pY Coal Processing - Discussion

pyanodon's mods are here

Moderator: pyanodon

Post Reply
Anon2k
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 8:51 am
Contact:

Re: pY Coal Processing - Discussion

Post by Anon2k » Fri May 10, 2019 6:36 pm

Image

must be mk2

immortal_sniper1
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:54 am
Contact:

Re: pY Coal Processing - Discussion

Post by immortal_sniper1 » Fri May 10, 2019 7:41 pm

Anon2k wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 6:30 pm
Again modules. Infinite helium

Image
in this case there is an actual resource consumed besides power also you will bead to beacon that a lot to make use of it

immortal_sniper1
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:54 am
Contact:

Re: pY Coal Processing - Discussion

Post by immortal_sniper1 » Fri May 10, 2019 7:43 pm

Anon2k wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 6:36 pm
Image

must be mk2
MK2 is from raw ores the bot in the recipe is from high tech if one doesn't have raw ores the recipe should have that recipe enabled

Anon2k
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 8:51 am
Contact:

Re: pY Coal Processing - Discussion

Post by Anon2k » Fri May 10, 2019 10:10 pm

immortal_sniper1 wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 7:41 pm
in this case there is an actual resource consumed besides power also you will bead to beacon that a lot to make use of it
Is gasoline the equivalent of helium? Are you serious?

Anon2k
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 8:51 am
Contact:

Re: pY Coal Processing - Discussion

Post by Anon2k » Fri May 10, 2019 10:15 pm

immortal_sniper1 wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 7:43 pm
MK2 is from raw ores the bot in the recipe is from high tech if one doesn't have raw ores the recipe should have that recipe enabled
All enabled. And all is well with the Constructor-bot.

Image

User avatar
pyanodon
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1592
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:42 pm
Contact:

Re: pY Coal Processing - Discussion

Post by pyanodon » Fri May 10, 2019 10:20 pm

please people...could you all post the "bugs" and "suggestions" in the respective py mod thread? THIS ONE is for pyCP and not for HT or others.
pY Coal processing mod
Discord: Pyanodon #5791

Anon2k
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 8:51 am
Contact:

Re: pY Coal Processing - Discussion

Post by Anon2k » Sun May 19, 2019 10:23 am

I see in the scripts that creosote is produced with productivity modules

Image

and this is displayed in the helmod:

Image

But the assembler itself does not work with the productivity modules, it is the assembler itself

Image

and not some concrete recipe.

immortal_sniper1
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:54 am
Contact:

Re: pY Coal Processing - Discussion

Post by immortal_sniper1 » Sun May 19, 2019 5:25 pm

Anon2k wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 10:23 am
I see in the scripts that creosote is produced with productivity modules

Image

and this is displayed in the helmod:

Image

But the assembler itself does not work with the productivity modules, it is the assembler itself

Image

and not some concrete recipe.
not the only case

User avatar
Mithaldu
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 5:39 pm
Contact:

Re: pY Coal Processing - Discussion

Post by Mithaldu » Fri May 24, 2019 11:10 am

I just found that coal processing has 4 levels of Fawogae plantations, but mk02, mk03, mk04 aren't attached to any technologies. Is this as intended?

immortal_sniper1
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:54 am
Contact:

Re: pY Coal Processing - Discussion

Post by immortal_sniper1 » Fri May 24, 2019 10:40 pm

Mithaldu wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 11:10 am
I just found that coal processing has 4 levels of Fawogae plantations, but mk02, mk03, mk04 aren't attached to any technologies. Is this as intended?
YES

User avatar
Mithaldu
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 5:39 pm
Contact:

Re: pY Coal Processing - Discussion

Post by Mithaldu » Sat May 25, 2019 12:32 am

immortal_sniper1 wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 10:40 pm
YES
It's ok, i appreciate the effort you made in your detailed post, but this was also answered constructively in the raw ores thread.

immortal_sniper1
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:54 am
Contact:

Re: pY Coal Processing - Discussion

Post by immortal_sniper1 » Sat May 25, 2019 10:53 am

Mithaldu wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 12:32 am
immortal_sniper1 wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 10:40 pm
YES
It's ok, i appreciate the effort you made in your detailed post, but this was also answered constructively in the raw ores thread.
well it was asked like 100 times already
the mk2-4 dont even have recipes and if u use them in creative man they are super strong 1mk4+a few beacons consumes a entire pomp of water
not sure if u even need the beacons

User avatar
Mithaldu
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 5:39 pm
Contact:

Re: pY Coal Processing - Discussion

Post by Mithaldu » Sat May 25, 2019 11:03 am

immortal_sniper1 wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 10:53 am
well it was asked like 100 times already
the mk2-4 dont even have recipes and if u use them in creative man they are super strong 1mk4+a few beacons consumes a entire pomp of water
not sure if u even need the beacons
Ah, sorry, i did indeed not read the thread, my fault.

That said, the recipe situation depends on your perspective. While playing with these mods i actually read, and have provided patches for the code, and thus i did see the recipes here, but they weren't annotated, so the situation was unclear to me: https://github.com/pyanodon/pycoalproce ... ua#L16-L31

And yeah, i'm currently using like 60 of them to create a fast belt of coal, so it would've been nice to be able to use less space, and i don't have beacons available yet.

immortal_sniper1
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:54 am
Contact:

Re: pY Coal Processing - Discussion

Post by immortal_sniper1 » Sat May 25, 2019 12:57 pm

Mithaldu wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 11:03 am
immortal_sniper1 wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 10:53 am
well it was asked like 100 times already
the mk2-4 dont even have recipes and if u use them in creative man they are super strong 1mk4+a few beacons consumes a entire pomp of water
not sure if u even need the beacons
Ah, sorry, i did indeed not read the thread, my fault.

That said, the recipe situation depends on your perspective. While playing with these mods i actually read, and have provided patches for the code, and thus i did see the recipes here, but they weren't annotated, so the situation was unclear to me: https://github.com/pyanodon/pycoalproce ... ua#L16-L31

And yeah, i'm currently using like 60 of them to create a fast belt of coal, so it would've been nice to be able to use less space, and i don't have beacons available yet.
  • -you arent suppose to make coal in that quantity from them
  • -yes i think they are slow and i beacon them all the time when i can
  • -this inconvenience will probably be resolved in the next mod pyAL
regarding fawogae to coal i use it just to power my turbines with as little external input as possible or for cases when i need like 0.5/s coal somewhere since training it in would be a waste of space and a big drag

here is some advice if you need a little coal localy think of it this way how big do you expect the coal chin from fawogae to be?
if its less then X2.5 the size of the train station and stacker expantion needed use fawogae if no train coal in from some mine

User avatar
Mithaldu
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 5:39 pm
Contact:

Re: pY Coal Processing - Discussion

Post by Mithaldu » Sat May 25, 2019 2:14 pm

immortal_sniper1 wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 12:57 pm
  • -you arent suppose to make coal in that quantity from them
This is not communicated anywhere nor usefully discouraged through mechanics.
immortal_sniper1 wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 12:57 pm
  • -this inconvenience will probably be resolved in the next mod pyAL
Cool, looking forward to it. :)
immortal_sniper1 wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 12:57 pm
regarding fawogae to coal i use it just to power my turbines with as little external input as possible or for cases when i need like 0.5/s coal somewhere since training it in would be a waste of space and a big drag

here is some advice if you need a little coal localy think of it this way how big do you expect the coal chin from fawogae to be?
if its less then X2.5 the size of the train station and stacker expantion needed use fawogae if no train coal in from some mine
As for the coal, i really only use it to help generate Coke, which is needed in massive quantities even when using fairly effective liquid/gaseous fuels for the turbines.

As for coal mines, my map looks like this:

https://i.imgur.com/3v5FZst.png

I don't have access to artillery yet and with the big green worms outranging all my stuff, shooting my way through that mess to any of those places is considerably more work and time investment than simply setting down more greenhouses. I also don't have an easy access to oil.

nagapito
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 357
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 12:18 am
Contact:

Re: pY Coal Processing - Discussion

Post by nagapito » Mon May 27, 2019 10:58 pm

kingarthur wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:21 pm
Alluvial wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:20 pm
Sokitas wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:05 am
Alluvial wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:04 pm
Fix provided.
Still I would hope that it can be considered as an official compatibility fix to the mod in a future update.
Thanks, but it's not a great fix, just a hack to get my game running again. It takes away the small iron electric pole as an ingredient so there is no way to reuse them anymore. It also locks the big electric pole behind the niobium plate chain so without BioIndustries (for Big Wooden Pole) or some other mod there is no simple recipe for longer reach electrical networks. For my game it has put a crimp in my nascent rail network. I now have to get niobium up before most of my rail blueprints will work.

Anyway, I'm not a game coder. I hope someone knowledgable about this set of mods can come up with an elegant solution.
its on my list of issue to go thru and straighten out py+aaii
So... about this issue with the niobium plate chain in big power poles....

Cant this change just be removed until a more elegant solution is found?
I have been the last 5 hours trying to figure out how to make this whole massive chain while trying to go for minimum impact since its still a bootstrap base and also trying to figure out how am I going to obtain niobium ore and other required resources for the chain using only medium/small power poles when these resources arent even available in a 2 radar radius range.....

I only want my big power poles, so I can start doing my rails and design a base that can actually works and it is not barely holding together with some form of duct-tape!!

Also.... kinda mean that the niobium chain relies a lot on sulfur and pumpjacks are gates with an niobium pipe if we have PyRawOres....
Kinda forces us to build a whole new chain to gather oil and obtain sulfur, to make 10 pipes of niobium and then ditch the old chain since we now have easy oil.....

Blokus
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:49 pm
Contact:

Re: pY Coal Processing - Discussion

Post by Blokus » Tue May 28, 2019 1:58 am

nagapito wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 10:58 pm
kingarthur wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:21 pm
Alluvial wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:20 pm
Sokitas wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:05 am
Alluvial wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:04 pm
Fix provided.
Still I would hope that it can be considered as an official compatibility fix to the mod in a future update.
Thanks, but it's not a great fix, just a hack to get my game running again. It takes away the small iron electric pole as an ingredient so there is no way to reuse them anymore. It also locks the big electric pole behind the niobium plate chain so without BioIndustries (for Big Wooden Pole) or some other mod there is no simple recipe for longer reach electrical networks. For my game it has put a crimp in my nascent rail network. I now have to get niobium up before most of my rail blueprints will work.

Anyway, I'm not a game coder. I hope someone knowledgable about this set of mods can come up with an elegant solution.
its on my list of issue to go thru and straighten out py+aaii
So... about this issue with the niobium plate chain in big power poles....

Cant this change just be removed until a more elegant solution is found?
I have been the last 5 hours trying to figure out how to make this whole massive chain while trying to go for minimum impact since its still a bootstrap base and also trying to figure out how am I going to obtain niobium ore and other required resources for the chain using only medium/small power poles when these resources arent even available in a 2 radar radius range.....

I only want my big power poles, so I can start doing my rails and design a base that can actually works and it is not barely holding together with some form of duct-tape!!

Also.... kinda mean that the niobium chain relies a lot on sulfur and pumpjacks are gates with an niobium pipe if we have PyRawOres....
Kinda forces us to build a whole new chain to gather oil and obtain sulfur, to make 10 pipes of niobium and then ditch the old chain since we now have easy oil.....
1. There are workarounds for sulfur. Easiest one is to include PH and use a sulfur mine. Without PH, you can still make sulfuric acid by evaporating tailings. The only reason I don't do a ton of this is because getting any reasonable amount of throughput out of that recipe would obliterate my power supply, since it's a slow recipe and evaporators are power hungry. Also because making nexelit is faster than a sinkhole at destroying tailings (!) and this seems to be by far the easiest way to make nexelit before you can make nexelit mines. Tangent aside, oil is definitely not required to get sulfur in Py.
2. Honestly I have gotten by with small and medium poles, mostly small unless I needed the coverage due to tight spaces at places like train stations, until I was making niobium for sp3 anyway. It's not prohibitive, just annoying.
3. I don't think oil is meant to be particularly easy to get out of the ground in early game once Py is "done", considering how hard it is to do it when PH is enabled. At the moment the only build I have that uses crude (which is my joint rubber/plastic build) makes it out of coal.

nagapito
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 357
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 12:18 am
Contact:

Re: pY Coal Processing - Discussion

Post by nagapito » Tue May 28, 2019 3:13 pm

Blokus wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 1:58 am
1. There are workarounds for sulfur. Easiest one is to include PH and use a sulfur mine. Without PH, you can still make sulfuric acid by evaporating tailings. The only reason I don't do a ton of this is because getting any reasonable amount of throughput out of that recipe would obliterate my power supply, since it's a slow recipe and evaporators are power hungry. Also because making nexelit is faster than a sinkhole at destroying tailings (!) and this seems to be by far the easiest way to make nexelit before you can make nexelit mines. Tangent aside, oil is definitely not required to get sulfur in Py.
So, you agree the that alternatives are a killer at early game since we dont have that much power/resources and all other alternatives involve advanced tech and/or travelling distances to obtain a sulfur mine which, brings again the problem of not being able to use big power poles to stretch the power to those far locations.
One thing is, as tech advances, having better options to produce an item and redesign the base to be more efficient. Other thing is knowingly be forced to build an huge amount of infrastructure that you know will be scrapped a couple seconds later, not because you research new tech, but because you were able to produce a few items and immediately invalidate the whole infrastructure.
Blokus wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 1:58 am
2. Honestly I have gotten by with small and medium poles, mostly small unless I needed the coverage due to tight spaces at places like train stations, until I was making niobium for sp3 anyway. It's not prohibitive, just annoying.
Not having the ability to use big power poles to expand the base is far behind annoying. Is way to restrictive and constrains the playability by a lot. They have one single function, take power to far distances but, players are forced to waste thousands of resources using small poles at early game due to a limitation that has no purpose besides being annoying.

Blokus wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 1:58 am
3. I don't think oil is meant to be particularly easy to get out of the ground in early game once Py is "done", considering how hard it is to do it when PH is enabled. At the moment the only build I have that uses crude (which is my joint rubber/plastic build) makes it out of coal.
In my opinion, restricting oil access at early game is a bad game design choice. Its far more interesting limiting most of the outcomes from oil while still providing some beneficts of oil at early game instead of just scrapping a huge chunck of game play to a later stage. And for new players, slowly getting access to more and more capavilities of oil is more interesting then suddenly open the flood gate and be overwhelmed with all changes.
Besides, if we arent supposed to have easy access to oil and requiring us to have an huge infrastructure before using it, maybe push oil tech unlocks for a later stage?


To me, makes no sense forcing a player to waste huge ammounts of resources to be able to finally access niobium, be forced to build a very unificient chain so he can produce a couple plates (more precisly, 10) and immidiatly scrap the ineficient sulfur production for a oil based one. And once he produces a couple more plates, re-wire the whole access to niobium mine since he can now build large poles...

What is the benefit of it? I dont see one without the exception of causing frustration.
How about instead of forcing the player to use niobium in the big pole recipe, offer a second big pole recipe, way more efficient that now uses niobium?
This way, he can grow is base normally and once he has access to niobium, he can then use it to build big power poles more efficiently.

theblindironman
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 8:31 pm
Contact:

Re: pY Coal Processing - Discussion

Post by theblindironman » Tue May 28, 2019 5:13 pm

Obtaining niobium through quenching tar is the easiest method early on. The biggest pain in the niobium chain is the HCl. Wait, the biggest pain for the majority of pyMods is HCl.


As for early oil, do you have the FTS Reactor recipe to create crude from tailings - aromatics? I made it a long way before a built any pump jacks.

Riktol
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: pY Coal Processing - Discussion

Post by Riktol » Tue May 28, 2019 7:18 pm

I might be using a different set or version of mods but my niobium production doesn't use any sulfur. It does use crude to get the organic solvent (aromatics via Naphtha) but I did that because my lubricant usage is very intermittent. The refined syngas comes from coalbed gas and I probably spent a few thousand steel on drill heads which are sitting on a belt which stretches half way across the map (I probably should have made them on site by taking iron of the nearby patch, I just realised there's a chromium patch not too far south of it as well).

Having looked at it again, it does seem that crude from the aromatics and syngas would be about 10 times more energy efficient and probably the same for space efficiency (which given the sprawl I've generated to get the first 2 science packs working is quite attractive).

Post Reply

Return to “PyMods”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users