Re: Friday Facts #235 - 0.16 stable
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 2:36 pm
what? not for me. left+reverse the back of the car goes left as it should.bman212121 wrote: Left and forward goes left, left and reverse goes to the right.
what? not for me. left+reverse the back of the car goes left as it should.bman212121 wrote: Left and forward goes left, left and reverse goes to the right.
impetus maximus wrote:what? not for me. left+reverse the back of the car goes left as it should.bman212121 wrote: Left and forward goes left, left and reverse goes to the right.
No. Just plain no. If anything contains my process list or any other information that is not from the factorio memory space or its occupied directory i will disable any automatic upload and open a topic about the privacy breach on the forums.Rhamphoryncus wrote:I never would have thought cheat engine would have harmed the devs, particularly for single player. Could you add a flag to the crash report if it's involved, maybe just by checking the process list?
Note that nearly everybody is not considering it as a problem (given by responses to that thread).numgun wrote:The metagame needs improvement.
Currently the factories and resources we make in Factorio just get discarded once either a satellite is launched or all the content is exhausted on an existing map.
I hope you guys will come up with something that allows any factories and resources gathered matter and be useable for an infinite metagame of sorts. See the link in my signature for a possible solution to this problem. I can answer questions about it if a developer asks them.
Suggested already and rejected - see for an example viewtopic.php?p=339162#p339178Karamel wrote:There is one thing you really should fix before releasing 1.0: the tech tree dependencies. Specifically, all technologies which require a particular science pack (for example blue) should have the technology which makes that pack available (Advanced electronics, in this case) as an (automatic) prerequisite.
Right now I have Advanced oil processing showing as available for research, but I can't possibly research it because I haven't yet researched Advanced electronics so I can't produce blue science packs. To me, this is annoying (because I don't necessarily have each research pack's unlocking tech memorized), to new players it's confusing, and it should be easy to fix permanently algorithmically.
44% is exactly the number you get when you compare two parallel inserters against blue belt, so the test was likely flawed. Also as soon as one wagon is full of one type of item chances are the inserters get stuck and won't transport any other items anymore. That's what i meant with "you can't filter at full speed". I guess it's not really full speed if wagons become full :P. Not that i ever tried to use that setup as an actual transport system. Btw i just tried drag-placing wagons and it doesn't work at all.POPISowyNumer wrote:how were you testing it? Feeding it off the belt? Or off the chests? Because the whole point off this setup is to have four stack inserters putting in and four putting out of each cargo wagon with maximum efficiency of 27,7 items/s, which is also number stated in the wiki.Rinin wrote: Well. you are actually convinced me to test it. And numbers are exactly like in wiki. Blue belt throughput is 44% better. And cheap easy to produce red belts are only 4% worse. Of course compared to fully upgraded stack inserters.
In terms of price 16 blue belts is 504 of iron, and 4 stack inserters, wagon and 3 rails in sum is 501,75 of iron+copper+stone+coal. And it's hardly any economy.
ALSO belts require only Iron that used to be the most sought after ore in 0.15 and before. I now play with RSO so i don't know if it's still a thing in 0.16.
Has anybody tried end-to-end. Basically, using two stack inserters at one end of a cargo wagon and pulling them out at the other? A cargo wagon is 6 tiles long. if you cared about latency, that means you could move 6 tiles just by shoving something into a cargo wagon and taking it out again on the other side. Also, it might be that cargo wagons can be placed one tile apart from each other end-to-end, and so you wouldn't need two rows of inserters between cargo wagons, just one. But, I suspect that may not be the case. A lot depends on whether or not a cargo wagon sticks over the end of the track at all.bobucles wrote:The item locomotive power of one "block" hauls an equivalent force of 665 items across 1 tile per second. Each block has a footprint of 12 tiles, giving 55.4 item moving power per amount of real estate used. This is roughly 40% stronger than using blue belts in the same space. Not bad! It STILL struggles to match the sheer item moving capacity of a high tech roboport which provides up to 80 item moving capacity per unit of land.
Are you using DialUp over Wlan... oh wait.. you are using 4G/3G maybe 2G?Gnivom wrote:Please improve car driving when on latency!
You have manged so well to hide latency that I almost never think about it.
The three exceptions I can think of are:
1. Biters are not where you think they are, and often when fighting you teleport around a lot.
2. Getting run over by a train after having passed the rail 2 seconds ago.
3. Driving a car on high latency is impossible on anything but empty plains.
Number three semms the most annoying, and fixable, to me.
Thanks for picture, it clarifies a lot.bobucles wrote:Are we talking about cargo wagon busses? A 2x2 block of stack inserters can move 110.8 items per second. Each swing of an inserter moves these items 6 tiles as the items hop from 1 train car to the next. The sequence is a repeating pattern of 2 tracks and 4 inserters and is 2 tiles wide (2x6).
That would probably be an invasion of privacy. Even though it's opt-out they're currently within their rights as they're only collecting game data, everything else is obfuscated, and that still caused an uproar.Aeternus wrote:Listing what processes interact with Factorio in a crashlog may show a common culprit.
There is some controversy with the direction stuff should turn when reversing in games. A real car changes direction it turns when backing, that get's very strange with f.ex. a tank that can turn when standing still and usually don't change direction when reversing.impetus maximus wrote:what? not for me. left+reverse the back of the car goes left as it should.bman212121 wrote: Left and forward goes left, left and reverse goes to the right.
Anything above a latency of 50ms gets you very noticible input lag with cars. I don't even try to drive cars in multiplayer any more because it's so unpleasant to try to anticipate how much lag i currently have and how much in advance i have to steer to get the car to react in time. And even the tinyest lag spike rams you right into the next tree.JoneKone wrote:Are you using DialUp over Wlan... oh wait.. you are using 4G/3G maybe 2G?Gnivom wrote:Please improve car driving when on latency!
You have manged so well to hide latency that I almost never think about it.
The three exceptions I can think of are:
1. Biters are not where you think they are, and often when fighting you teleport around a lot.
2. Getting run over by a train after having passed the rail 2 seconds ago.
3. Driving a car on high latency is impossible on anything but empty plains.
Number three semms the most annoying, and fixable, to me.
Controversy? Real car turns direction? Wut? A car in reality and factorio always goes into the direction your steering to relative to the front of the vehicle. So the only thing that changes is what the player assumes to be the "front" of the vehicle (protip: the back is never the front).Lubricus wrote:There is some controversy with the direction stuff should turn when reversing in games. A real car changes direction it turns when backing, that get's very strange with f.ex. a tank that can turn when standing still and usually don't change direction when reversing.impetus maximus wrote:what? not for me. left+reverse the back of the car goes left as it should.bman212121 wrote: Left and forward goes left, left and reverse goes to the right.
If you'd gather the full process list currently running on the computer, yes. If you only list processes that have hooks to Factorio itself? Doubt it. You'd get common graphics drivers, sound drivers, some input/output drivers and software... maybe some screen capture software... Given the fact that the crashlogs already contain a decent amount of hardware info, having drivers and whatnot in there doesn't seem more intrusive to me. If you have it on as is...Deadly-Bagel wrote:That would probably be an invasion of privacy. Even though it's opt-out they're currently within their rights as they're only collecting game data, everything else is obfuscated, and that still caused an uproar.Aeternus wrote:Listing what processes interact with Factorio in a crashlog may show a common culprit.