Well the debug info(the one you get by pressing f5) said that electric network used absolutely zero cpu time no matter how many assemblers or mines or inserters I put down. And all the megabase screenshots I could find with 5 minutes of googling said that their pure solar only 10kspm megabase electric network used over 1ms. So I would say yes.mrvn wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:41 pmBut was it any faster than the same with solar?PunPun wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:25 pmTried it. Changed it to use void energy source and it worked just fine without having a powerpole with no blinking icons. Did it for mining drills,labs and inserters too. And while I was at it made their crafting cost be 1 stone. I also made a recipe for one stone to give 10000 of every science and made it have .1s craft time. And also changed the max stacksize of all science to be 2mil and made inserters to move 2mil stacks and labs to have 2mil research speed. I very easily got a 10mil science per second factory that was running at 60ups with zero solar panels and longest part on the entire project was waiting for the game to load. And I could have gone much further if I wanted to but that would have been a waste of time.mrvn wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:02 pmthat affect. Try it out, mod an assembler to use 0 energy and place it without a power pole. Does the "no energy" icon blink? My guess is yes.
Changing every electrical entity to burner entity and setting them to 0 might though. The question then would be: Are burner entities more CPU efficient than electrical? They might be.
Place to discuss the game balance, recipes, health, enemies mining etc.
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:08 pm
- Smart Inserter
- Posts: 1447
- Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:16 pm
Naah, the right™ way to play Factorio is to ass around for 2 hours trying to make a design that's not even the most effective, but the most pleasing to the eye of the player that designed it !PunPun wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 11:52 pmAnd if you use 2 hours building nuclear plants you are doing it wrong. So you spend 30 seconds to plop down the blueprints and wait 2 minutes for the robots to put it together. Also if you build the nuclear plants correctly(with minimal pipes and zero tanks) they take less than .1%(especially with the new parallel fluid simulation introduced in 0.17) so 0.042h+200h*0.001=0.242h and nuclear wins.mrvn wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:45 pmIf you spend 6h building a solar plant then you are doing factorio wrong. It's about automation. So you spend 1h setting up bot production and blueprinting and then the bots build the plant in the background in 6h at 5% UPS cost. So 1h + 5*0.05 = 1.25h. Solar wins.
Note: it used to be much more than 1%. And when the game drops from 60 UPS to 30UPS playing is simply half the fun.
Also during those 6 hours the bots and asemblers and whatnots could be doing something more productive other than planting those solar panels. And you could have used the resources that went to the panels themselves in making something else. And that is not even counting the time it takes to clear all the biters and nests and landfill all the water where you plan to put down the 2mil panels.
It's not just the amount of time you personally spent clicking things.
These are also completely speculative numbers that are ultimately completely meaningless. It's pretty impossible to guess what the numbers actually are and what the break even point actually is until someone benchmarks them.
- 160MW_4nuke_try2_steam&fuel_level.png (4.33 MiB) Viewed 59 times
- Fast Inserter
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:39 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users