic bottoms distillation part

heavy oil to coke or fuel

and you can burn the coke in coal gens

which is, from what i can tell, the intended solution before you unlock fuel gens

Oil to Plastic Rubber, Heavy Oil to Coke, make Power

and that makes sense realistically too

or of course using coke for aluminum or steel

while factorio went with the simplified route of
) Gas Oil
) Naphtha
) LFG (or simply Refinery Gas in general)

Satis went with multiple choices

1. Condensed light fractions (Plastic / Rubber) plus gas oil
   -) Gas Oil then going into Coke or Diesel, we even have a Hydrocracking Recipe (Diluted Fuel)
2. Diesel plus condensed light fractions (Resin)

overall, having played both now, i vastly prefer Satis Oil.
Factorio Oil is rather monotonous. Yea it has Coal Liquefaction, which is cool, but its not necessary for us

[wind spade]

which will make the feature pretty much unusable 🤷‍♂️ also what if the proper connection isn't connected? e.g. you want to output solid items but there's no outgoing belt?

[stray pagoda]

Someone who has done the math, how much does 1 packaged liquid is worth; context: to create 10 fused frames you need like we 1250000 (give or take a 0) I have packaged nitrogen but how many tanks is 1250000

[proven prawn]

312,500 nitrogen tanks, assuming my math is right

[stray pagoda]

Yeah exactly lol that's not it

I think I used around 100?

Honestly not sure, that's why I'm asking for someone who already may know

[proven prawn]

opps its 240 to 1 ration lmao

i was looking at the bottom number only lmao

[stray pagoda]

So you telling me that 1 tank has "240 nitrogen gas"when it comes to the to do list?

[burnt wraith]

I thought 1 package was 1m^3

[stray pagoda]

Yeah yeah

But in the to do list, if you add a fused frames

It will show this huge number

[burnt wraith]

and I thought 1 fused frame was 25 nitrogen

[stray pagoda]

Yes when you see it in the blender

[oblique hollow]

all machines do math in Liters ( 1000 Liters is 1 m³)

[burnt wraith]

so 10 would be 250 packages?

[stray pagoda]

Ah so there's the answer

1 tank is 1000

When it comes to the to do list

[oblique hollow]

for packaged gas, one tank is 4000 liters

it compresses gas

[burnt wraith]

ah

[stray pagoda]

God

[oblique hollow]

instead of the usual 1 m³ its 4 m³

[stray pagoda]

Liquids are dumb

[oblique hollow]

fluids*

[stray pagoda]

Lmao

[oblique hollow]

[proven prawn]

right so my math was right as 80 tanks supply 320 a minute, so 1250000m3 of liquid nitrogen would be the number i stated, not that it matters as there isnt that much nitrogen on the map

though 10 requires the 320 or 80 tanks so idk where they got that number from hmmm

[wintry lily]

Anyone use paper and pen to make their own calculations or do most people use online tools? I prefer the idea of doing things myself. Making my own tables of items as and when I encounter them so I don't get overwhelmed

[burnt wraith]

I think a 1 got dropped in by mistake

[burnt wraith]

I did that in my first playthrough for space elevator parts

though it was handwriting on a tablet not strictly pen and paper

[wintry lily]

I'll be using Excel so it's more a figure of speech than a literal 🙂

I'm at beginning and now calculating how to create a small but efficient rotor factory now that I have thousands of screws and rods.

[remote ice]

huh. So looking at the Cooling System recipes, isn't Cooling Device basically a straight downgrade?

costs more heatsinks, costs a motor per Cooling System instead of 2 rubber...

only upside is less nitrogen required and no water required

and nitrogen is kinda plentiful

[oblique hollow]

not really

12000 m³/min max from what i remember.

and most recipes consume straight up 240/min or 120/min

[remote ice]

hmm. I guess it does have lower WP on the wiki. Still seems like a lot of iron usage, though

[wind spade]

prefer it, so I guess it is part of more resource efficient path 🤷‍♂️

[proven prawn]

far more iron in the world than nitrogen, nitrogen is a more valuable and rare resource than iron.

[remote ice]

but iron is used for a lot of stuff. Nitrogen has three uses: This item, fused frames, and uranium reprocessing

[burnt wraith]

I just like it because no water

[remote ice]

yeah having to run 2x pipes is a bit of a headache

[thorn bane]

iron is super free cause of steel recipes
unless you use insane amounts of iron wire

[proven prawn]

but iron has ways to increase supply via the refinery recipes, so you can always get more, nitrogen has no way to increase the amounts beyond what is given in the world.

[remote ice]

that's fair i guess, refinery recipes are pretty great

if a little machine intensive

[proven prawn]

also look at thermal propulsion rocket, wont be able to get above a certain amount without cooling systems, thats one clear example in which the alt really shines

but like many recipes its a trade off, but in terms of other production lines the trade off can be worth it depending on end production goals

[thorn bane]

default is alot less buildings though

[frosty owl]

I don't see how that would render it unusable.

If no output is aviable, machine gives error and can't change recipe (kind of like it can't start a production cycle if output is full)

[proven prawn]

while true, in terms of overall production heat fused frames and cooling devices are better for making more thermal prolusion rockets, but yes you can consider additional building as part of the trade off

[wind spade]

because you can get item on output that wouldn't normally be able to go there

[frosty owl]

So what?

For all you know, one could be merging the output with the overflow from the inputs already anyway... There's such people like that...

Still, it's something very easy to account for. Just a but if overflow going "through a machine" instead of a splitter (getting rid of the internal buffer)

[proven prawn]

wait is this about sushi belts and using one item inputs for multiple input machines, because there is many clear reasons now why not to do that, like item dupping

well also because those systems were never stable even before that little feature was know, because of the other obvious reasons, now its just even more un-stable hmmmm

[wind spade]

it's about a system that could change recipe in a machine remotely (and how to deal with the excess items that are in the machine)

[proven prawn]

hmm so a theoretical scenario because that isnt possible anyways?

not to mention i can see absolutely no scenario why would want to do that

[wind spade]

was a discussion after a suggestion to add "something like factorio's circuit network"

[frosty owl]

About a detail of that idea, really.
I don't like the idea in general, but I'm arguing why I think that detail wouldn't be as much of an issue as greeny says

To me, that one point seemed pretty straight forward and not conflicting current game's design

[proven prawn]

well if one was to code it would be as simple as dumping the items into the output belts, but i cant see the real use case so idk why to implement it

about the only thing you could do without majorly changing the games design anyways

alternatively they could add additional internal item buffer and supply keep the items inside them, that would be a option also

[frosty owl]

You'd need more context to know why we're even talking about a machine duping inputs through its output...
Try following the chain replys

[proven prawn]

wait dont items dupped on splitters stay on the belt they are attached to🤔

[frosty owl]

"duping" as in "throwing away on a belt"

[proven prawn]

dont follow, there is no mechanism for simply discarding items on a belt that im aware

beyond the obvious sink method etc

[remote ice]

speaking of circuits, i had a interesting thought for a good usecase for them (that i can't do)

normally you build factories to make one thing or the other or some specific mix, right? Well, what if i wanted more flexibility. I want to be able to decide on-the-fly to make thermal propulsion rockets, or nuclear pasta, or 50/50 or 20/80 or etc

Well, if i want to do that switch with a set factory, i would have to rebuild half of the factory if i want optimal efficiency. I need to use different alt recipes everywhere to maximize production, because the products use different ratios of stuff.

Or, if circuits existed, I could get fancy and have all the alt-recipes already set up, and calculate and distribute resources to them on the fly...

[frosty owl]

☝️ this was what I was arguing about @proven prawn

[remote ice]

if we're comparing Satisfactory and Factorio, Factorio pretty much lacks alt recipes entirely. There's one best way to produce a thing. Satisfactory doesn't, so if you want maximum production from fixed resource inputs you gotta go switch around all the alt recipes to get as close to the required ratio as you can.

Circuits could let you do that.

[proven prawn]

well to attempt to answer this theoretical scenario, my previous suggestions would apply, and also would apply for splitter inventory, with additional coding so the machine would still accept those items for inputs and then either keep them in internal buffer or put them output buffer, so that logic follow to deal with that also

[frosty owl]

Holding them in inventory until the recipe using them is selected again would lead to unbalanced storing capacity

In other words: OP storaging

[remote ice]

why not just a "purge mode"

when you switch recipe, all items in the machine go out the output belts.

sorting them out of the output feed is up to the user

and if the hypothetical circuit network had a way to control programmable splitters, you could potentially get the inputs of the recipe from the machine and relay that to the splitter

[frosty owl]

It nothing new, really

[remote ice]

so if you switch a smelter from copper to iron, you detect the copper ore input via the circuit (or just preset it), set the programmable splitter on the output belt to filter copper ore to the side, switch the machine, it dumps both copper ingots and copper ore out the front, and then switches to iron ingot production

[oblique hollow]

the question is why EVER switch recipes

[remote ice]

giving people tools.

[oblique hollow]

for?

[remote ice]

for building factories

[frosty owl]

Factory auto-reprogramming, if I got things right

[oblique hollow]

tools for disaster it sounds like xd

[remote ice]

let us not speak of what LetsGameItOut would do with tools this powerful

that way lies madness

[oblique hollow]

the issue i have is this ignores all sense of ratios

[frosty owl]

probably wouldn't touch them

[oblique hollow]

you just essentially overbuild factories and then logic-mangle them together

[remote ice]

if you want to avoid doing math by doing 3x the work and a ton more math during the programming process, all the power to you

[oblique hollow]

on a scale of 1-10, how niche is this

cuz there are general tools and then there is the PhD Redstone Engineer tool
(middle grounds dont exist xd)

[remote ice]

hard to say, honestly. In general, circuits give you a general-use tool for doing stuff that's currently really hard. Namely, controlling parts of your factory intelligently based on other parts of the factory

[frosty owl]

There's general tools that allow some engineering (PS)

[remote ice]

like, as a really basic example, aluminium production. Circuits are a prime use case for controlling that water, and right now you gotta use this wonky thing based on really specific fluid physics to get it to work right.

[oblique hollow]

right, but the question is how generally useful are dynamic factories when you have mostly static in and outputs

[remote ice]

if logic-accessible machine recipes are the only feature of the circuit network, do not bother adding the circuit network

[frosty owl]

Why is it "wonky" if it works and follows the game's principles?

[remote ice]

this is not the reason to add a circuit network, it's a reason. It's one feature that would help build up a comprehensive and useful game mechanic

[oblique hollow]

because "pipe system bad, nobody understands why the VIP works. and how"

i dont get why the VIP works

it just works ™️

[frosty owl]

It's perfect

Though it needing to be almost always "picture perfect" can be a bit annoying

[remote ice]

also it's kinda bad if the devs make a minor change to fluid physics and risk breaking all aluminium production in every player's world

[oblique hollow]

they like doing that

its not like they shy away from breaking our factories

[remote ice]

fair

[frosty owl]

Game gotta better

[oblique hollow]

aluminum has many tools for the water though

wanna know the easiest and most accessible one?

overflow coal gens

you got coal or coke RIGHT there

feed part back, overflow to coal gen

coal has very limited use after steel anyway

ive never heard of someone running out of coal

[frosty owl]

Have you ever heard of someone running out of steel?

[oblique hollow]

also not

[remote ice]

though aluminium's not the only place you could use circuits. Circuits are good for anywhere you want to say "I want X to happen, but only if Y."
"I want to disable iron alloy ingot if i get low on copper because i took too much copper sheet from construction storage."
"I want this train to pick up from the Fine Concrete factory only if we have a excess of quartz crystal, otherwise go to the normal concrete factory"
etc

it's not something absolutely needed, no. You could technically get around those scenarios in a less flexible way, or just wait. But it's a new tool in a sandbox game, a tool that lets you do things you can't really do well with anything else. That's a good reason for it's existence.

[frosty owl]

Tbh, if it came down to that or this (https://questions.satisfactorygame.com/post/627e8451ca608e080350fe07) I'd choose "this" by a big margin

[slow falcon]

I translate this page on Wiki now, and I have one question to everyone, since this channel called "math..."
what the heck is "exponent factor"?!

[burnt wraith]

1.6 minus 1 is 0.6

[slow falcon]

so that's what it's. thanks

[proven prawn]

Me imaging they do something to fluid physics to break all existing VIP systems

and then everybody is like...so why is all of my production stopped and my water backing up, new feature time

[remote ice]

it is kinda funny to me how Aluminium is a shining example of those recipes that exist to make you delve into more complex resource sorting/prioritization mechanics, like how Kovarex Enrichment pushes you to use splitter priority stuff or circuits in Factorio

and then we have nothing like that for fluids at all so use fluid mechanic jankyness instead

[proven prawn]

well technically we did back in u2 when you could still use belts for liquids, but then that was changed in u3 so....

[analog valve]

Only locally. Steel is the resource that forces me to expand to new bases. Between my coal plant needs and steel I don’t have enough.

[median heath]

Anyone want to guess what flowrate distribution is?

Another fun one 🙂

Now THIS is interesting.

[boreal cypress]

you know, that you missed the bottom pipe in pic 2/3?

[median heath]

That's on purpose. Simulates that line being "full" so you're going into overflow mechanics.

Which is what makes 3 so interesting.

If the input is bottom and the bottom line fills, it bumps up BOTH LEVELS.
If the input iis mid and the bottom fills it just goes 600 through mid.

[proven prawn]

and soon to all be deprecated once u6 hits, as none of that is going to be used in linear overclocking

[stark bronze]

have they revealed their final stance on it yet

[proven prawn]

last stream snutt said they were going forward with it

[stark bronze]

grr streams

[proven prawn]

just breath and live in the twitch streams

[stark bronze]

marv to the rescue

[proven prawn]

ok fine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwXXV3e00eo happy now

[stark bronze]

already looking through all of it

[frosty owl]

You still can, it's just not the standard ^^

[vapid gorge]

Going ahead with what?

Oh overclock? Darn

[proven prawn]

why darn, it wont effect production and for anybody, especially people that are overclocking already you'll see power savings

[vapid gorge]

Pretty much everything in the game is a trade off, now there’s no reason to not.

[wind spade]

casual players have it easier to understand, but meta is now to always overclock rather than it being a decision between less space and less power

[proven prawn]

well they did say that overclocking was being under utilized, so that issue is now fixed

[wind spade]

so it went from "underutilised" to "you won't ever have extra shards"?

also I feel like it was in pretty good shape at that point

[proven prawn]

well u6 is about exploration, or in this case the new found quest to find all of the slugs for all of the power shards you now want

[oblique hollow]

you guys say that its the new meta, but will you all actually overclock everything? i doubt it

[wind spade]

not everything, but groups of machines that are >2.5 machines

[oblique hollow]

overclocking is reappy now just a way to compress huge setups.

and that taking shards is fine imo

"i dont wanna build that much" so you overclock now

[wind spade]

shards are still infinite though right?

[oblique hollow]

but keep in mind that belt limits exist

[oblique hollow]

yeah but at what rate do dogs generate those

[wind spade]

no idea 🤷‍♂️

[oblique hollow]

then its about darn time someone finds out

if its one shard for every x hours on average, and you have like 6 dogs, i dont consider that op

it just means you cant always overclock when you want to

because no way will you ever have all the shards you need right when you need them

[proven prawn]

thats about right, slugs from doggo's aren't that common, also why you want to tame a decent amount of doggo's to be able to get any amount of slugs per hour out of them.

[remote ice]

meanwhile... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GOt2sMT52o

(funnily enough, i don't so much want it for building less. I'm overclocking everything for performance's sake - 2.5x less machines, 2.5x less belts (ish), etc)

[oblique hollow]

aaaand how many hours did that take to make?

from 126 doggos

[remote ice]

i left it on while i slept last night and got about 1,400 of those

[oblique hollow]

1400 shards for.... 6? 8? hours of continous game uptime

completely ignoring the tike it takes to find and gather all doggos of course

[vapid gorge]

Wait, how did you get them from doggos without manually grabbing them

[remote ice]

by 'manually' grabbing them with a big autohotkey script

[wind spade]

I'd consider that "modded" tbh

[oblique hollow]

ah yes, "automation"

[vapid gorge]

Ah

[remote ice]

i mean, if devs want to add a feature where the only automation method is external mouse and keyboard...

[oblique hollow]

and yes scripts are external tools, so this isnt a true vanilla experience

[remote ice]

eh, it's as close to automated in vanilla as possible then

[oblique hollow]

how long did it take to set this up

[bronze barn]

Do I even want to know how you'd go about getting them there

[vapid gorge]

I just added hundreds of them in SCIM. Cbf manually doggo farming

[remote ice]

uhhh, hard to say honestly, lemme check my saves

[oblique hollow]

also, you spend 8 hours of doing nothing for this. which is a pretty big investment just to later overclock 466 machines

so im. not sure anyone would do this

[wind spade]

there's so many people that afk every night

[oblique hollow]

yeah but setting up autoscripts

its your issue honestly if you prefer wasting irl power for funny game points

[remote ice]

finding and retrieving all the lizard doggos on the map took approximately 31 hours of gameplay. Additionally, 3-4 days of coding and wrangling modding tools to create a map of all lizard doggos to actually find them.

Setting up the farm, coding the AHK script... probably not more than another 10 hours?

[oblique hollow]

roughly 80 hours then

[remote ice]

i am going to utilize every ore node on the map. With pure ore recipes. My PC literally could not run this if i went without overclocking.

doing this is cheaper than buying a $3,000 dollar gaming rig that could handle it

[oblique hollow]

just to get 3 shards / min

[wind spade]

the "map of all doggos" step is one-time though. Now it's available for people so it's not a cost

[remote ice]

that was the intent

[oblique hollow]

if we go by all this, a doggo roughly generates 0.02 shards / min

thats just assuming you get 1400 shards every 8 hours

which of course all depends on what Buggy's sleeping habits are

[bronze barn]

I mean sure, if you're already afk'ing your 8 hours a night, it's better to do that

[remote ice]

^

[bronze barn]

But I'd honestly rather just exit and close the game

[oblique hollow]

yeah ill never bother with doggo farms

[remote ice]

again, hard computational limits

[wind spade]

tbh if you're at the point where you want to play SF as idle game, I'd rather just spawn the required resources in via a save editor or something

[oblique hollow]

and neither will the common player

im never going to reach any kind of game limit either

[remote ice]

this is not just to save building time, this is so i can actually physically build the factory i want to build. This was all a required step.

[oblique hollow]

so for a majority of players, infinite shards dont exist and linear OC is nice, but shards are still exploration stuff

all in all this is neat for everyone and people with large saves will do anything to serve the machine and keep it working

soooo i actually see no nothing wrong with linear OC

[frosty owl]

If your time also is...

[frosty owl]

When I had 13 I got a slug nearly everytime I checked. It's annoying to check that many every 15 min though, over 10 one should separate them i to different pens or it gets hard to manage

[slow falcon]

holy shit, I forgot about it😭

[frosty owl]

I do that too... when stuff needs testing

[median heath]

Yes.

[oblique hollow]

good luck with your 1 Slug per Hour doggo farm.

[remote flame]

As long as you all are overclocking oil nodes, you will pass as normal. The sociopaths underclock them 👀

[oblique hollow]

i do neither

chaotic neutral

[median heath]

That's neutral

Chaotic neutral is under and over clocking all of them but it still has the same output total as if you didnt.

[dull bolt]

I'm probably more to the Chaotic evil...

[thorn bane]

yo thoughts about a setup like this for alu?
it limits the bauxite intake to 300/min and then smart splits it to a recycled water refinery and overflow to a freshwater refinery
this way if there is for some reason more water in the buffer, then the recycled water refinery will take all the bauxite, starving the freshwater refinery, resulting in a net negative water system

[frosty owl]

Seems familiar
Should work as detailed 👍

[thorn bane]

hm? ive never seen this setup with the smart splitter
i might start doing this instead of a VIP just incase they change something about it

[frosty owl]

I'm a bit familiar with that refining area

[boreal cypress]

whats a VIP?

[thorn bane]

that setup on the right
its described here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MdZ8Xr8P_SF_FL7B6WDjCZGS-x9Cwt-x/view

[remote ice]

are there performance reasons to use <MK5 belts? Do they tick less often or something like that?

[frosty owl]

I think it would make sense for low-tier belts to require a bit less CPU-power than high-tier ones (for the same items/min)...

||(Speculation) additionally, since items would spend less time in/out of splitters with high tier belts, using all MK5 might help against the duplication bug on load.||

[proven prawn]

Need to test that soon

[mint sedge]

I have a recycled rubber plant, and wanted to build a "priority merger" of sorts so that the plant output only feeds back into the input when there is a shortage of rubber coming from the polymer resin refineries. Otherwise the rubber output would 'overflow' and continue as output.

I have implemented this with a cascading series of splitters and mergers, a bit like we used to make for overflow splitters before we got Smart Splitters.

Is there another way to do this? This idea being that I want the max. fuel to be consumed, so that those blenders don't back up the HOR refineries and crimp my coke production

[burnt wraith]

a container is a priority merger but you are bottlenecked to 2 belts

[storm crown]

I like smart splitters but until you get them decrease or increase production in buildings to not have overflow

[boreal cypress]

how is it a priority merger?

[burnt wraith]

one input has priority over the other

[mint sedge]

Thank you. Two belts works for this size plant

[sand epoch]

Wouldnt just sticking a SS on each of the 2 feed lines solve this?

[mint sedge]

You still need to merge the lines, and they merge 50:50 from each belt.

[sand epoch]

Right, and when it backs up the SS will overflow regardless of source. Problem solved

[mint sedge]

Ah I'm with you now, have both overflow and not care which source the rubber originally came from (recycled or polymer resin)

Thanks!

[oblique hollow]

no it isnt

container rules are absolutely inconsistent

[frosty owl]

Funny how spinning the problem around a bit easily offers new solutions 😆

[wind spade]

the container won't work for your case, it doesn't have a fixed priority, it can change randomly at any point, so it shouldn't be relied upon

[frosty owl]

ISCs can actually be used to make reliable priority mergers (the on/off kind, no 99.99% priority shenanigans). Need at least 2 containers and a couple splitters + mergers for one contraption iirc

[wind spade]

how? 🤔

[frosty owl]

I'm a bit lazy right now... Could you try looking it up on Reddit? 😅
Iirc the title included "priority merging" and either "ISC" or "CONTAINER"...

[wind spade]

only "reliable" priority merger I know of is using vehicles/trains

[wind spade]

just did, that relies on "ISC have priority output", which isn't true

[frosty owl]

It is, for both input and output. I had to take that into account when priority-merging ("traditionally") stuff back to ISCs for unloading stations

That just adds a few extra steps

[wind spade]

well... it does have some priority, but the priority is semi-random and can change when loading/saving/lagging

basically it depends on load/save order, build order, belt mk and some other stuffs, at least based on tests that were done for that

[frosty owl]

I haven't noticed changes (I also never touched that beltwork after setting it)
Nor were they mentioned in the post

[wind spade]

and given that you need a priority merger in places where not merging properly would break your factory, I wouldn't rely on a contraption that may break.

[frosty owl]

To give an example: some of my priotiy-merged lines needed an overflow to be added so that I priority-merged on both ISCs input (bottom had priority for me), others were fine with the single priority input (throughput reasons). If the priority changed, the latter I mentioned would risk backing up due to too little merging power "

[wind spade]

from wiki

An Industrial Storage Container usually prefers the belt that is built first, but it can switch priority after a save-load. As it does not balance either the inputs or outputs, this can lead to strange behavior and unevenly dispensed items.

[mint sedge]

I like Zedisious' solution (smart splitters on input and output, works in this case as it's the same part). Also it handles overflow in case of the input backing up, and also helps start the system by priming all of the output back to the input until the input buffers are full. It's quite elegant

[wind spade]

another way to do "priority input" is to just have the input go straight into buildings

so e.g. for residual rubber, you just put that rubber directly into X refineries making recycled plastic (X being the exact amount you need)

that way you have guaranteed that the rubber will be always processed (as long as you have fuel ofc)

[mint sedge]

The issues in my case are they I can't have the resin or fuel back up. By using the overflow above I can be sure that the rubber plant will consume both rubber and fuel at its maximum rate

[wind spade]

well with my solution you could also prioritise fuel to the machines that need priority 🙂

[proven prawn]

yeah thats what i thought, thats why i never used isc's for priority merger and instead used the 99.999% stuff, sure that 0.001% will get through but its reliable and always works.

[wind spade]

or you can use trains for 100% 😛

[proven prawn]

wait what, hows that work?🤔

[wind spade]

three train stations. One loads items, two unload. Train loads everything it can in first station and overflow gets unloaded to second station. Priority merger works very similarly (two load, one unload station)

[proven prawn]

im not sure im 100% following but i think the idea is one train station is the priority and the unloading logic could be exploited so only one train ever can unload somehow, not exactly sure how I would set it up though, though it seems like it would useful for my usage cases in which the priority merge is always at full capacity anyways, aka always fun, and then i would just have to figure out how to properly setup the train logic for the unloading and loading and trains to get the proper behavior maybe hmmm

[wind spade]

there's one train that loops through those three stations

[still trout]

or, maybe, just 1 smart splitter to do the job?

[wind spade]

yeah, this was more for priority merge

which is the same thing just inversed

two loading stations, one unloading

[proven prawn]

I would setup it like low priority input station 1, high priority station two, unload station, the high priority would be a full unload and wait operation, the low priority would do a full unload or wait operation, the waiting conditions i think would be critical to getting it work properly, because it would make the low priority never be able to unload, aka the system is already in full saturation and the high priority can always as the and operation on the waiting condition forces it to always do so

i think in theory that would allow a 100% priority merger hmmm

[wind spade]

I think just this with no specific conditions for trains would work as well 🤔

[proven prawn]

hmmm i dont think so, because if the low priority was set to full unload and wait, the low priority would go into the, lets call it priority output station, aka the items you dont to into the line if its already saturated, remember for priority mergers you want all of one line to be used before the other, so setting the proper waiting conditions with and/or waiting conditions would be key to getting proper behavior

[wind spade]

there's just one output 🤔

[proven prawn]

aye but remember we would have to have two trains one for each station to get proper behavior and we cant have them having the same waiting conditions for unloading, otherwise we dont get the priority merging behavior we are looking for.

[wind spade]

no, there's just one train

[proven prawn]

hmmm then i totally dont understand how that would work, as all of the items would be getting unloaded then

[wind spade]

priority input (load) -> underflow input (load) -> output (unload)

the point is that if the train is full from first load, it doesn't load anything in the second station

so it only loads in second station if the first station fails to provide enough items

[proven prawn]

hmmm so there would be two setup options in this case that would both work🤔

yours does seem to be better overall though as it reduced complexity and only requires one train hmmmm

[wind spade]

it works on manifold-like functionality, the train gets full, output station gets full and only the required amount is unloaded to output, hence only the required amount is loaded in the input

[proven prawn]

hmm yeah that would do it alright for a priority merger with trains at 100% it looks like, a simple and elegant design that does the job, though its main downside is of course its size because it requires trains, but for setups that need 100% priority mergers that would be a definite solution to the problem hmmm

[wind spade]

you can also use vehicles instead of trains

[analog valve]

Good idea. It would make good sense at the smaller scale of belt distribution. I could go through a bunch of dumb splitters and the last one in series goes to an overflow

I’m going to try this. I have a spot where I overproduce a few resources and wasn’t doing well balancing

[median heath]

Fluid Dynamics Testing

@oblique hollow Tell me if there is anything we didn't already know 🤷‍♂️
Going to do the same tests with mk1's then upload all of those.

[crude coyote]

you should really do a Youtube video with that

[median heath]

Eh. The summary basically comes to "mk1s behave better when doing variable output"

Mk2's are fully capable of pushing 600 though.

Could make a fun reddit post though...

Need to test some VIP stuff because this is all VOP setup.

Oh this is a fun interaction!!

First 2 images after VIP.

[crude coyote]

are you telling me... my Mk2 VIPs have never worked 😮

[median heath]

Depends on how you do them?

This is testing double-junction setup.

Not having 2 junctions changes how they work. (Will get to that in a bit)

@crude coyote found out why it happens. Photo uploaded.

[oblique hollow]

please ping Slechtvalk with that statement

[boreal cypress]

@proven prawn wasnt the name slechtvalk before?

[oblique hollow]

right, that i knew. double junction behaves different to single.

and you also confirmed and tested that vertical and horizontal junction is different

wait.....
this all gave me an idea

something i should have tested before

[median heath]

?

[wind spade]

in factorio it's at least needed. in satisfactory it usually isn't

[oblique hollow]

priority merging is a luxury

[remote ice]

its not 45 degrees, IT'S NOT 45 DEGREES

oh wait i flipped the angles

All better. Except for NOT BEING A RIGHT 45 DEGREE ANGLE MY BUILDS AAAAAA

[median heath]

?

90 = right angle.

[remote ice]

seriously though, there goes my plan of nestling a wall up against those borders and building there. I guess the northern ocean is still all right angles and free real estate

[versed violet]

You wouldn't be able anyway, because we're limited to 10deg rotations, so either 40 or 50 degrees.

[Joking, we can now do a 45 degree turn on foundations]

[remote ice]

Good news though, the other one is basically 45 degrees

[swift robin]

omg THIS SO MUCH

[vapid gorge]

Is the thing on omniman's face a factorio thing?

[swift robin]

it's the factorio splitter, a wonderful machine

you can set both priority inputs AND priority outputs

[boreal cypress]

ez, compact and have alot of functions

[swift robin]

the satisfactory splitter is pathetic in comparison

[boreal cypress]

dont forget how long it took that the splitter in factorio have those options

[swift robin]

dont forget satisfactory devs could have just followed the example but noooo

[vapid gorge]

You gotta work for your priority output/inputs.

[swift robin]

actually no

the devs need to

[tropic hawk]

AAARRRGGHHH!!!!! WHY DID YOU SHOW THIS?!?!?!

[tropic hawk]

#satisfactory-memes

[vapid gorge]

More of a reply to the omni man one above XD

[analog valve]

I can do something like this with smart splitter, no?

[vapid gorge]

I think with an extremely complicated set up of splitters and belts? Depends what you want to do I think.
I've seen some set ups for something thats probably similar and I find it an interesting thought problem to solve but I think there are very few instances where it's not much simpler to avoid the situation entirely

[fresh mesa]

I am debating on oc'ing to 200 % on a pure coal node to feed more than 8 gens. How much can I attach to it? 12?

although honestly, I have currently 8 gens being fed by 4 WE on a normal OC 200% node. Once I have the 8 filled up, can I not add a couple more?

[vapid gorge]

You need so much power in the game that I don't see the point to NOT overclock coal miners to max out your highest belt speed

having 64 coal gens before hitting fuel is a pretty solid number I find

[fresh mesa]

64 damn...

[vapid gorge]

That's nothing tbh. It sounds like you haven't started using refineries yet?

[fresh mesa]

not in this playthrough but it's been ages since I played i might as well be playing fresh. I'm setting up coal gens atm

steel is my next stop

[vapid gorge]

Ah yeah fair. Well 1 coal generator can do 2.5 refineries. Which isn't much. So finding an area away from your main base and just spamming coal gens is a pretty good project.

Grassy fields?

[fresh mesa]

Jungle but I expanded out into desert

[vapid gorge]

... so ... northern forest start?

[fresh mesa]

there's one pure and 2 normal nodes near me

yeah

[vapid gorge]

ah yeah the ones on a small lake with cliff sides?

[fresh mesa]

that's the one

[vapid gorge]

Hmmm that should be 3 pure 1 normal there. Must be thinking of a nother spot

[fresh mesa]

What I don't understand is why my last two gens are struggling to fill

[vapid gorge]

are your 3 water extractors using only 1 pipe?

[fresh mesa]

water isn't the problem, it's coal

[vapid gorge]

You might have a lower mk belt segment somewhere

or you might not have clocked your miner right

[fresh mesa]

it's clocked at 120 ppm on a normal node

[vapid gorge]

highlight every belt section. mk1 belt might be the trouble

it's very common

[fresh mesa]

they're all mark 2, lift is mk 2 as well. The first three belt sections are full but somehow the last is slacking behind

https://i.imgur.com/msdxDyC.jpeg

[vapid gorge]

how long has it been running?

[fresh mesa]

about an hour now. maybe I need to manually fill them up?

[vapid gorge]

Hmm even the most complex manifolds tend to not take much more than 30 minutes I think.
are the power generators shutting on and off?

like the 2 end ones?

[fresh mesa]

yeah

[vapid gorge]

ok well fill the last few manually, then come back and check if you're still having issues after it ran awhile

if they end up starving again then there's a deeper, probably really simple problem happening

If it's stlil a problem build an observation tower and take some arial shots. Easier to troubleshoot

[fresh mesa]

yeah

[frosty owl]

10 coupons on a b2b issue

[vapid gorge]

Oh.. nah I doubt it. It seems like a very small manifold. Doubt there are many b2bs to cause a significant enough issue

[frosty owl]

If they need 120 coal/min and the input is a MK2 belt and there's not water issues... That sounds quite definitive to me ^^

[weak helm]

Hello everyone! I want to discuss overclocking math once and for all. It should result in a power consumption function F(clock speed).
First of all we should decide what we want. My opinion:
0. F(1) = 1

1. Balanced setup should be optimal : F(1)+F(0.5) > 2*F(0.75), i.e. function should be convex.
2. Underloaded machine is better to be underclocked. For example, if machine works only half of the time : 0.5*F(1)+0.5*F(0) > F(0.5)
3. This means F(0) > 0. Stuck machine is not equal to turned off machine. It still uses some power.
4. This means Underclocked machine spamming should be inefficient : F(1) < 2*F(0.5). It's an interesting conclusion.
5. I suppose (4) should also be true for OC > 1. I.e. overclocked machines should be more efficient?
   What do you think?
   Accepting all of the above, EXP(OC-1) is a very good function:
   0% 37%
   10% 41%
   50% 61%
   100% 100%
   150% 165%
   200% 272%
   250% 448%

[wind spade]

F(0) is invalid, because F is defined only for range of 1-250

(or 0.01-2.5)

[weak helm]

Zero OC is a stuck machine. And also a Limit of underclocking. F(0.01) ~ F(0).

[wind spade]

stuck machine != oc to 0

stuck machine can still be clocked to whatever clock speed you want, but it doesn't use the clock speed formula to calculate it's consumption

[oblique hollow]

Zero OC = disabled machine, basically

[weak helm]

Why not? We can define it this way. But I agree it's discussable. Your oppinion?

[wind spade]

it's not discussable if in game code/data there's literally defined property for "consumption when machine is stuck" 😛

[oblique hollow]

defined minimum is 0.1 MW

[wind spade]

technically every machine can have it different

but currently none has (afaik)

[oblique hollow]

yeah but they didnt bother

what is different between every machine however is idle time

constructor has like 0 seconds, refinery has like 6 seconds

[weak helm]

We are not talking how it is implemented right now. Devs asked for community opinion about OC math.

[wind spade]

given that they already said they are going with linear, I'm not sure how these discussions help 🤷‍♂️

my opinion is that current state is fine 🤷‍♂️

[weak helm]

Discussions always helps. And they only mentioned linear as an option. Until 1.0 it's not final.

[wind spade]

they said they will do linear for U6 🤷‍♂️

and we don't know if 1.0 is final

[mint sedge]

Just like how we will only get 4 body slots for U6

[oblique hollow]

head... body.... back.... legs..... and 6 hands

[weak helm]

If you don't want to discuss it, then what are you doing here? What you are saying is "shut up, no one cares".

[oblique hollow]

Discussion here doesnt help as devs do not save this chat

[wind spade]

I'm saying "these should be discussed a month back when devs were still gathering feedback"

[oblique hollow]

discussion on the QA site would help

[weak helm]

I was going post a suggestion on QA site after gathering some oppinions here.

[wind spade]

hence my point about being a month late

[weak helm]

then leave and let people who are interested to discuss it. You are literally preventing us from some constructive talking.

[wind spade]

... what

I've given you constructive feedback, notified you about errors in your suggestion and said that the discussion is late for U6. I'm not deleting your messages or anything like that what would prevent you to discuss it

[weak helm]

Instead of discussing math, we discuss why we shouldn't discuss it. Great.

First few posts were constructive. And after that two pages of some BS that totally prevented any futher discussion and involving of other people.

[oblique hollow]

ok, math time.

im fine with linear oc because the infinite slug argument falls flat

at best you get 3 shards/min if you gather all dogs and use a script to auto harvest them

wasting your time

instead of building factories

so the next best alternative is hunting

[wind spade]

I don't like linear and it's not because of slugs

[oblique hollow]

which will hopefully improve with U6

[weak helm]

"F(0) is invalid" - true. Lets define it as a limit of F(OC -> 0)

[wind spade]

but... F(x) is defined only for 0.01 <= x <= 2.5

[weak helm]

with this logic, F is descrete and defined only on limited set of OC values. How it will help?

[oblique hollow]

Because 0% OC is useless anyway

[wind spade]

and impossible

[oblique hollow]

might aswell put the machine on standby

or remove it

[weak helm]

Let's assume F is at least continuous

[oblique hollow]

thus it doesnt make sensen to include a 0% value

[wind spade]

basically F(x) is defined for multiplies of 0.000001 between 0.01 and 2.5

so there indeed is a fixed set of values

[oblique hollow]

due to how the game handles decimals

[weak helm]

Standby (turned off) doesn't consume power. I think, we all can agree on this.

[oblique hollow]

it does

0.1 MW

[wind spade]

same as blocked machine

[oblique hollow]

because real machines also consume power when in standby

standby and OFF are two different things

one is a digital halt with power saving , the other is complete removal of power

remember: machinds in standby have a yellow light. not red

[weak helm]

wait-wait-wait. Turned off machine (red button) should not consume pawer at all.
Standby/Stuck (no input or backed up output) consumes power and is what I call F(0)

[oblique hollow]

the standby doesnt turn them off. it simply stops production

so they consume their idle power, which is 0.1 MW

[wind spade]

also I disagree with "what I call F(0)". Because F isn't defined for 0 (and it also doesn't make sense for idle power draw to be variable based on clock speed imo)

[weak helm]

Okey, effect of red "turn off" button is another story. Let's get back to OC.

[oblique hollow]

right. 0% is still useless to use.

it doesnt produce anything, and shouldnt be a valid speed

because no ratio in the game, when entered in the input or output, ever reaches 0

[proven prawn]

well lets put the fact that this discussion doesn't matter as production and power is going linear for u6, I still wouldn't want your suggestion as your is basically going to result in machines using even more power if im understanding your percentage math, aka 448% would result in over 4x power usage, meaning my manufacturer would be using even more power than the current model, so basically no as machines already use enough power even with the current model.

[weak helm]

Do you agree with (1) - Function should be convex?

[wind spade]

not really

[oblique hollow]

if i take 0.2 and 0.1%, power shouldnt drop below mimimum idle power

it makes no sense to have that available. Especially since the game scale is MW.

You have basically no production for basically no power.

these tiny ranges should not exist at all if you ask me

[weak helm]

Why not? I think it's a good thing to encourage player to balance production a little. Power difference is more or less insignificant, but still.

[wind spade]

clocking to 1% is weird anyway

not sure what you mean by "balance production a little"

[weak helm]

align all duplicated machines to the same OC in this case

more tuning -> more profit

[proven prawn]

its a solution in search of a problem, best case your only encouraging players to make machines for production at the moment, because now you have machines using far more power at idle than they currently do, so your basically forcing and encouraging a very specific type of play style by such decisions.

[wind spade]

if that is advantageous, then it discourages players from doing things like direct input with exact clock speed, because that will have more power requirement

[weak helm]

5x0.9 should be better than 4x1+1x0.5 . No?

[proven prawn]

no thats not how math operations work

[wind spade]

I don't see a reason to make it better

[weak helm]

should it be worse?

[proven prawn]

at any rate it doesn't matter because the dev's have decided u6 is going with linear overclocking, so its to late to discuss otherwise at any rate

though i know what this means in terms of gameplay, one major impact is plutonium power is going to be obsolete and service no function, which is unfortunate

[wind spade]

wdym?

[noble agate]

It serves no purpose even now. You can produce enough power to never run out of it with nuclear and oil.

[wind spade]

you can definitely run out of power

[noble agate]

I think my pc will at least run out of fps before running out of power once my maxed nuclear plant is up

[weak helm]

we return to initial point : F(1)+F(0.5) ??? 2*F(0.75)

<=>

[proven prawn]

for example a late game factory at 100% clock speed uses at most up to 605gw roughly, full uranium power provides 630gw, meaning with linear overclocking you'll never need extra power anymore

[wind spade]

trains?

lights? pumps? jump pads? hypertubes?

[proven prawn]

no matter how i do the math, the answer is the same, linear overclocking means plutonium power serves no function anymore

[wind spade]

there's tons of non-production things that need power

also it assumes you use all of the resources, it's the classic local vs global resource cap

[proven prawn]

25gw's of power though, i seriously doubt it

you would have to be doing some serious non production stuff to possibly even begin to consume all of that extra power

[weak helm]

global power scaling is a completelly another topic, let's not mix

[proven prawn]

for the purposes of end game factory and resource consumption the math doesn't lie, all production can easily be covered by uranium and still have plenty of power for lights, trains, etc and most likely still have extra power left over

[wind spade]

one train is 110 MW, one station/platform is 50 MW. Assuming two 1-4 trains on each route with two stations, it's 770 MW per route. 33 routes and you're already over limit. Without any hypertubes, lights, jump pads, anything like that

[crude coyote]

If only we can channel the power into increasing the UObject limit

[wind spade]

you can do that in some config file somewhere

[proven prawn]

for sure but if the player is smart and efficient your only look at 10.5gw of power roughly, and one would assume if a player ever gets to that scale they know how to do efficient setups, so i would go with the lower figure in this case, which means about 14.5gw of power left still

[weak helm]

Humanity is doomed....

[proven prawn]

at any rate it looks like its the end of the story for plutonium powers applications, at least for now, not that i really used it but its sad to see it going into such a niche case that 99.9% of players will be like, so what on earth am i ever going to use this source of power for

[wind spade]

you can't make train setups more efficient though 🙂

what I mean is that platforms and stations have fixed consumption, trains have variable but you still need to account for max

[wind spade]

if a player uses just one uranium node, they may be short on power. Sure, if we talk about minmaxing the map, the plutonium power is not needed, but a lot of players use just part of the map and that means they have different available resources and requirements

[proven prawn]

what are you talking about i typically only use one 2 stations per route and one train already so i have no idea where you get your idea's from that you somehow need more than what i typically only use on all of my routes.

its like your picking the worst cases and im like, for the average user that basically isnt the case

infact im certain thats exactly what your doing hmmmm

[wind spade]

I'm talking about the fact that if you have X trains/stations/platforms, you always use Y power. There's no way to make them use less than Y power

so depending on how many trains you run, you may as well use more than 25 GW just for trains

and again, it's a "global vs local" argument

[proven prawn]

i never said it was, 210 power is what i typically use and guess how much that is for 33 routes, 6.9gw, literally a fraction of the power you stated, again your picking worst cases here

[wind spade]

210 power? that's two stations and one train, no platforms

where's your platforms' power consumption?

[proven prawn]

and im like, if your using even close to 25gw in your train network, im sorry you have done something seriously design wise very wrong

[wind spade]

what if you have 200 trains? am I doing it wrong because I have 200 trains?

[proven prawn]

not but your saying that 33 routes is already at your limit, and im like, only if your design your system is some way thats very wrong at base design levels, because you should at most be using like half of that power at most, which would only be around 10gw

and thats assuming you use more than one train and station per route, which i normally dont do, but lets assume the player does, but then sure you can get that number up, but i normally dont design that way unless i have a very good reason to

[wind spade]

1 route:

• 1 train - 110 MW
• 2 stations - 2x50 MW
• ? platforms - ?x2x50 MW
  for a 1-4 train it's 110+2x50+4x2x50 = 610 MW. I assumed two trains so I calculated 720 MW (apparently I can't do math and it isn't 770 MW, my bad)

[wind spade]

almost like there's no wrong way to play this game

[oblique hollow]

please do NOT ignore the fact that not everyone will do max nuclear

its unfair to assume

[wind spade]

yeah I said that several times already 🤷‍♂️

[weak helm]

right and wrong ways? what?

[proven prawn]

that still wouldn't change my assessment im afraid, because linear overclocking will still never give the player the need for the extra power, regardless of much they do nuclear or not, that scenario is definitely not changing with linear.

[oblique hollow]

and thats ok.

i do not want to inflate my dave with more power and that footprint if i want to safe space

[proven prawn]

after all what reason would the player have to use a power source that makes a byproduct they can never get rid of, especially when they don't actually need the extra power, none i can really see that makes any sense

[wind spade]

if they do only 1/10th of nuclear and need more power because their production is big, they may as well do plutonium 🤷‍♂️

[oblique hollow]

the assumption that overclocking needs some drawback is absurd because, again, shards are, by all mortal means, still limited

[proven prawn]

simply put the incentive that plutonium power once had in this setup, is basically gone

[oblique hollow]

plutonium makes waste anyway and nobody wants that

you burn 1/3 of uranium power just to process plutonium if i remember right

especially now that underclocked accelerators dont save as much power

also nobody ever worries about neesing to use plutonium anyway to to the low power needes to "beat" the game .

these are nonexistent issues for a majority of players

and by all means, plutonium can suck it for all i care. into the sink it goes

[wind spade]

there's tons of stuff in the game that you may never use but it's a option for players nevertheless. Everyone can make their own decisions what will they use

[proven prawn]

but again why make a byproduct when you can simply expand your existing setup and not make a byproduct that is permanently going to be part of your world, the incentive existed before because you needed the extra power because buildings used more power with overclocking, now buildings use the same amount of power regardless of there clock settings, so that incentive doesnt exist anymore

[oblique hollow]

1. plutonium, even in setups that needed it, will in no way ever be an issue. put it in a corner and you are done

2. yes, nobody wants the waste.

[wind spade]

can be tons of reasons... available local resources, not wanting to expand existing factory that's already built in nice building and decorated, personal challenge to try plutonium processing, ... just because it isn't the most "efficient" decision doesn't mean that everybody will ignore it

[oblique hollow]

plutonium is only ever an issue for people who are about to crash their game with the object limit.

no normal player ever had or will have to worry about it

unless they wish to

[weak helm]

LOG(2;OC+1) gives interesting results

[oblique hollow]

is that base 2 log?
i dont get this notation

[weak helm]

yes

[proven prawn]

not really did you know for example you can make about 305 plutonium waste per minute, thats about 78 minutes to full a entire isc, so not exactly put in a corner and your done deal

so yeah in just over a one hour enjoy another 24000 barrels of plutonium waste you can never rid of, oh what fun

[wind spade]

did you know for example you can make just 5 plutonium waste per minute?

it's the same over and over again - assuming people do full setups

[proven prawn]

and did you know you can make 0 plutonium per minute just by doing a little pre planning? I know far out there concept.

[wind spade]

yes, and all these possibilities are fine and anyone can do it. The fact that only one is "meta" by your standards doesn't mean others are not valid options

[proven prawn]

valid and making sense are two different things.

[wind spade]

in a sandbox game everything makes sense as long as the player is having fun

[proven prawn]

just because you can go with a option, doesn't mean its something you should do

[wind spade]

why are you forcing me (or other players) to do certain options? 🤔

[proven prawn]

im not forcing anything , im simply saying why it doesnt make sense, people are free of course to do down the non sense routes, but would i be telling anybody to do so, especially when there are better options, certainly not.

im not here to offer bad advise, though i cant speak for others

but you want to go on offering bad advise go right ahead, nobody is going to stop you

[wind spade]

better is subjective

[proven prawn]

no its not, not when its based on math, which i have already provided, so hardly subjective

[wind spade]

for someone it's better to do no waste build. for someone it's better to do build that uses local resources 🤷‍♂️

[proven prawn]

605gw<630gw, its not that hard to understand

[wind spade]

and that is subjective because it assumes full nuclear

[proven prawn]

no because this shows clearly that extra power is not needed aka plutonium, so your one being subjective when i have already demonstrated clearly my point

[wind spade]

...

it's like talking to a wall. not everybody builds full nuclear

[proven prawn]

and because you refute it your having to go off on this other tangent, so good luck with that

[proven prawn]

same to you, your like talking to a wall as well, so im certainly done

[wind spade]

I'm not saying it's better to go plutonium. I'm saying it's situational, same as everything else in the game.

It's a choice for player, everyone will make their own choice based on their own preferences of how they want to play the game

yes, for minmax meta players plutonium isn't too much of a value, but not everyone is a minmax meta player

[proven prawn]

as i was saying, will plutonium power ever make sense again sometime in the future, maybe, but not as long as the need for power isn't present, though the dev's have mentioned they may or may not keep the linear change so we'll see

[wind spade]

"make sense" is for the player to decide

[proven prawn]

605gw<630gw, hopefully normal players can see the simple logic, unlike some people....

[wind spade]

not all players are minmaxers, some just want to have fun and build what they want 🤷‍♂️

[proven prawn]

btw sense when was this channel always so opinion based, aren't we supposed to discuss math and numbers and logic, im not really seeing much of that anymore

gone are the days of numbers and logic?🤔

well im sure the numbers and logic are hiding somewhere around here hmmmm

[wind spade]

or I just don't assume that everyone is a minmaxer

I already said for minmaxers you're right, but that's hardly majority of playuers

[thorn bane]

i feel like the problem with plutonium is that the time consuming part of nuclear is making the plants and getting water not the actual production (if you do it on a big scale) and plutonium doesnt reduce that amount
so maybe if plutonium rods gave 5000 power instead of 2500 it would be a more appealing choice?

[proven prawn]

problem in this case isn't power though, because with linear oc you basically never need the extra power, good idea but really doesn't address the actual underlying issue

would have been a good idea if you hadn't gone the linear oc route, but well they did so that definitely changes things

[frosty owl]

I know I haven't read enough of the convo to say anything specific on it, but I think I have a decent example.

Trying to finish the last space elevator shipment I make one more factory and realize my power is not enough. Now I have 3 main choices:
1)Expand non-nuclear power generators: this one I'd find annoying unless I have extra oil close, as setting up diluted fuel generators can be quite quick.
2)Expand nuclear processing: this requires to either plan another factory or build another "module" of your nuclear factory... Still, lots of power, but also lots of planning.
3)Start burning the plutonium I'm sinking and set up a few ISCs. Considering my usual power usage when reaching endgame (up to 20 GW now), that would probably be <10 waste/min, an amount very easy to manage... Even more so if I plan on turning off factories after finishing the space elevator delivery.

So, I can appreciate (3) being there as it's a very convenient way to get extra power

[frosty owl]

OC the power generator
Get twice the power for the same burn time of a UFR at 100%

[thorn bane]

but what if you do both
10GW

[frosty owl]

Btw, I strongly disagree with your statement about makijng the powerplant taking longer than making the processing machines. I feel like that opinion stems from being used to have most of the required items already being produced by other factories (that you made long ago so it hard to "sum" all the effort taken to build that production)
On the other hand, setting up the generators is the easiest part to plan, so many will do it in bulk, having it leave a relatively stronger "effort impression" as they spend quite some time bulding just that

My experience having built an ores->Rods factory: the generators take 25~40% of the building time and <30% of the planning

I mean, just think about it this way: a single UFR manufacturer can feed 3 generators, but requires >5 additional processing machines to run (EXCLUDING miners/extractors). The generator just needs a water extractor

[proven prawn]

Definitely, thats why I'm like, no matter how you slice it making the processing machines is either going to take the same amount of time or longer than making more power plants, so even on that aspect at best its dead even, in which case plutonium still losses because the waste you cant get rid of, or worse it takes longer to build and its still worse overall, because again the waste you cant get rid of, combined with the fact that linear oc is going to get rid of the incentive to need the extra power ontop of that, yeah plutonium power just doesn't have much going for it as route I can really see any player really having a need to take in almost any situation, maybe some really niche case but I'm really just not seeing it.

[frosty owl]

I gave you an example that I think isn't quite niche (point 3 of my previous message). And that's under my preferences: depending on situation, I'd much rather set up a few ISCs + powerplants than a new factory + powerplant

[proven prawn]

preference is to make waste you can never get rid of? well I guess to each their own I guess, though with the direction of linear oc and never having the actual need for extra power beyond what uranium can provide i can't see that making any sense for me atm.

[wind spade]

some people want to experience all the content 🤷‍♂️

[stark bronze]

Are fluid buffers useful in 1:1 supply demand at all now? Since theres no more fluid loss they'll just act like a place that fluid can go to instead of the machines, and if there are some in there itll act like backpressure for the supplying machines

[median heath]

Their primary function is now flow stabilizers as outlined in the manual, in my opinion.

[stark bronze]

in this case guess i can do away with the end-of-manifold anti fluid loss array now

or ill just fill them and cut them off for aesthetics

[median heath]

Does putting a buffer at the end of a manifold do the same thing as looping or does it create the same (if not more) sloshing issues?

[oblique hollow]

630 / 605 = 104.13 %

i do not give a flying snutt about an increase of
4.13 %

[stark bronze]

its nothing like looping, they are just there so they can cover for the suppliers in times of fluid loss

which isnt the case anymore

[median heath]

Aye.

[oblique hollow]

Sideline buffers or ones used in an Equalizer configuration are perfectly fine

and are even helpful by smoothing flow

[median heath]

Aye. That's the primary function of buffers now imo. 🤷‍♂️

[oblique hollow]

and thats perfectly fine

[median heath]

Still trying to think of when I would ever use a VOP now that I understand them.

[thorn bane]

fuel -> packaged fuel and if full -> generators to burn off

[oblique hollow]

cascading fuel gens

full flow to the first line, once full fill the next line

[median heath]

Why not just send enough to get full flow to the whole system?

[oblique hollow]

you know damn well it instantly spreads out