Faster Belt Corners
Re: Faster Belt Corners
Yeah, and those numbers are taken from here: https://forums.factorio.com/wiki/inde ... ts/Physics
Cool suggestion: Eatable MOUSE-pointers.
Have you used the Advanced Search today?
Need help, question? FAQ - Wiki - Forum help
I still like small signatures...
Have you used the Advanced Search today?
Need help, question? FAQ - Wiki - Forum help
I still like small signatures...
Re: Faster Belt Corners
According to the article, yellow belt with "fixed" corners still not as good as straight belt.
674-683 vs 719 respectively.
I wonder if splitting and rejoining after making the turn gives better or worse results.
674-683 vs 719 respectively.
I wonder if splitting and rejoining after making the turn gives better or worse results.
Attach your blueprints to forum posts with Foreman or Blueprint string.
Re: Faster Belt Corners
Did some tests.
Yellow belt with fast turns vs yellow split & rejoin.
Competitiors:

First run:
183:186
214:222
Split & rejoin wins.
Test track
http://imgur.com/1LpGKqd
All inserters receive power at once and start packing coal as fast as it arrives.
I cut power before end of the queue reaches last turn.
Obviously, the queue has to be mile long to calculate the exact difference. I don't have resources for it in the current game.
Maybe someone will do it properly.
It would be nice to include straight belt in the comparison too.
Yellow belt with fast turns vs yellow split & rejoin.
Competitiors:

First run:
183:186
214:222
Split & rejoin wins.
Test track
http://imgur.com/1LpGKqd
All inserters receive power at once and start packing coal as fast as it arrives.
I cut power before end of the queue reaches last turn.
Obviously, the queue has to be mile long to calculate the exact difference. I don't have resources for it in the current game.
Maybe someone will do it properly.
It would be nice to include straight belt in the comparison too.
Attach your blueprints to forum posts with Foreman or Blueprint string.
Re: Faster Belt Corners
By the way, just noticed that common belt rebalanced causes BIG loss of compression. I didn't make tests, but by the looks of it ~30+% of the throughput is lost at the rebalancer.
Attach your blueprints to forum posts with Foreman or Blueprint string.
-
- Filter Inserter
- Posts: 436
- Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:41 am
- Contact:
Re: Faster Belt Corners
your test is invalid as the long of the beats is not the sameUser_Name wrote:Did some tests.
Yellow belt with fast turns vs yellow split & rejoin.
Competitiors:
First run:
183:186
214:222
Split & rejoin wins.
Test track
http://imgur.com/1LpGKqd
All inserters receive power at once and start packing coal as fast as it arrives.
I cut power before end of the queue reaches last turn.
Obviously, the queue has to be mile long to calculate the exact difference. I don't have resources for it in the current game.
Maybe someone will do it properly.
It would be nice to include straight belt in the comparison too.
fist one 16 the oner one has 24
Re: Faster Belt Corners
I measure relative throughput, thus the length does not matter.Lee_newsum wrote:
your test is invalid as the long of the beats is not the same
fist one 16 the oner one has 24
See here for the follow-up
Attach your blueprints to forum posts with Foreman or Blueprint string.
-
- Burner Inserter
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:06 pm
- Contact:
Re: Faster Belt Corners
I think that there's nothing particularly wrong with the fact that corners slow down throughput. The fact that "going straight" is faster encourages more streamlined designs and is also somewhat more realistic.
The fact that you can work around this with splitters could be considered a problem instead. It indicates that splitters are too fast. It would not be unreasonable for a splitter on a 100% full belt to cause a minor loss of throughput, something like 20%.
I think that fixing this with corners of a higher speed is ugly. Maybe there should also be an intentional throughput loss when changing belt types?
The fact that you can work around this with splitters could be considered a problem instead. It indicates that splitters are too fast. It would not be unreasonable for a splitter on a 100% full belt to cause a minor loss of throughput, something like 20%.
I think that fixing this with corners of a higher speed is ugly. Maybe there should also be an intentional throughput loss when changing belt types?
Re: Faster Belt Corners
20% isn't exactly minor, but I do agree that it's silly that splitters are faster than the belt they're based on.fluffy_5432 wrote:The fact that you can work around this with splitters could be considered a problem instead. It indicates that splitters are too fast. It would not be unreasonable for a splitter on a 100% full belt to cause a minor loss of throughput, something like 20%.
Re: Faster Belt Corners
It has nothing to do with the speed of splitter.n9103 wrote:20% isn't exactly minor, but I do agree that it's silly that splitters are faster than the belt they're based on.fluffy_5432 wrote:The fact that you can work around this with splitters could be considered a problem instead. It indicates that splitters are too fast. It would not be unreasonable for a splitter on a 100% full belt to cause a minor loss of throughput, something like 20%.
Split & Rejoin trick works because you split your belt in two before making turn, thus compression drops by the factor of two.
Corners reduce compression only if it's close to maximum, it is totally safe to make turn with belt which has 50% compression.
After making turn you join two belts with 50% compression into one with 100% compression again.
Attach your blueprints to forum posts with Foreman or Blueprint string.
Re: Faster Belt Corners
I was thinking 10% per lane, but even if it's closer to 20% per lane it doesn't influence my position. The corner slowdown seems like something that should remain part of the game.User_Name wrote:According to this calculator, corners steal 35% of your throughput.
Re: Faster Belt Corners
I also think that it's not a problem, just an extra challenge.
I generally don't try to avoid turns, so for me, "100% belt speed" is the speed that of a belt with a turn in it. From that perspective, there is no punishment from turns, only a bonus from avoiding turns (which is no different from getting a bonus for upgrading to faster belts).
I generally don't try to avoid turns, so for me, "100% belt speed" is the speed that of a belt with a turn in it. From that perspective, there is no punishment from turns, only a bonus from avoiding turns (which is no different from getting a bonus for upgrading to faster belts).
Re: Faster Belt Corners
Likewise Ido not believe this to be a problem.
Problem would've been if it severely nerfed belt throughput.
Not to mention use of faster belts for corners effectively solves the issue leaving only blue belts. These would need belt buffering for corners or be used only in straight lines. Both strategies are quite possible to achieve (i've made factories where iron/copper was delivered everywhere through only two straight as an arrow belts across the entire factory.
Problem would've been if it severely nerfed belt throughput.
Not to mention use of faster belts for corners effectively solves the issue leaving only blue belts. These would need belt buffering for corners or be used only in straight lines. Both strategies are quite possible to achieve (i've made factories where iron/copper was delivered everywhere through only two straight as an arrow belts across the entire factory.