Tips, Designs, & Tricks

[Skellitor301]

Updated:

• Added Aru's compact steam layout, complete with backup power versions
• Minor grammar tweaks

[Aru]

Keep in mind, part of the mechanics behind this limit the sorting to two items, any more and the sorting will not work quite like it's meant to.

You can sort any number of items with splitters. To sort out n item types, you need a minimum (n-1)*2 splitters.

Really? because from what I've seen in the splitter sorters it works on a "everything that isn't the item running in the filter can go through" sort of deal. Which isn't really a good way to filter out 3 or more items.

I think that is how it works, but, you can run "everything" through another sorter to sort out another item, and repeat, to sort out as many item types as you want. But unless you want to use a lot more splitters, it can only take one belt of input. (One lane, really, but there's ways to improve that. ...Less than one lane, really, because that requires a side load.) (Really, you can pick which items get sorted to which path, you could put 10 item types on one output and leave the others, it's not restricted to one.)

Aru has also given us another steam layout that is space efficient, using only low tech for the early steam powered builds so it's not as efficient, but it's still a great start for anyone's starting power.

It should be just as efficient for power, and fully stackable, see this post for numbers. That yellow belt supports 10 adjacent rows of engines by my calculation (maybe you should mention that in first post). And, only the first of the images is high res, I didn't take the trouble to stitch pieces together for the other screenshots cause it's kind of tedious if you rely on mspaint... . But if you really want me to I can. By the way you put the same image in your post twice.

I didn't test this much, if two pumps per line of engines is truly adequate, or if you need 3 (edit: 2 should be enough). And if you remove patric's original basic steam layout, credit them again because mine is 99% derivative, I just went over the same task and arrived at a very similar result, because it's a straightforward task. (edit: I lied about being derivative to be nice, my only source was testing and experiments in the game itself, untainted by wiki and forums. This was Patric's layout in the first post at the time I posted mine: OP image at the time.)

Ooooooh you re-uploaded the lossless one on imgur! I couldn't figure it out, how did you do that? It wanted to recompress everything to ugly jpeg. I'll swap it in my other post.

I did a test, and yes indeed, theory is confirmed and this configuration tiles to 100 engines just fine on one yellow belt. I moved a few of the power poles a little and added some, so that inserters would get full power from the main grid. The engine info is from the bottom-left engine, which is most distant from the coal source. (Don't use these screen shots, just demonstrating the stacking. Or use it if you want I guess, just keep that pretty lossless one.)

Images

[Skellitor301]

Wait I did? *checks* doh! Wow, and I even previewed it before I submitted it. Hehe, thanks, it's fixed.

As for uploading to Imgur, up in the top towards the left there's a button that says "upload" and you can upload to imgur 4 different ways. either by drag and drop, by url (Which is what I did ), paste from your clipboard, or browse your computer through your browser. I'd recommend using a screenshooting software to help with getting your screenshots easier. I use Screenshooter, basically I can fullscreenshot or select a portion of my screen and it'll automatically upload it to the screenshooter servers and put a url link in your clipboard automatically. If you do use screenshooter, just a heads up the url isn't the direct image, it's a page with the image on it and some other artifacts. So if you're going to upload via url then paste the url in your browser, right click the image and copy image location.

Anyway, I've updated the section for your steam engines, sorry for the mixup and yea, if theres anything that needs adding let me know.

[Patric20878]

Hey Skellitor! Long time no see. I just analyzed Aru's design and arrived at the conclusion that I am able to upgrade my design to incorporate both the compactness/efficiency AND his low-tech design, rendering both our designs obsolete. Details in my thread, I'll update you once I finish this new upgrade.

[Skellitor301]

Heyo, sorry about the late reply. Any updates are always welcome to the TDT bank. Remember though it's not a competition as to who makes the better build, a variety of builds for players to see and use are the goal. Keep things interesting with a mix of different ideas in each factory.

But yes, if you want to update any submission, feel free to post the info and any screenshots you've taken to help make the build layout easier to share.

[Patric20878]

Except the goal here is to incorporate all interesting things to my steam engine setup. And so far, I've managed to do so (with some difficulty) - steam engine setups just aren't complex enough to need several branching designs. But anyways, I just finished the upgrade. Now is just as low-tech and stackable as Aru's design, and is even more compact than before! Sure discussed a ton on optimization with Aru, who was a great help. Refer to my thread for info and new pictures.

[Aru]

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 about tied again for power per resource (0.36% higher) but you can't walk through. And if anyone wonders, the purpose of the 3 burner inserters per 2 rows is that it can start up from 0 to full power without manually inserting coal, and without too much delay.

[Patric20878]

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. If you switch the underground pipes for normal ones, it's about tied again for power per resource (0.36% higher) but you can't walk through. And if anyone wonders, the purpose of the 3 burner inserters per 2 rows is that it can start up from 0 to full power without manually inserting coal, and without too much delay.

If it's power generated by area you're talking about, as in steam engines over rectangular area, math shows mine is ~0.67% higher, as posted in my thread. Otherwise, you'll have to clarify power by area. You can't simply just count your design as 69 tiles wide instead of 70 just because only 2 poles are there. It's also ~5.97% smaller, and I didn't measure the power per raw resource thing yet.

Oh and on your post earlier, Cerbsen showed that 2 pumps is enough per offshore pump since a year ago, as posted in my thread, specifically after I used the wrong number when designing the original water battery variant.

[Aru]

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 enough per offshore pump since a year ago, as posted in my thread, specifically after I used the wrong number when designing the original water battery variant.

I thought so, but I didn't think it was worth testing, it was easier to just put a screen shot of both. Skellitor can remove the other shot, it uses medium poles anyway.

[Patric20878]

Oh but see, I DO count them as partial weight. But I definitely don't count them as partial rows. That's the difference. It's still around the same, but the point I was making with all these calculations is that my design doesn't sacrifice power by area to save space. It might have higher resource per power though, that I will measure.

[Aru]

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.

[Patric20878]

I was talking about the width also, the 67/71 tiles number. By partial weight, I was referring to the fact that weight implies mass. The 2 poles obviously only partially occupy the 1 column they're in, but they still occupy one whole column in width, even if less than a column's full space (3 tiles per engine row). And that's the area vs mass per area (aka area density) distinction I was trying to make on your design.

[Aru]

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 the two older ones on top and add Patric's latest, keep our two. Patric's is about 0.67% higher power per measurable area of the overall pattern.

[Patric20878]

Well anyways, said enough about width already.

And yeah, agreed on our 2 designs. We've proven why having boiler chains is a really bad idea when stacking, which is good enough reason to remove the original compact power plant. Neither of ours uses boiler chains. And Aru's design should still be kept as variation on steam engine design, because his uses the full 10/10 engines per 2 rows, where my uses 10/9, which even if more efficient, may be less appealing to those who like pretty numbers n' such And also, for his backup system, which I don't really know about, but is different from my water battery's backup system, I think.

[Aru]

Also those who prefer to leave out the expense of the underground belts, for the efficiency of resource cost per power (~2.97% cheaper per power). (Or alternatively being unable to walk through the left side by replacing underground pipes.) And yeah the backup systems are unrelated and co-exist, backing up solar for nighttime or turret use vs. insurance against low fuel. The 3 burner inserters per 2 engine rows is also independent, can be done on any design to allow engines to bootstrap, to restart from 0 power without manually adding fuel, in a reasonable amount of time.

[Patric20878]

Also those who prefer to leave out the expense of the underground belts, for the efficiency of resource cost per power (~2.97% cheaper per power)

Just counted, mine costs ~2.06% more resources. Therefore yours is ~2.02% cheaper per power, not ~2.97%.

So in summary then, the difference between our base designs is that mine is ~5.97% smaller and generates ~0.67% higher power per area, but costs ~2.06% more resources to make. And for our backup systems, mine adds backup boiling water to the steam engines, whereas yours adds the steam engine setup as backup to primary power source. And the two backup systems can coexist in the form of 2 sets of 2 small pumps each row, which would be able to both detect coal shortages, activating the water tanks, and be able to backup a primary power source. Both backup systems are useful, but optional.

Resource Table

Mine:

Offshore pump: 8 * 2
Pipe to ground: 7.5 * 4
Splitter: 23.5 * 1
Underground belt: 8.75 * 2
Transport belt: 1.5 * 16
Inserter: 5.5 * 24
Burner inserter: 3 * 3
Boiler: 6 * 27
Small electric pole: 1 * 8
Pipe: 1 * 7
Steam engine: 20 * 19

Total: 809


Yours:

Offshore pump: 8 * 2
Pipe to ground: 7.5 * 4
Splitter: 23.5 * 1
Transport belt: 1.5 * 20
Inserter: 5.5 * 28
Boiler: 6 * 28
Small electric pole: 1 * ~7.857
Pipe: 1 * 5
Steam engine: 20 * 20

Total ~834.36

[Aru]

You forgot to match the burner inserters, for one thing. And you doubled the cost of small poles. And they were stretched on the right side, so 7+6/7~=7.857 small poles. (And you might have left out stone and wood.)
1/(1-0.0289) - 1 ~= 2.97%
Also, if it were 2.08% more, the flip for cheaper would be 1-1/(1+0.0208) ~= 2.04%. As in, if A is 100% more than B, then B is 50% less than A.

So there's the number discrepancy.

[Patric20878]

Corrected small pole resource costs. Confirmed the ability for the small poles on the right to stretch to 3 poles per 7 engines, so it is indeed .857 per 2 instead of 1. Stone and wood were factored in, as I took raw resource costs directly from the wiki. And what burner inserter matching? Yours has no burner inserters. I correctly put 24 inserters, 3 burner inserters on mine, and 28 inserters on yours.

From those adjustments, mine is 2.06% more expensive. And welp, %cheaper has always confused me, so maybe it's better I stick with saying x is % AS expensive as y instead of more or less expensive/cheap. I'm guessing saying 5% cheaper is not the same as saying -5% more more expensive eh. But either way, that's nowhere near the 2.97% you're getting, even when flipped, as mine being 2.08% more expensive than yours flips to yours being 2.02% cheaper than mine.

[Aru]

My calculation about burner inserter count for automatic restarting is independent of our designs, it can be added to either one, as needed. If you really want cheaper initial cost you could use nothing but burner inserters, but it's more expensive in the longer run. To compare costs, use the same burner inserter count.

[Patric20878]

Oh. Well seeing I'm comparing my shown setup with your shown setup, the burner inserters is what I'll use. I am calculating these numbers for readers after all, you can't expect them to just know this. Or you could always update your picture to reflect the 3 inserters. But I see where you're getting ~3% from now. My math gives ~3.01% higher resource cost on mine if I count them as 27 inserters, or ~2.99% higher if I count yours as 25 inserters + 3 burner inserters.