guitars11 wrote: Tue Apr 18, 2023 9:07 pm This is a pretty cool breakdown of the different attributes. How did you do this?

Google sheets From the CSV attached to flame_Sla's post here

guitars11 wrote: Tue Apr 18, 2023 9:07 pm updated 4.5 and is now 4.5.1. I found 2 furnaces that were not working as intended, somehow the ore got messed up.

I don't get higher UPS for 4.5.1 than 4.5. Actually <1% slower - withing the margin of error: 610 vs 606 UPS.

https://factoriobox.1au.us/results/cpus?map=53590a606b6f0812dc4b9a54b7e5541239bb8ad3bfafdfae39e852055c1b5f06
Processor Intel Core i5-6400 912.4 913 , 912 , 911
Processor Intel Core i5-6500 616.0 620 , 617 , 616 , 614 , 613 , 610 , 610 , 563


I have zero idea how can you get 1.5x UPS w/a slower ...

And the times visalized from flame_Sla's CSV file - sorry its not milisecs but microsecs:

Added v4.2.7. TY for the measurements, here is the discrepancy:

my computer was created only for a single game (guess which one?)

Thinking... :)

Even region cloner was not designed for this task. I took ages to create those maps, maybe adding some space would help, don't know. Doing a belt side loading test is something I might do - it did show a diff at ...

imho for the benchmark it is better to use PS scripts that set a high priority for the factorio process


I'm happy to test anything running on Win11 and giving me more consistent UPS (or timing) numbers. Currently for example I have 590/583/593 UPS for Stevetrov v1 - really annoying, this is not ...

Stevetrov wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 1:16 pm My first submission

Welcome! 590 UPS, added.

Edit: redone all numbers, see the first post viewtopic.php?f=193&t=105846

Yep, both was me 4.2.2:
https://factoriobox.1au.us/results?map= ... 055c1b5f06

hmm. I'm getting 955 ups for the 8t-7side which is a little slower than just the regular 4.2.2 which I got 1029. I'm not sure what would be making yours be a little faster though on your computer.


4.2.2 still the winnner for now I keep that 1st, dont worry. Once I got my timing I will do a ...

flame_Sla wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 2:37 am

guitars11 wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 1:07 am [...] I found having mods active actually eat up a little performance and can throw results off[...]

I use a python script for the benchmark, which forcibly disables all mods

FactorioBox also disables all mods (checked the windows script - it sets a temp file as the mod directory).

I tested some variations for 8 cycle timing (based of v4.2.2). This version was the fastest:
Factoriobox: Red Science UPS Editor - guitars11 v4.2.2 8t-7side test by Belter : 579 UPS
8t-7side.png


But still, margin of error, no big gain. Still thinking about a perfect or close to perfect timing ...

Bullshit test, nothing.
[...]
Factoriobox results taken under ideal conditions.
[...]
So it's all within the margin of error.


Let me disagree with bullshit test, sorry. I've uploaded to Factoriobox for easy sharing. Doing a test w/o mods using the PS script is the most accurate measurement I'm ...

Is a full belt gives better UPS than a partially filled one? This topic came up again in Discord and Reddit.

Measurement

Differnce is really small, for extra huge number of belts ( 100 tile long back and forth loop x 100 -> 640.400 blue belt segments) I see 8% UPS difference ...

Did a v4.2.2 vs 4.2.2-8t w/ 3 x 10.000 tickt test: average is 582 vs 561 UPS, +3.8% on my computer. Factorio box test was 563 vs 561 (same computer and maps).

[...]we should load 8 gears into the assembly machine![...]


It became the ~same UPS, but much better material for perfect timing. Also now there is a chance to get rid of the final buffering pair.

Updated v4.2.2 with the timing and the 8 stacksize as suggested above.
Had to shift the cycle for ...

On second thought, if we are limiting 2 inserters to 8 items ( gears and copper) to get 11.2 red / sec, would that increase the total inserter swing count? Going every 8.4 red / sec, we would still have 2 inserters going every 12 items.


Could be two cycles. Just thinking loud. But NOT working ...

I need help figuring out if there is any difference between these builds:



v4.2.2
Performed 1000 updates in 1778.962 ms
Performed 1000 updates in 1780.580 ms
Performed 1000 updates in 1776.502 ms
Performed 1000 updates in 1778.169 ms
Performed 1000 updates in 1774.626 ms
Map benchmarked at 563 ...

flame_Sla wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 10:28 pm [...]the ingredients will enter the assembly machine only if there are less than 3 items in the assembly machine[...]

Exactly what my tests show as well. So I try to find a way to load the machine when only 1 or 2 RS in it...

PM = Productivity Module 3. For timing I use Excel/Google sheets, no such mod sorry I'm aware of.

The timing numbers can be dervied from:
- time required for the given product, the speed and productivity bonus of the assembler machine, and the level of it (supply)
- the amount of products needed ...