Wrong sulfur chemistry

[AcThPaU]

I know this is not rocket science, but as a chemistry major, I have to criticize this because its so wrong.

1. Recovering sulfur from petroleum gas does not make the petroleum gas go away, conservation of matter.
2. Sulfur is removed at the first step of petroleum processing. In factorio, there's no natural gas, petroleum gas is made from crude oil, thus sulfur is recovered at oil refinery, not a chemical plant that consumes petroleum gas.
3. Making sulfuric acid does not require iron. All you need is sulfur, air, water (and catalyst, which you can ignore for the game). Iron plate and sulfuric acid are not even remotely relevant. Where did you get the idea of iron anyway ?

Suggestion: Advanced refinery produces sulfur (as a result, less pollution)
Remove iron plate from sulfuric acid recipe.

[Kayanor]

Factorio is not "correct" in many ways: chemistry has its own ways to handle things, physics have their own laws. See the train for example: you can see trains driving with a speed of 250 km/h through a roundabout of 20 m radius.

[AcolyteOfRocket]

I agree that the current factorio process for sulphur is wrong, but I don't think it matters.

Factorio only has a few feeds to work with and needs to be able to use those to make the products the game depicts.

The real process for sulphur-from-oil would need a variable rate of sulphur production since not all oil deposits contain recoverable sulphur.

I think the current system is OK, but then I said that about the sprites and they are still replacing them

[British_Petroleum]

If you want more realistic recipes try bobs + angels mods

[Nich]

Thanks for the info I always love to learn but ya I have to agree play ability vs realism. While I like the idea of a third super advanced oil processing I wonder how much it adds to the game and the difficultly of adding a 4th output to the refinery

[OkariDraconis]

As an avid player of Bobs mod, if you like realism, and the challenge it brings, I really really recommend it.

[AcThPaU]

Factorio is not "correct" in many ways: chemistry has its own ways to handle things, physics have their own laws. See the train for example: you can see trains driving with a speed of 250 km/h through a roundabout of 20 m radius.

The reason I'm bringing this up is that it might be corrected fairly easily as per suggestion. The game is not precise science, but it could at least try to behave in accord with fundamental laws, e.g. The 1st 2nd 3rd law of motion | The 1st law of thermodynamics (2nd and 3rd are too complex for the game)

I don't care about "realism" or "logic" or "common sense" as often used to criticize si-fi game/movie/TVs. The background is an alien planet, It can have ores above surface, it can have earth-like gravity, etc.

The train can go whatever speed in whatever roundabouts, it doesn't violate the law of motions, because the train can have whatever power system it likes and the rail can handle whatever force it likes.

However, fundamental laws of physics are different matter, even a black hole can not cheat laws of thermodynamics (relativistic version), it would make sense trying to let the game obey them as well.

The sulfur stuff in the game, regardless of real industry processes, is definitely in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

[userasd]

What about the medieval way of doing sulfuric acid using vitriol (iron sulfate) ?

[ssilk]

AcThPaU, I like your view. Seeing it like this (fundamental laws of physics) makes eventually much sense.

But on the other hand there is the game value. And you can make a super realistic game, but it will not sell, cause it is no fun to play it.

So doing it "right" is always a compromise.