Page 6 of 6

Re: Trains vs conveyors?

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 11:54 am
by Deadly-Bagel
Why would you be using logistic robots if you're strapped for resources? Anyway you can limit the inserters from the train to only output when that resource is below a threshold to allow room for everything else, you can't do that with belts as the unwanted resource blocks everything else.

And if you're using blue or red belts (or even 2+ yellow belts) you don't have any argument at all for why they're better than trains other than that they're simpler (if more work). As Vim said if you're playing a low resource game you'll absolutely want to be using trans because the sheer distance you'll need to go for belts makes the cost, time spent moving and upkeep (as biters will attack belts they find themselves on) far inferior to trains.

At this point we're just repeating ourselves. You prefer belts, which is fine, but you don't have any argument that they're better than trains in any way for transport over ~200 tiles and I'm clearly not going to convince you they're not.

Re: Trains vs conveyors?

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 3:18 pm
by greep
Yeah it's getting old now xD For the record, like I said, I use trains anyways because multi-lane long distance belts will probably just melt your laptop.

Re: Trains vs conveyors?

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:27 pm
by jorgenRe
greep wrote:Yeah it's getting old now xD For the record, like I said, I use trains anyways because multi-lane long distance belts will probably just melt your laptop.
Indeed you are right. Soon (in may) it will have been 2 years since the author of this thread last visited this forum!

Re: Trains vs conveyors?

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:34 pm
by Nich
I think you are forgetting about cost of stations. When I ran the numbers I was out around 2000 tiles and 4+ yellow belts of bandwidth before trains started to make sense. I started to play around with stations lately and I am pretty sure I used more belt in my stations then I needed to reach the deposit.

The thing that I finally realized was trains need really really high bandwidth before they make sense. Say about 24 yellow belts (12 red or 8 blue) The problem is most standard ore deposits can barely support 2 or 3 yellow belts. If you want to join up 5-6 ore deposits to 1 central station you will use almost as much belt as just running the ore straight back to base. Then on your main bus where you could actually use that bandwidth the distance is so short and the stations are so big that it just doesn't make sense.

Really the best reason to use trains is because the are new fun and challenging

Re: Trains vs conveyors?

Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 4:50 pm
by Deadly-Bagel
Nich wrote:I think you are forgetting about cost of stations.
Literally from the previous page:
Deadly-Bagel wrote:As you're only using one red belt I'm only going to unload from one side of the train. That's 12 Stack Inserters, 12 Steel Chests, 12 Fast Inserters and a Train Stop, and two are required, plus the train itself. Again I'm going to assume 1 Iron = 1 Copper. That's ((87 * 12) + (40 * 12) + (12.5 * 12) + 37.5) * 2 + 575 = 3998 ore and 24 Plastic.

The plastic is difficult to factor in but the break-even distance on just the ore is 485 tiles. Once you factor in the loop it's about 500 tiles. Keep in mind this is compared to a single red belt, and this setup will probably happily provide a constant supply of two red belts at least. My last game I was feeding four blue belts from two carriages (unloading both sides) and didn't have any problems, not sure if I was consuming four solid lanes at any time but I was at least getting pretty close. Would easily have been going through four red belts anyway.
And if you want to talk yellow belt costs:
Deadly-Bagel wrote:The moment you add a third yellow belt, rails are well and truly cheaper. A mere distance of 200 tiles covers a train, a wagon and simple loading / unloading stations.
I have calculated this thing to death, the only argument belts have over rails is that they're simpler (though NOT easier), and the upcoming mini tutorials will further reduce this gap.

Re: Trains vs conveyors?

Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 10:37 am
by Rinin
Mainhub -> bullets -> Iron outpost
Mainhub -> repair packs -> Iron outpost
Mainhub -> bullets -> Coal outpost
Mainhub -> repair packs -> Coal outpost
Mainhub -> bullets -> Copper outpost
Mainhub -> repair packs -> Copper outpost
Mainhub -> bullets -> Stone outpost
Mainhub -> repair packs -> Stone outpost
Mainhub -> bullets -> Oil outpost
Mainhub -> repair packs -> Oil outpost

Coal outpost -> coal -> Mainhab
Coal outpost -> coal -> Iron outpost
Coal outpost -> coal -> Copper outpost
Coal outpost -> coal -> Stone outpost
Coal outpost -> coal -> Oil outpost

Iron outpost -> ore -> Mainhab
Copper outpost -> ore -> Mainhab
Stone outpost -> ore -> Mainhab
Oil outpost -> oil -> Mainhab

Good luck with replacing this two rails and bunch of semaphores with "cheap" belts.
One could add dedicated smelters, spare drones supply, and for example spare turrets for outposts for extra challenge.

However belts have 2 additional "pro"
1 They can't kill you
2 You could run on belts quite fast without train, still far slower than train, but anyway

PS. If someone think that rails are expensive they could grab some ore to main hub by hands. And car would provide even decent throughput.

Re: Trains vs conveyors?

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:30 am
by Hiladdar
For me, it is all of the above, or both trains and belts. There are situations where belts are better, and some where trains are better, despite the cost.

By the time I have both blue and military science rolling, I am already in the situation of having to switch out yellow belts with red ones, and production and cost of trains and their components is a non issue. I usually set up several utility lines to produce stuff slowly that I will need later in the game, so when it is time to expand or I'm not saying, "Oh @#$%, I need this now!"

For me, a lot depends on what I think the best technique to fix a problem or get the job done given the resources on hand.


P.S. My wife loves to watch the trains on the screen moving here, there and everywhere, stopping, starting, loading, unloading, without any interaction on my part. So based on that, I would have to be in the "trains are better" camp.

Re: Trains vs conveyors?

Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:44 pm
by Seraphendipity
While conveyors can beat trains for a huge amount of distance, when resource fields are far, FAR away and you are building a megabase, they become more obsolete. The two main advantages of trains are:

1) Throughput. Having three trains go to some iron deposit 5000 spaces away can provide for quite a few belt lanes. If you want that same throughput with the belts, you have to build SEVERAL lanes from the deposit back to the base, thus while one rail is more expensive than one track, it is less expensive than the several tracks needed to match throughput.
2) Train Networks. Whereas a track can only be used by one train, one line of track may host up to some 100 different trains flying around the network. It may be harder to calculate the throughout, but at the minimum you would need 100 belt lanes minimum (and likely much more) to match the capabilities of this train network. This makes rails not only cheaper in some respects, but much more compact and manageable.

If we're talking megabases and large distances, it's arguable that tracks could beat rails in point A to B situation (and even then maybe not), but for networks the trains are unmatched, each rail theoretically being capable of carrying a few stacks of items at the speed of the trains (if you had some perfect network absolutely packed with trains).