loader90fast.png No attempt at mechanical balancing. The splitters just stuff as much as possible into the upstream side-loading belts, while ensuring there is an overflow path that goes further downstream. this one seemed wrong to me because the material on the right belt can never go in the left ...

I prefer the previous one: 1 tile smaller and simply consumes 2 blue belts, which is usually the output of 2 production lines. I don't use blue belts much for routine transport. Even in a multi-megabase, there are only two ingredients that are both sufficiently valuable to justify blue belts for bu...

It's ugly My artistic soul is mortally wounded. What is wrong with elegant simplicity? Seriously though, you want ugly? Here's ugly (and cheap): loader90fast.png No attempt at mechanical balancing. The splitters just stuff as much as possible into the upstream side-loading belts, while ensuring the...

I don't think the loop-backs are needed for the 6-chest version. I can get full throughput with loader90.png 0eNrdWNtu2zAM/ZVBj4PdWRffgn3C/mAoAsfREmGJbEhy0aDwv09ymjpIzMb0W/eSwBcdkofUIeU3sjl0sjVKO7J6I1ZXbeyaeGfUNly/klUekRNZFX1EVN1oS1a//Wtqp6tDeMGdWklWRDl5JBHR1XG4Mo2O6720joRleis9Du2jhwutq+q/sdJWGifN1W...

When putting items on a belt, the gap needed at the insertion point doesn't need to be large enough to fit a whole item. Items already on the belt will be pushed back or held in place until there's proper spacing again. I hadn't thought about that aspect. You are right that it will help to maintain...

Here are two related loading arrangements that I don't recall seeing discussed previously (feel free to correct me if they have been) and that seem to work much better than they have any right to: loader30_cropped.png The one on the left completely eats both fast belts of input (i.e. 60/s), despite ...

In other words, if you dedicate a fixed amount of miners to mine the resources needed for mining productivity, you'll never have to adjust that amount. (But they'll be increasingly more idle since mining productivity makes them mine faster, while research takes longer.) Alternatively, you can incre...

I could of course simply stop using pd3 in miners, and drop my pollution by miners close to 0 by switching to eff1 en masse, but I don't think that it counts as fun gameplay, when I am being punished for maximising my production with no way of fighting back. If you have level 3 artillery range you ...

My factory is in standby mode. "Don't defend your factory, defend your pollution cloud." If you do that, the only bugs you have to kill are the occasional party of migrating settlers. If you are not doing that, then you are not ready to go into 'stand-by mode' until you have pushed your d...

With modules, you can also boot strap them, which one frequently does, even in speed runs. Ie, you place PM1, and as production / tech ramps up, you replace them with PM2 (reusing the PM1s of course), and then finally PM3s. Upgrade BPs FTW. Yes, and even if you don't actually do it this way, the co...

mmmPI wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 09, 2022 7:07 am

It could of course be made better with circuit or belt magic so that the first centrifuge doesn't stockpile uranium 235 and let it be available for a second machine. Which is a nice challenge

A nice challenge with a remarkably simple solution discussed at length here .

That totally explains it. I usually set up one or two as soon as I research centrifuges and let it churn away on uranium. Then by the time I have Covarex I likely have the 40 U-235 needed. Well you see, one centrifuge works out to (with a degree of randomness) approximately 40 u-235 in 19 hours. I'...

CaptainSlide wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 08, 2022 3:32 am

If Factorio doesn't join the ranks of legendary games like the ones I mentioned earlier it will be a tragedy.

It already has.

I probably hang on to steel furnaces too long; an earlier switch to nuclear power (before researching Kovarex) and electric furnaces would save pollution. It doesn't have to be either/or. I don't start using electric furnaces until I have nuclear power up and going, but that doesn't mean I scrap my...

Nuclear power without the Kovarex enrichment process is (as you've proved) possible, but I find not worthwhile in practice. I wouldn't try running a large nuclear power plant without Kovarex, but you can quite happily run a 4-core one (ample power for everything up to a rocket launch) on natural U-...

SoShootMe wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 07, 2022 10:21 am

SoShootMe wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:23 am

Roughly, at scale, that means nuclear has 70 times greater power density, requires 1/10 the number of entities/tiles to be placed, and is 8 times cheaper to build.

70 times the density sounds about right, but I think the cost of construction is in practice more like 20 times cheaper.

placing a PM3 module in an assembly 3 producing green circuit is more than 9 times better than placing it on a mining drill. Much more than 9 times. Firstly, you can straightforwardly get much better value from the PMs in the assemblers by interleaving with beacons; if you try to do that with miner...

What makes me skeptical is this: with the unmodified railroad map (33% frequency, 300% size); it looks like the total amount of resources in the default standard (100%-100%-100%) map is not equal. In the train map, while a variable decreases by 3 (33%), a variable increases by 3 times (300%), altho...

Sample: 600% frequency, 100% richness, 100% width with this map: 100% frequency, 200% richness, 300% width, Are the amount of resources in these two map settings equal? ​​It decreases by 6 times in rate, while it increases (2x3) in the others. The wiki has only explained what frequency means, what ...

FactorioBot wrote: ↑

Mon May 02, 2022 1:48 pm

• Fixed that cliff deconstruction wasn't issued when the corrected cliff collision box overlapped with ghost entities. (66400)

At last! This has been a recurring irritation, for ages now the only obvious bug in normal vanilla gameplay.