I never made the second statement, I made a statement that the power per area is about the same. The usefulness of the poles is circumstantial. The only reason I cared about length was to compare power per area. The measurable length of the posted pattern is 71, yes, but I was never really emphasizi...

The partial concept is concerned with "a logical compromise, I was trying to get the most useful numbers I could", not area density.

Mass...? But they don't even have mass. Weight was meant to imply, weighting, as in a weighted average , as in math. And I wasn't calculating area density, there's a lot of open holes inside the designs, but they're useless. Anyway Skellitor we're down to 2 similar designs, I think you can remove th...

I did not count it as one block shorter, but rather somewhere in between. I thought it was a logical compromise, I was trying to get the most useful numbers I could. And 0.67% difference is still pretty close, for "pretty much the same". And it occupies more area if you shift the buildings...

The partial weight was for length. What partial weight are you talking about? And either way I didn't think it was big enough to mention, but I can edit it in.

You're right it can't stretch over the buildings, I thought the range was bigger. You could space out each pair of labs and put a small pole there. Personally I still consider the poles to be more useful than the edge of the steam engine.

If you want to count the fully stretched, movable, non-blocking row of small poles at the end as a solid row instead of a partial weight, then yes it's 0.67% more power per area, I think that still counts as "about the same". Oh and on your post earlier, Cerbsen showed that 2 pumps is enou...

The heights are the same, that's why I didn't bother. And yes, you would have to use medium poles, or occasional gaps, to put buildings immediately on the edge. You can use 71 if you want, but I consider area with movable power poles to be more useful than area occupied by steam engines and boilers,...

Regardless of the appearance, half of it is in the unbuildable water, half is on buildable land. What do storage tanks have to do with it? They don't shrink, can't be repositioned in such a usage, they have a square shape, can't be built inside, and do block movement. And I did say how a wall of lab...

It doesn't explain why. Maybe you're not counting the offshore pumps? And I don't think a 69 tile land mass will ever be a problem. The poles can be repositioned, they provide power, they can be (and are) stretched as far apart as possible, you could for example put a row of adjacent assemblers agai...

Mine doesn't need a row above. And I was using the tileable parts for area. If you count it as 3 shorter as you said, 10 engines per 70 length, vs. 9.5 engines per 67 length, (9.5/67)/(10/70) = 0.99253. But in my post I was counting it as 3.25 and also 3.5 shorter, for the small poles on the right s...

My analysis is (compared to the one I gave), it's smaller (4.28% - 5.63%), slightly less power per raw resource (~2.88%), and power per area is about the same (~0.67% higher if the small poles on the right edge are included in the length). If you switch the underground pipes for normal ones, it's ab...

That is nice, it's compact, 3 tiles shorter. (4 shorter if you count a stretched, movable row of small poles, which can be walked through, so maybe 3.25 or 3.5 shorter) 2.89% less power per raw resource (with same burner inserter count) 4.28% - 5.63% less area 0.04% - 0.39% less power per area (with...

I see. Because the first inserter has to transfer enough coal to fuel several boilers, it is inhibited at a higher power ratio. You could switch it for a fast inserter. I guess you already know that though. Oh and since I now know that threshold is about recovery speed rather than ability to recover...

Yes, one burner inserter for 100 engines would eventually allow them to come back to peak, that should be obvious. But it could be very slow, if all the other inserters and mining drills are getting low power. So slow that it might as well not be there. The 2 burner inserters per row number, was ho...

More specifically, it makes it impossible for a lack of power at one moment to impede the process of steam engines coming back to full power. The calculations weren't really emphasizing what happens if you have some burner inserters, but not enough to get the engines back to full power at full speed...

Well hey, if you said that first in plain english at the beginning of the post, without all the calculations in the way, and also mentioned that this kind of thing will basically never happen in game, it'd be understandable immediately, wouldn't it? ;) Either way, if that's what the number means, i...

the calculations assume that the engines are capable of fully powering the base, when operating at their peak So normally, the consumption bar is max, but in certain circumstances like running out of coal, it drops? Well okay. Running out of coal would cause it to drop to 0, no matter the number of...

I don't remember the names of the bars, it's whichever bar meets the description. It changes color when it drops, and it corresponds to how much of the demand is met, and when it drops everything slows down. Again, those engines would never have been able to fully power 600 radar. Not even operatin...

I don't remember the names of the bars, it's whichever bar meets the description. It changes color when it drops, and it corresponds to how much of the demand is met, and when it drops everything slows down. Again, those engines would never have been able to fully power 600 radar. Not even operating...