Factorio Forums

TL;DR

A stack of cut wood should be more energy dense than a stack of raw wood.

What ?

"Raw Wood" (which would be more clear as "Timber") has 4MJ of energy and a stack size of 100, for 400MJ of energy per stack when used as fuel.
"Wood" (which would be more clear as "Lumber") has 2MJ of energy and a stack size of 50, for 100MJ of energy per stack when used as fuel.

That seems very backwards. I can stack lumber a lot more effectively than raw wood. I'm sure people would scream if you decreased the stack size for raw wood, so maybe increase the stack size for lumber? Lumber stacked to 200 would make them balanced.

Why ?

Since lumber is usable as fuel, there should be some reason to do it. Being able to pack at least as much onto a train would make sense. More would be better.

I think this belongs in the "balancing" forum.

Oh, sorry, that makes sense.

But the names, those should really be changed.

Per raw resources, the two types of wood have the same energy. Converting 4MJ to 2*2MJ conserves energy, there is the Productivity Module which can get extra wood from Raw Wood, essentially creating energy. I created a setup in my factory today that will take Raw Wood and turn it into Wood to be burned, with the Productivity Module lending a helping hand.

This productivity module creating energy does give an incentive to use it, but I'm not entirely sure if it costs more energy to make it than I get out of it.

I wouldn't know what the difference between Timber and Lumber is, they're words we don't use. The only place I've ever really heard the word timber, is that's what lumberjacks shout when a tree falls down. And I may have heard the word lumber before on American TV shows and movies, but never really understood what it was beyond "Wood".

Raw wood could be renamed to Logs though, and that would make far more sense than "Raw wood".

Remember, English means "English", not specifically "American English", so avoiding American specific words like Timber and Lumber is a good call.

bobingabout wrote:I wouldn't know what the difference between Timber and Lumber is, they're words we don't use. The only place I've ever really heard the word timber, is that's what lumberjacks shout when a tree falls down. And I may have heard the word lumber before on American TV shows and movies, but never really understood what it was beyond "Wood".

Raw wood could be renamed to Logs though, and that would make far more sense than "Raw wood".

Remember, English means "English", not specifically "American English", so avoiding American specific words like Timber and Lumber is a good call.

Huh. I had no idea they were American words. But Google agrees with you. Lumber is only defined in North America as "Timber sawed into rough planks or otherwise partly prepared."

Logs is fine for the raw material.

"Boards"? "Planks"? The icon looks like sheet material like plywood, but that wouldn't make much sense with how it's used.

QGamer wrote:Per raw resources, the two types of wood have the same energy. Converting 4MJ to 2*2MJ conserves energy, there is the Productivity Module which can get extra wood from Raw Wood, essentially creating energy. I created a setup in my factory today that will take Raw Wood and turn it into Wood to be burned, with the Productivity Module lending a helping hand.

This productivity module creating energy does give an incentive to use it, but I'm not entirely sure if it costs more energy to make it than I get out of it.

Productivity modules seem to soak up a lot of power. Actually, saw mills are a great example of how I perceive Productivity Modules in the real world. There is careful thought to find the best way to cut planks from logs with as little waste as possible. But yes, you wouldn't get the same energy from a log once you've cut it up. Lots of sawdust and other waste. (But we're getting more clever all the time on finding ways to use that waste.)

Just to be absolutely clear, in terms of balance, I'm talking about adjusting stack sizes to make a stack of planks no less energy than a stack of logs, preferably more.

nljr wrote:Huh. I had no idea they were American words. But Google agrees with you. Lumber is only defined in North America as "Timber sawed into rough planks or otherwise partly prepared."

Logs is fine for the raw material.

"Boards"? "Planks"? The icon looks like sheet material like plywood, but that wouldn't make much sense with how it's used.

Logs and Wooden boards. I'd be fine with those names. (though I already use wooden board for my low level electronics board name, I'd be okay renaming it to something else.)

Wouldn't it be nice if the thread had a title about it's content? It's in balancing. Naming a thread in the balance section "Balance" is redundant and non-informative.
I mean the silly typo is a nice joke but it just makes you look stupid until you read the contents of the thread. And I'm not reading the thread if I don't know its topic.

Qon wrote:It's in balancing. Naming a thread in the balance section "Balance" is redundant and non-informative.

Not when I posted it.

Qon wrote:I mean the silly typo is a nice joke but it just makes you look stupid until you read the contents of the thread. And I'm not reading the thread if I don't know its topic.

Silly pun, not typo, but you make a good point. The title is probably why it got moved here. I've fixed it.

bobingabout wrote:English means "English", not specifically "American English", so avoiding American specific words

According to Dictionary.com, lumber is from the 1500s, and timber is from the 900s. Both of which predate the United States by more than a century. These are totally acceptable English words, not specific to one country.

AileTheAlien wrote:

bobingabout wrote:English means "English", not specifically "American English", so avoiding American specific words

According to Dictionary.com, lumber is from the 1500s, and timber is from the 900s. Both of which predate the United States by more than a century. These are totally acceptable English words, not specific to one country.

you're talking ancient times there. Language evolves, new words come into use, and old words drop out. Timber and Lumber would be an example of words that are no longer used, and would be confusing to the majority (outside of America).

AileTheAlien wrote:

bobingabout wrote:English means "English", not specifically "American English", so avoiding American specific words

According to Dictionary.com, lumber is from the 1500s, and timber is from the 900s. Both of which predate the United States by more than a century. These are totally acceptable English words, not specific to one country.

From what little I know about Linguistics, the language spoken in Britain has changed much faster than American English. I've heard there are people in the Appalachian mountains who speak something very close to Shakespearian English. Apparently, this sort of thing is common when a language is carried into a new region. The offshoot will either evolve much slower or much, much faster than the parent country.