@Belter: Your saves are not quite right. the point of 2 belts is to use one lane on each belt, that reduces computations for inserters a lot. also, you used 2 infinitychests per input. this gives 500 more active antities to deal with.:) (If you want to know more, find "UPS wars" on this fo...

Ha Belter,

Will you take this save in your bechmark?
It beats everything we made up unto now
It is from the ups master Stevetrov.

Thanks Optera:)
In /editor mode all hidden items are already available

Ok, for smelting I will use 500 belt saves. @belter: Why make a separate post on 100 vs 500? lets keep it here:) @flame_Sla: force of habit, I happen to like Editor Extensions. I don't think it really matters, our testing is about relative results. Different solutions tested in the same environment ...

already did that, see above results (davemcW v5) it looks like its faster, but the differences are marginal with 100 belts

Thanks!

1. How do you load/unload the belts: the standard infinity loader?
2. Your output doesn't look like standard output, are you using a powershell script? (could you share it?)1
3. as stated, this saves were for a quick indication. tonight or tomorrow I ll run a test with 500 belts each save.

Ran the latest test again, After I checked the network configs. (Thanks, Casa)
- v3, v4, v5
- 100 belts
- 50000 ticks, 10 runs.

I expected v5 to be fastest, v3 and v4 almost the same, with a light advantage to v4. (because Dave knows a LOT about this game)

we did. One of the saves wrong?
[edit] found it. going to do the test again:)

Tested Flame's config. As POC I made a DaveMcW v5 and tested it against v4(Dave's latest entry and v3(substations). it was a bit of a puzzle, and I had to abandon using Substations as in v3. - all saves have run at least 10 minutes , or as long as it takes to fill the furnaces to 100 plates. - 100 b...

Did the same test with both saves expanded to 500 belts, per remarks of Dave about RAM.
Results: Can someone repeat the test? also, why is V3 faster?

(Made new saves for both)

I ran a benchmark with v3(my modified davemcw with substations vs) v4 (Dave's latest entry). Base blueprints: v3 0eNrdnU1v20gShv+KoctepFlWf7Fp7N5y3dMuMIfdwJAlOiHWogSKMsYb+L9vU0okWSbNqrcMJJrDZJDYqpLq7WpWd9Vjf5vcP+7KTVPV7eT222RZbhdNtWmrdT25nXyaP5X/WPz+l+3NdlU+tmXzn/qfu/ttO+++vp3e3LTz6vHmYdfU80U5vWmrVV...

There is something with the "max" values. the ones from your builds are twice as high as the ones from davemcW's
Maybe you can plot avg/max/min over time for both saves?

Welcome! yes, the why of it all is interesting. I am not sciency/knowledgeable enough about the technical side of factorio/computers to make a good hypothesis. (That is why I also included the original logs) I hope we get a true nerd to help...:) What I can do, is consistent testing. I ll see If I c...

i did use your latest saves, and posted results there.
[edit] oops.
Here: viewtopic.php?p=561734#p561734

I made all belter's saves from the last post 100 belts, and ran them all 10 times together with davemcw's with substations, and belters V6.75
No activity on PC while testing
Results: Dave still wins (with my modifications)

Dave's version is still faster:)
The difference between min-max in my previous test bothered me, so
- I shut down all other programs and windows on my PC.
- left it alone during the test.
it seems to prevent "outliers"

Davemcw with substation will beat yours:)

- smart (if you want) dumb, beaconable, stackable Choose your own beacon config. left in, (both U's) right out.
viewtopic.php?p=529993#p529993