1-to-N sorting of ores: Is there any hope?

Infinite Ores, Refining, Ore Processing ...

Moderator: Arch666Angel

Post Reply
Bauer
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 12:48 pm
Contact:

1-to-N sorting of ores: Is there any hope?

Post by Bauer »

Is there any hope to ever balance the 1-to-N ore sorting?

Examples:
- I need way more Fe than Cu. I mean more than 2 times more.
- I need tones of Al. How to get rid of Au and/or Zn?

There are ways to balance..
- You can sink any amount of Si into Fe or Steel.
- Rubyte Chunks: Get rid of Ni into Ti.

But in fact, in most cases I think it cannot be balanced.
Ok, I can use the N-to-1 sorting with catalysts.
- This is an easier setup because you have only 1 output. (And you need to crush geodes anyway at some point.)
- You route all crushed stone, geodes, etc. to one place where you produce catalysts only. (Again, only 1 output (okokok, it's in fact 3)).
- Most importantly: It scales easily.

Is there a reason to not use N-to-1 only, when the 1-to-N sorting mess cannot work anyway (or only supplementary)?
I wished the answer would be "yes" because I like the idea and I like complex jobs. But I need the hope that there is a solution!
Please tell me if I'm too stupid but I end up with loads and loads of some sh*t that isn't used in the forseeable future.

User avatar
MeduSalem
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1407
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 8:13 pm
Contact:

Re: 1-to-N sorting of ores: Is there any hope?

Post by MeduSalem »

I think it is too complex to ever be balanced perfectly.

Because what do we want to balance it around?

Everything that happens mid-game somewhere and the caused ore consumption ratios will be obsolete at some point.

So the only thing that would really be persistent is the endgame endless research stuff... but by then we already have catalyst sorting.

Bauer
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 12:48 pm
Contact:

Re: 1-to-N sorting of ores: Is there any hope?

Post by Bauer »

So, your conclusion is: Get rid of 1-to-N sorting ASAP?!

MiniHerc
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:37 pm

Re: 1-to-N sorting of ores: Is there any hope?

Post by MiniHerc »

1-to-N sorting seems to be intended to acquire enough resources to research the necessary technologies for catalyzed direct production of needed ores.

Basically, seemingly intended inefficiencies at the start, with the reward of efficient production later on.

Eketek
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 1-to-N sorting of ores: Is there any hope?

Post by Eketek »

The most fun way I can think of to balance it would be to significantly raise the efficiency of 1-N sorting and provide a set of alternate ore generators which consume manufactured products/intermediates instead of raw resources - preferably products which are predominately made of one metal but also need small amounts of other metals.

User avatar
MeduSalem
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1407
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 8:13 pm
Contact:

Re: 1-to-N sorting of ores: Is there any hope?

Post by MeduSalem »

Bauer wrote:
Fri May 01, 2020 1:25 pm
So, your conclusion is: Get rid of 1-to-N sorting ASAP?!
Well despite of what I wrote above I am with Ambaire on the matter:
Ambaire wrote:
Sat May 02, 2020 6:40 am
1-to-N sorting seems to be intended to acquire enough resources to research the necessary technologies for catalyzed direct production of needed ores.

Basically, seemingly intended inefficiencies at the start, with the reward of efficient production later on.
... so basically it is an early game thing that is fun and keeps you on your toes during that phase but eventually becomes obsolete in later game stages as priorities shift towards solving other problems.


At least it doesn't really work without catalyst sorting and at some point you get sick of stockpiling ores you don't need. First you might try some 1-to-n + catalyst sorting hybrid... which is a the meta I followed for a while but at that point you might as well switch entirely to catalyst sorting to reduce complexity in prioritizing which output stream to take from which is kinda a nightmare with 1-to-n sorting... so pure catalyst sorting is what I usually do nowadays.

So with other words... once you have reached catalyst sorting... tear the old stuff down. I may be proven wrong by someone with more math insight but in my opinion it is not worth the hassle anymore except if you love complexity for the sake of complexity.

That said I never did the math (found it to be too complex with catalyst sorting) to see if there are actually any output efficiency differences in terms of more ore/input in between catalyst sorting or 1-to-N sorting... but even if the 1-to-N sorting gave you more ore per source and hence were more efficient it is still questionable if the balance issue of the output ores would be worth the trouble. If then it would have to be massively better to make it worthwhile so that you only ever resort on catalyst sorting as a backup to fill in the gaps resulting from imbalances.


Also I believe I read somewhere in one of the threads that had the discussion already that Angel didn't intend for it to be perfectly balanced or something and that you are kinda supposed to find your own combination/strategy of dealing with the problem.

User avatar
valneq
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1141
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:43 am
Contact:

Re: 1-to-N sorting of ores: Is there any hope?

Post by valneq »

MeduSalem wrote:
Sun May 31, 2020 8:46 am
... so basically it is an early game thing that is fun and keeps you on your toes during that phase but eventually becomes obsolete in later game stages as priorities shift towards solving other problems.
Like burner inserters! Just on a larger scale :-P
MeduSalem wrote:
Sun May 31, 2020 8:46 am
So with other words... once you have reached catalyst sorting... tear the old stuff down. I may be proven wrong by someone with more math insight but in my opinion it is not worth the hassle anymore except if you love complexity for the sake of complexity.
Well … you still need to make sure you get enough mineral catalyst. In the beginning you will get them from the crushed stone and the slag you accumulated from 1-to-N sorting. Only much later will you get quasi-infinite mineral catalysts from thermal water. In the mean time, some people may want to keep some level of 1-to-N sorting just to keep the mineral catalysts going. Keep in mind that slag is more efficient in producing mineral slurry than is the crushed stone you get from crushing alone. And in the early game the best source for slag is 1-to-N sorting.

I just recently found out that washing for geodes is a good way to produce both mineralized water and crystal slurry which you can use to make mineral sludge. This is an excellent source for mineral catalyst before you have access to the thermal water extractor. This process requires a tiny bit additional crushed stone for more mineralized water which you get from crushing ores. But that you have to do in either case.

Bauer
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 12:48 pm
Contact:

Re: 1-to-N sorting of ores: Is there any hope?

Post by Bauer »

Thanks for your feedback.
So, there is no hope...

Upgarding structures is a pain in the ass in factorio with very few exceptions, e.g. stone to steel furnace setups in vanilla, because throughput ratios rarely match well. Going from 1-to-N sorting to using catalysts means tearing everything down and starting from scratch. Comparing this to the shoot-the-box-ceremony for 25 burner miners is a major understatement.

My learning for my next Bob+Angle run:
- make a quick and dirty, very small, very early 1-to-N setup at a side
- pill as much ore as needed and
- beeline to catalyst sorting ASAP and consider 1-to-N sorting a teething problem.
Last edited by Bauer on Fri Jun 19, 2020 6:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MeduSalem
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1407
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 8:13 pm
Contact:

Re: 1-to-N sorting of ores: Is there any hope?

Post by MeduSalem »

Bauer wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 9:19 am
Thanks for your feedback.
So, there is no hope...

Upgarding structures is a pain in the ass in factorio with very few exceptions, e.g. stone to steel furnace setups in vanilla, because throughput ratios rarely match well. Going from 1-to-N sorting to using catalysts means tearing everything down and starting from scratch. Comparing this to the shot-the-box-ceremony for 25 burner miners is a major understatement.

My learning for my next Bob+Angle run:
- make a quick and dirty, very small, very early 1-to-N setup at a side
- pill as much ore as needed and
- beeline to catalyst sorting ASAP and consider 1-to-N sorting a teething problem.
You could go for a hybrid setup. If you already have some sophisticated 1-to-N then just let it co-exist with catalyst sorting. Put some circuit network override or filter splitter stuff in place that prefers 1-to-N sorting first and only if the output gets blocked because of some ores getting used less then fill up the gaps of the ores that are used more with catalyst sorting.

That is if you think that tearing down everything is too much work or if you feel like going for the best of both worlds.

Bauer
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 12:48 pm
Contact:

Re: 1-to-N sorting of ores: Is there any hope?

Post by Bauer »

MeduSalem wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 11:20 pm

You could go for a hybrid setup. If you already have some sophisticated 1-to-N then just let it co-exist with catalyst sorting. Put some circuit network override or filter splitter stuff in place that prefers 1-to-N sorting first and only if the output gets blocked because of some ores getting used less then fill up the gaps of the ores that are used more with catalyst sorting.
I do appreciate the complexity of Bob+Angel. But this is a nightmare.

I find it extremely difficult to predict how much of each element/metal will be needed* (since it changes all the time). Hence, there is need to make it scaleable. I have not managed to build a scaleable hybird setup that doesn't just scale by adding more catalyst sorting. And then, the 1-to-N sorting is just irrelevant at some point, just spoiling the design by adding lots of spaghetti.

* Is there a good ingame tool to tell me how much ore is needed for something, e.g. science packs? Would that even be possible considering the many different ways to turn ore into xxx?

User avatar
valneq
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1141
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:43 am
Contact:

Re: 1-to-N sorting of ores: Is there any hope?

Post by valneq »

Bauer wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 6:40 am
* Is there a good ingame tool to tell me how much ore is needed for something, e.g. science packs? Would that even be possible considering the many different ways to turn ore into xxx?
I use Helmod to plan production chains. Once you select the recipes you want to use, the machines, and the module/beacon setups, it will tell you how much input (per time) the production chain will need, and how much output (per time) the production chain produces.
https://mods.factorio.com/mod/helmod

You may prefer Factory Planner instead. I recommend to try them both.
https://mods.factorio.com/mod/factoryplanner

User avatar
MeduSalem
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1407
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 8:13 pm
Contact:

Re: 1-to-N sorting of ores: Is there any hope?

Post by MeduSalem »

Bauer wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 6:40 am
I do appreciate the complexity of Bob+Angel. But this is a nightmare.

I find it extremely difficult to predict how much of each element/metal will be needed* (since it changes all the time). Hence, there is need to make it scaleable. I have not managed to build a scaleable hybird setup that doesn't just scale by adding more catalyst sorting. And then, the 1-to-N sorting is just irrelevant at some point, just spoiling the design by adding lots of spaghetti.
I agree, might not be worth it when going full belt setup, even if it is do-able.

In my recent replay where I am also trying Angel industries for the first time I kinda still have the hybrid thingy going using all sorting, even ferric/cupric from early/mid game. But I am also using bots there (which I always push for to make life easier) to move the ores into the logistic buffer silos after the various sorting options... and I use the logistic network amounts from those silos for wireless transfer of signals to determine directly at the filter inserters for the ore outputs which sorting to prefer to fill gaps and also which ingot mixtures to use in smelting depending on which ores I have currently the most of to get rid of that first. Easily scalable and avoids the belt mess.

But I get that using bots to get around the ugly belt mess isn't everyone's cup of tea because it obviously kills certain complexity.

User avatar
pezzawinkle
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:28 am
Contact:

Re: 1-to-N sorting of ores: Is there any hope?

Post by pezzawinkle »

While it was actually possible (ive done it in 0.15), not sure it is now. Either way, i used warehouses/silos to clean out the mess, and if you do plan on scaling, it is a no-brainer to move to N-to-1 sorting when you start using build outposts.
If you really want a solid challenge, around the 1-to-N sorting, id recommend trying the angelsrefining/petrochem on without bobs (sort for iron and copper only).

I will drop a hint on material use from when i last did an analysis on my base:
4x tin
6x iron (4 of those direct to steel)
3x copper
2x alumina
2x nickel
2x tungsten
and basically 1 or less for the other materials

Post Reply

Return to “Angels Mods”