Anyone knows a calculation tool that is actually correct and working?

[MeduSalem]

As the title says.

I know there are tons of calculators out there in all kinds of fashions like spreadsheets, web-based, ingame-mods, standalone-apps and I have tried them almost all and they are either all outdated or even if they are "up-to-date" they are just at least wrong somewhere.

Not two of the calculators come up with the same numbers of assemblers/furnaces and most of them aren't transparent enough to show how exactly they calculate the numbers they come up with... which makes me kinda frustrated.

None of them is entirely right either because if I build a test base according to each of those numbers provided the base still ends up behaving weird... either total overflow of a certain item or the opposite... being bottlenecked by something and it's definitely the numbers those calculators provide because using Creative Mod providing infinite ores and also circumventing any transportation bottleneck with ludicrous speed Creative Mod bots (to guarantee it's not the logistics bottlenecking) it still doesn't work out at all and the base is starting to behave weird after a few minutes or hours.

(Sometimes this week I have also been thinking that there might also be something wrong with the game itself hat renders entities not being updated properly or whatever and hence becoming out of sync with the hypothetical calculation tools)

To be fair what almost everyone gets right is the total amount of raw resource items required, including Productivity Modules, but that should at least be expected.

Yet none is reliable when it comes to the amount of machines required when going more sophisticated with speed bonuses provided by Speed Modules and Beacons.


I tried to use Helmod which used to work pretty nicely, but it's GUI is currently broken for me, so not much of a help at all.
Foreman hasn't been working properly in ages.

Also those two web-based ones:
https://kirkmcdonald.github.io/calc.html
https://doomeer.com/factorio/

Several of the spreadsheets found in the Cheatssheets section here on the Forum:
viewforum.php?f=134

And of course my own private spreadsheet I have updated to 0.17 recently.

All of them above come up with different numbers for the same setup.... Ridiculous.

[Bilka]

I've never had a problem with kirkmcdonald being wrong. What doesn't work for you?

[MeduSalem]

I've never had a problem with kirkmcdonald being wrong. What doesn't work for you?

The number of machines required doesn't match up with higher beacon settings like 8 beacons/assembler. From what https://doomeer.com/factorio/ says it should be much less... by a factor of almost 1.4 ... and so do my own numbers though they don't match up by a factor of 1.8.

So kirkmcdonald's base ist totally overproducing items. Except if I am using the thing wrong, but I wouldn't know how to use it wrong though. ^^

Frustrating to say at least.

Example... kirkmconalds says for Chemical Science pack with 4000 packs per minute and fully PM3'd in AM3 with 8 beacons that it would need 190.477 assemblers. Factorio Planner (the other site) says 134.454... and my own calculations show it should be 103.896.

kirk's is overproducing by a ridiculous magnitude. My own is insufficient and starts to bottleneck eventually. Factorio Planner may be more like it, but I can't say for sure.

[Bilka]

Did you read the kirkmcdonald FAQ? The modules are the numbers of modules, NOT beacons. If you did follow that, could you please post a link to both of the calculators set up by you where they show different numbers. That could help to find out what the problem is.

[MeduSalem]

Did you read the kirkmcdonald FAQ? The modules are the numbers of modules, NOT beacons. If you did follow that, could you please post a link to both of the calculators set up by you where they show different numbers. That could help to find out what the problem is.

Ah, nah didn't read that. I interpreted the x-factor as the amount of beacons (Which makes more sense since you could also put 2 diffent modules into a beacon even if it doesn't make sense to use anything but speed modules anyway). So basically I only used half the amount of beacons when using x8 factor instead of x16.

Ah well, then the numbers match up with my own calculations from my own spreadsheet.

... BUT... the problem there is that I doubted my own numbers already before because they are still at least somewhat wrong because the numbers are starting to bottleneck after a few game hours especially on the Logistics, Utility and Production Science Packs. I even use at least 2-4 machines more than specified for better layout reasons and still it underperforms... and that even though resource items/logistics aren't bottlenecked (using Bottleneck Mod to confirm).

So it kinda doesn't make any sense to me why this is happening and I can't locate the error either... and I almost begin to suspect that there might be some marginal ingame sync/update errors that are summing up and eventually that's where reality starts to derivate.

[Serenity]

Hitting the theoretical numbers for a build isn't always easy. If the input just about matches what you need just one inserter missing an item because its arm is out of position lowers the average output. Overproduction and belts that are backed up a bit really help.
Compressing the output belts properly can also require some tricks.

[MeduSalem]

Hitting the theoretical numbers for a build isn't always easy. If the input just about matches what you need just one inserter missing an item because its arm is out of position lowers the average output. Overproduction and belts that are backed up a bit really help.
Compressing the output belts properly can also require some tricks.

Yeah, I never use the exact amount of machines. I always go for 2-4 more per 50-60 machines. So with higher amount of machines (like furnaces) even more to offset possible inaccuracies. Yet it kinda still doesn't work out for my 4000 SPM base.

[MeduSalem]

Even more interesting about this thing is... I calculate with 4000 SPM.

Yet I am only using for 4 rocket silos each boosted by 20 beacons.

To reach exactly 4000SPM you'd need 4.124 rocket silos boosted by 20 beacons.

With other words I am falling a little short on the Space Science Pack on purpose... which I am using to throttle all the other science packs production.

But and that is the weird thing about it... since I actually produce slightly less than 4000 space science packs it should even more likely work for all the others since I am still going with full 4000SPM setup for all other science packs, yet its not the space science packs that fall short but rather Logistics, Production and Utilitiy science packs even though they are more than 4000 SPM capable (due to using more than the 4000SPM specification and all that while using less than 4000SPM due to Space Science throttle anyway)

Just strange.

[DaleStan]

For what it's worth, I manually downloaded and installed helmod 0.8.5 and have been using that instead of 0.8.8.

Helmod says that you need 104 assemblers, assuming all of them have 4 productivity 3 modules, and all of them are covered by 8 beacons with two speed 3 modules each. I get the same number manually: 4000/60 (packs per second) /2 (packs per production cycle gives production cycles per second) /1.4 (productivity bonus) * 24 (production time per production cycle, gives production time per second) /5.5 (production time per second per machine, gives machines) = 103.8961.

Two thoughts:
Did you check all your assemblers to make sure all of them are covered by eight beacons? Energy 3.6 MW (+880%), Speed 5.5 (+340%) , Productivity +40%, Number of effect sources 12.

Are you generating enough electricity? All your production will slow down if you don't have enough power, but I would guess that the launch animation doesn't, which increases the effective speed of the rocket silos in low-power situations.

[GrumpyJoe]

But and that is the weird thing about it... since I actually produce slightly less than 4000 space science packs it should even more likely work for all the others since I am still going with full 4000SPM setup for all other science packs, yet its not the space science packs that fall short but rather Logistics, Production and Utilitiy science packs even though they are more than 4000 SPM capable (due to using more than the 4000SPM specification and all that while using less than 4000SPM due to Space Science throttle anyway)

Just strange.

test each science build on a different save, with creative mod. It can instant blueprint, the whole build will be set up in like 5 minutes if you carry over the BPs from your live game.
perfect input via self filling requester chests and void chests consuming the output.

[MeduSalem]

For what it's worth, I manually downloaded and installed helmod 0.8.5 and have been using that instead of 0.8.8.

Helmod says that you need 104 assemblers, assuming all of them have 4 productivity 3 modules, and all of them are covered by 8 beacons with two speed 3 modules each. I get the same number manually: 4000/60 (packs per second) /2 (packs per production cycle gives production cycles per second) /1.4 (productivity bonus) * 24 (production time per production cycle, gives production time per second) /5.5 (production time per second per machine, gives machines) = 103.8961.

Two thoughts:
Did you check all your assemblers to make sure all of them are covered by eight beacons? Energy 3.6 MW (+880%), Speed 5.5 (+340%) , Productivity +40%, Number of effect sources 12.

Are you generating enough electricity? All your production will slow down if you don't have enough power, but I would guess that the launch animation doesn't, which increases the effective speed of the rocket silos in low-power situations.

Yes, checked all of it... like 10 times over because I couldn't believe that it wouldn't suffice for the 4000SPM, hence why I came up with the thought that something strange must be going on there, tripple-checked my calculations, cross-checked with other calculators.

Hence why I found out that a lot of the calculators around don't come up with the same numbers either haha, except for kirkmcdonald's and helmods, they are in-line with each other and my own calculations, though helmod was broken at the point I tried to figure out what's up (it didn't show any numbers at all, UI bug or something) so it was no help and I used kirkmcdonald's Speed Modules amount in beacons wrong first.

Yet even though hypothetically the numbers should be correct, it doesn't work out for some reason.

And yeah, electricity is enough... because for the 4000SPM test base I was using Creative Mod's passive energy source, so unable to run out of energy.

Strangely enough is... that it didn't work for the 1000SPM base I tried before either. There also 2-3 of the science packs also bottlenecked so I placed 2 more assemblers to make up for it but then it worked. I didn't even have to increase the entire crafting cascade... it was merely the packs in the last stage that just didn't work out for some reason. And in fact I used the 1000SPM base modules and just copy&pasted the blueprints 4 times over for the 4000SPM, but then it bottlenecked again.

I think it really might be some issues with the Inserter timings or something else that adds up with 4000SPM, something that is so tiny per machine that the Bottleneck mod doesn't show it and neither can I see anything being wrong, but it's there and it adds up over time. Maybe something is broken and I am just too blind to see it... like I am unable to see the wood for the trees.

Maybe when I have more time and nerves I will look into the matter again, but for now I am too annoyed by it, especially since the base is also starting to slow down to a crawl not only because of the bottleneck, but due to UPS hit thanks to the amount of entities.

test each science build on a different save, with creative mod. It can instant blueprint, the whole build will be set up in like 5 minutes if you carry over the BPs from your live game.
perfect input via self filling requester chests and void chests consuming the output.

Actually I built the 4000SPM base with Creative Mod as a test if I can even run such a base in the first place because of my CPU.

Turned out that my computer is incapable of running a 4000 SPM base anyway. Already slowed to 45 UPS and I haven't placed most of the furnaces yet. 1000SPM was smooth, maybe 2000SPM might be the limit on my computer.

[BlueTemplar]

I think it really might be some issues with the Inserter timings or something else that adds up with 4000SPM, something that is so tiny per machine that the Bottleneck mod doesn't show it and neither can I see anything being wrong, but it's there and it adds up over time. Maybe something is broken and I am just too blind to see it... like I am unable to see the wood for the trees.

Maybe when I have more time and nerves I will look into the matter again, but for now I am too annoyed by it, especially since the base is also starting to slow down to a crawl not only because of the bottleneck, but due to UPS hit thanks to the amount of entities.

More eyes, the better - upload your save so that other people can take a look at it ? (Preferably the 1k SPM one I guess...)

[Zavian]

So it kinda doesn't make any sense to me why this is happening and I can't locate the error either... and I almost begin to suspect that there might be some marginal ingame sync/update errors that are summing up and eventually that's where reality starts to derivate.

I was reminded of a bug in science flask consumption stats recently, that when I tested in 0.16.43 was causing science flask consumption to be under-reported by around 1.5% (or over 20% if using lab chaining). viewtopic.php?f=48&t=60492&p=363686#p363686 (The bug was considered a minor issue, so I think it still applies). So are you relying on the production/consumption stats when you talk about unexplained under-production?

Another possible reason for production failing to reach theoretical calculations is inserters not keeping up, resulting in assemblers being starved or output blocked for a tick or 2. That is something that bottleneck might not show, since from memory it only looks at so many assemblers per tick. It is very easy to underestimate how many inserters things like copper wire and green circuits need.

eg A copper wire assembler with 4 prod 3 modules + 8 speed beacons produces 30.8 copper wires per second, which means it that a single stack inserter can't keep up, even outputting to a chest or direct insertion into another assembler. Likewise a green circuit assembler with the same modules and beacons will consume 33 copper wire per second. Again more than one stack inserter can cope with. This is one reason why many designs never reach their designers theoretical production.

I'm not aware of any Factorio calculator that will highlight potential inserter throughput issues. Things also get much more complicated if you are using belts. eg see viewtopic.php?f=5&t=70055&p=425878#p425878 which shows two 'identical' belt + inserter setups with significantly different throughput, simply because the inserter starts it's swing 1 tick later. If using belts and beacons I tend to overdesign the inserters, then check carefully that no machine is input starved, or output blocked.

[BlueTemplar]

I'm not aware of any Factorio calculator that will highlight potential inserter throughput issues.

You can figure out an approximation by knowing by heart the common inserter speeds.

Actual Craft Time tries to show the required inserters :

(But tends to crash with complex mods like Angels or Py... and only covers some inserters and their most basic configurations.)

[Zavian]

You can figure out an approximation by knowing by heart the common inserter speeds.

Ohh I fully agree. (Although it is often wise to allow lots of margin with inserters interacting with belts. The quoted throughput figures tend to be best cases picking up from a full belt, or depositing on an empty belt, not something that always happens in real belt layouts).

My point was more that it is easy to forget to consider inserter throughput when designing, and even when trying to debug why a design isn't reaching it's expected throughput.