Factorio Forums

Okay, one blackout and reload later I've become familiar with the "steam is no longer water" problem on my hybrid plant as well. Glad I put in those control switches to force a bypass on the chemical heater, but damn, this change broke my design about as bad as Medu's. Guess I'll chuck the thing on full nuclear for now, and see if the devs will fix the heat exchanger being able to take boiler output. Tried kludging it but without success.

Question about the new high res graphics - are they high res to the point that if we zoom in all the way in, we won't see any obvious pixels? or does high res only mean they are higher res at 1x zoom than they used to be?

[EDIT:] In factorio settings there's an option for Sprite Resolution, Mine had been set to normal, it looks better with it set to HIGH.[/EDIT]

Train block highlighting: THANK YOU!!!
although it seems it sometimes picks the same color for adjacent blocks, isn't there some mathematical theorem that says 4 colours is enough to always avoid clashes when colouring regions?



(the selected block above the player is block 212, the damaged rail below is block 180, both are coloured yellow)

vanatteveldt wrote:Train block highlighting: THANK YOU!!!

A great addition indeed

Thank you for changing water to steam in Coal liquefaction! Now it's challenging enough to be interesting to implement But maybe description of research should be changed too? Now it states "...turn coal into oil products with the use of water...". Shouldn't it be now "...with use of steam..."?

Fixed that storage tanks used 4 directions although visually only showed 2 so they would conflict in blueprints. (46900)

How do you make entities indifferent to rotation now?
Before this change my larger storage tanks where indifferent to rotation of blueprints.
Now they constantly bitch in blueprints about being not placable above another no mater if i set rotatable = false and two_direction_only = true.

Your modded tank doesn't need to rotate. Set it to rotatable = false only, then clear and redo your blueprints so they only use the default rotation.

Avezo wrote:

Adeon Hawkwood wrote:

Avezo wrote:For example, that steam for coal liquification seems weird, just put a boiler next to a line full of coal that's already there and plug in, doesn't seem to add much to the game. Theoretically setting up combined power plant and refinery might be cool, but I'm personally not going to try that before smarter people crack up all the new ratios.

I'm thinking that the change might have been done to increase the energy costs of the process more than anything else. Right now if you run the recipe and convert everything to solid fuel you actually end up with more stored energy than you started with (10 coal = 80MJ, 10 coal = 10 H. Oil + 15 L. Oil + 20 Petroleum = 3.25 Solid Fuel = 81.25MJ, assuming H. Oil is cracked to L. Oil). Now obviously you use more than 1.25MJ actually running the process but it's still a very favorable rate of return, particularly if your regular processing has excess light oil and you use petroleum from this rather than converting that light oil to petroleum (10 coal + 30 L. Oil = 80MJ + 20 Petroleum, 10 coal + 30 L. Oil = 10 H. Oil + 45 L. Oil + 20 Petroleum = 5.25 Solid Fuel + 20 Petroleum = 131.25MJ + 20 Petroleum). Changing the process to require steam indirectly increases the energy cost of the process.

I actually did some half-napkin math about that and it turned out to be actually a loss of energy. Not much, but still and it was before taking into account power consumption of refineries and chemical plants themselves, so I didn't even bother to go deeper into it. I might've calcualted it wrong though, doesn't matter anymore anyway.

The point is, if it was the case, increasing refineries' power consumption would be much cleaner solution IMO.

Changing refineries power consumption would effect all recipes not just coal liquefaction.

undarl wrote:

bobingabout wrote:

eX_ploit wrote:We can't barrel up steam anymore. Is this a bug or intended?

I don't see any exceptions to tell the universal barrelling script not to make steam barrels.

Actually, in the new __base__/prototypes/fluid/demo-fluid.lua there's a line in the steam definition: "auto_barrel = false". I'm guessing it's also present in the game definition. It does mean you could easily mod steam to be barrel-able if you felt the need, though.

I missed that as I was looking at the barrelling script directly for an exception for steam.

I can probably use this in my own mod to return to my old functionality. (Barrelling gasses is dumb, and half my "fluids" are actually gasses. Half of the rest of them don't make sense to be barrelled EG Ferric Chloride would just dissolve the barrel.)

Aeternus wrote:Your modded tank doesn't need to rotate. Set it to rotatable = false only, then clear and redo your blueprints so they only use the default rotation.

With rotatable=false and two_direction_only=false I can rotate them in all 4 directions when placing and after having placed them.
It seems the rotatable = false is ignored on storage tanks.

vanatteveldt wrote:although it seems it sometimes picks the same color for adjacent blocks, isn't there some mathematical theorem that says 4 colours is enough to always avoid clashes when colouring regions?

Yes, there is a theorem:) But computing it is a NP-complete problem. The computational work needed to make coloring increase very fast with size of the graph. (Edit: It is not so bad, but still probably to heavy and quite complex to implement. )
But we have more than 4 colors and even for 5 colors there is linear algorithm to color a planar graph.
Linear time five-coloring algorithm

And since we have 9 colors, this probably can be even simplified or add some conditions to not put similar colors too close.

bartekltg wrote:

vanatteveldt wrote:although it seems it sometimes picks the same color for adjacent blocks, isn't there some mathematical theorem that says 4 colours is enough to always avoid clashes when colouring regions?

Yes, there is a theorem:) But computing it is a NP-complete problem. The computational work needed to make coloring increase very fast with size of the graph.
But we have more than 4 colors and even for 5 colors there is linear algorithm to color a planar graph.
Linear time five-coloring algorithm

And since we have 9 colors, this probably can be even simplified or add some conditions to not put similar colors too close.

It's just blockID % colorCount, neighbours could have the same colors.

I wonder if we can have burned fuel side product, can we mod burned liquid sideproduct for boilers?

Like replace water with dirty water and have some salt as byproduct for every 1000 water or so.

bobingabout wrote:

eX_ploit wrote:We can't barrel up steam anymore. Is this a bug or intended?

I don't see any exceptions to tell the universal barrelling script not to make steam barrels.

It just doesn't make sense;) Steam and water in the game the has same density. One tank of water get you one tank of steam:) So the steam really is overheated water*). And pressure at saturation curve at 165degC is ~7 atm. You have to get quite special barrels! For 500degC steam... we are above critical point. Critical pressure is 218atm. Ant this is a minimum estimate, since our steam in hotter and we need to squish it.

Personally I think keeping steam in tanks looking like ours is both 'non-realistic' (even in factorio sense) and overpowered. For the other hand, steam contraptions are very useful, and replacing it with accumulators wouldn't be fun. Maybe we need new tanks for steam. Superheated version needing tons of steal and concrete:) and containing less units per tile**)

*) not really, density of water at (160degC/7atm) is ~900kg/m^3.
**) density of supercritical water at 500degC and 230atm is 82kg/m^3. 12 times less than water. At 500atm it is 262kg/m^3.

HanziQ wrote:It's just blockID % colorCount

But it's fast! Both to compute and to write;-)

Hello! My inserters do not load the fuel in to the locomotives!!!
Is this a common problem or just me?

Adeon Hawkwood wrote:

Avezo wrote:For example, that steam for coal liquification seems weird, just put a boiler next to a line full of coal that's already there and plug in, doesn't seem to add much to the game. Theoretically setting up combined power plant and refinery might be cool, but I'm personally not going to try that before smarter people crack up all the new ratios.

I'm thinking that the change might have been done to increase the energy costs of the process more than anything else. Right now if you run the recipe and convert everything to solid fuel you actually end up with more stored energy than you started with (10 coal = 80MJ, 10 coal = 10 H. Oil + 15 L. Oil + 20 Petroleum = 3.25 Solid Fuel = 81.25MJ, assuming H. Oil is cracked to L. Oil). Now obviously you use more than 1.25MJ actually running the process but it's still a very favorable rate of return, particularly if your regular processing has excess light oil and you use petroleum from this rather than converting that light oil to petroleum (10 coal + 30 L. Oil = 80MJ + 20 Petroleum, 10 coal + 30 L. Oil = 10 H. Oil + 45 L. Oil + 20 Petroleum = 5.25 Solid Fuel + 20 Petroleum = 131.25MJ + 20 Petroleum). Changing the process to require steam indirectly increases the energy cost of the process.

RL processes for coal liquefaction do actually start with coal+heavy oil, and then take place at high temp (400-500C) and pressure, so steam makes perfect sense. In fact, it seems like they should be requiring higher temp steam than we actually get from a boiler.

Anyone running nuclear power is probably going to have an excess of 500C steam anyway, so coal liquefaction with steam seems like a natural compliment to that.

SpeedDaemon wrote:

Adeon Hawkwood wrote:

Avezo wrote:For example, that steam for coal liquification seems weird, just put a boiler next to a line full of coal that's already there and plug in, doesn't seem to add much to the game. Theoretically setting up combined power plant and refinery might be cool, but I'm personally not going to try that before smarter people crack up all the new ratios.

I'm thinking that the change might have been done to increase the energy costs of the process more than anything else. Right now if you run the recipe and convert everything to solid fuel you actually end up with more stored energy than you started with (10 coal = 80MJ, 10 coal = 10 H. Oil + 15 L. Oil + 20 Petroleum = 3.25 Solid Fuel = 81.25MJ, assuming H. Oil is cracked to L. Oil). Now obviously you use more than 1.25MJ actually running the process but it's still a very favorable rate of return, particularly if your regular processing has excess light oil and you use petroleum from this rather than converting that light oil to petroleum (10 coal + 30 L. Oil = 80MJ + 20 Petroleum, 10 coal + 30 L. Oil = 10 H. Oil + 45 L. Oil + 20 Petroleum = 5.25 Solid Fuel + 20 Petroleum = 131.25MJ + 20 Petroleum). Changing the process to require steam indirectly increases the energy cost of the process.

RL processes for coal liquefaction do actually start with coal+heavy oil, and then take place at high temp (400-500C) and pressure, so steam makes perfect sense. In fact, it seems like they should be requiring higher temp steam than we actually get from a boiler.

Anyone running nuclear power is probably going to have an excess of 500C steam anyway, so coal liquefaction with steam seems like a natural compliment to that.

I'm using nuclear and heat exchangers for CL. You're saying it's also working with normal boilers?

mophydeen wrote:I'm using nuclear and heat exchangers for CL. You're saying it's also working with normal boilers?

All it needs is 'Steam', not a particular temperature of steam, so yes, it will work with normal boilers.

cpy wrote:I wonder if we can have burned fuel side product, can we mod burned liquid sideproduct for boilers?

Like replace water with dirty water and have some salt as byproduct for every 1000 water or so.

introducing new resources would imply an entire lifecycle so it should be implemented in existing recipes and cause a huge balance change. Since they're not too fond of adding new features and entirely new resource (like with uranium) will be out of the question unless it's considered a huge addition to the game by the devs and the community. simply said: salt is too boring to stand a chance. The only new feature that they're considering is the war train, almost all others have been thrown out of the window in preparation of 1.0