Factorio Forums

SirSmuggler wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:45 am

If you use filters, then the fuel slots will be empty one way and the plate slots will be empty the other way. The end result will still be only half the avalible cargospace beeing used on average. Am I missing something?

Fuel is used very slowly compared to ore. One coal can smelt many units of ore, even in a stone furnace.
Not sure of the exact ratio, but quick math suggests around 30 ore per. Given a cargo wagon can hold 40 slots of stuff, you only really need 2 slots for fuel. Less over more wagons. Except that the iron plates stack twice as large, so that throws it off more, so Ima guess 5 slots for fuel, because don't feel like mathing for something I don't plan to use.

Data : https://wiki.factorio.com/Stone_furnace
For iron/copper/stone purpose :
Stone/steel furnace coal consumption: 0.0225/sec
Stone furnace production : 0.3125/sec => a coal can smelt 13.89 iron/copper plates or stone bricks
Steel furnace production : 0.625/sec => a coal can smelt 27.78 iron/copper plates or stone bricks

Ranakastrasz wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:23 pm

SirSmuggler wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:45 am

If you use filters, then the fuel slots will be empty one way and the plate slots will be empty the other way. The end result will still be only half the avalible cargospace beeing used on average. Am I missing something?

Fuel is used very slowly compared to ore. One coal can smelt many units of ore, even in a stone furnace.
Not sure of the exact ratio, but quick math suggests around 30 ore per. Given a cargo wagon can hold 40 slots of stuff, you only really need 2 slots for fuel. Less over more wagons. Except that the iron plates stack twice as large, so that throws it off more, so Ima guess 5 slots for fuel, because don't feel like mathing for something I don't plan to use.

The premise, as I understod it, was that runing a train to only collect plates menat runing it empty on the return trip. This was inefficient. The solution sudgested was to filter the cargo to use some spaces for fuel in the other direction. My point then was that by filtering the cargo, the space used on one way is empty the other way, regardles of how many spaces are reserved for one or the other product. So the end result seems to be that only half the space is used on average any way.

I might have miss understod something though... It all seems to have difted away from the OT any way

SirSmuggler wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:23 pm

The premise, as I understod it, was that runing a train to only collect plates menat runing it empty on the return trip. This was inefficient. The solution sudgested was to filter the cargo to use some spaces for fuel in the other direction. My point then was that by filtering the cargo, the space used on one way is empty the other way, regardles of how many spaces are reserved for one or the other product. So the end result seems to be that only half the space is used on average any way.

I might have miss understod something though... It all seems to have difted away from the OT any way

(Spellchecker. Use the squiggly red line. Its easy to do.)

Yea, but that's normal. Almost all trains already ARE empty half the time. Ore train. Empty load to the mine, full load of ore to the smelters. Repeat. Half of the time it is empty.
---
Rather than filtering, you can probably do something clever-er via circuit logic or something. Send just as much fuel on the return trip as is needed, no more, no less. Filter unload, w/e. Could work, but again, I have never done it and never seen a need to do so.

SirSmuggler wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:45 am

mrvn wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:55 am

bobucles wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:00 pm

It's a common practice to integrate smelters into mining outposts.

I wouldn't call it common. Early game would have to feed coal to every ore outpost and that's a lot of extra work. Mid game doesn't need the extra train efficiency, there aren't enough materials flying around to care. Late game doesn't have enough tier 3 modules to go recklessly dropping them at every outpost. It is only in the late late late late post game where smelters at mining outputs can be considered a "common practice" and there's nothing common about the post game.

Except your trains bring plates from the outpost to the main base. On the way back they are empty. That is a waste. So you can load a bit of fuel in the train on the way back. Simplest way is to set a filter on the train car to have some fixed fuel slots and the rest plate slots. That's a minimal loss on carrying capacity.

If you use filters, then the fuel slots will be empty one way and the plate slots will be empty the other way. The end result will still be only half the avalible cargospace beeing used on average. Am I missing something?

A) A single coal gives you several ion plates. So you don't have to split the wagon 50:50. So the loss of iron plates for reserving space for coal for the way back is far less than 50%. The ratio gets better the more powerful your fuel is. With nuclear fuel a single slot in a 8 wagon train is probably enough (except at the start because every furnace needs fuel).

B) You could calculate the exact ratio of coal to plates and load the exact number of coals you need for a train full of plates (assuming the ratio comes out nice).

C) You could use circuit logic to set how much coal the outpost has space for in it's buffer chests and only load that many. Then at the outpost all coal can be unloaded and all the space can be used for plates.

Why are you even talking about coal? Are you using burning furnaces in late game?

leadraven wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 20, 2019 7:28 pm

Why are you even talking about coal? Are you using burning furnaces in late game?

Yes, almost always. Electric furnaces are boring. Just one thing in and one out.

Steel furnaces are viable for a surprisingly large portion of the game. The burner efficiency is 100%, so you get 2x smelt speed for 90kW (180kW pre-.17) of drain. Electric smelters consume twice the coal in raw energy (same in .16 and .17), so there is no real reason to rush the upgrade right away.

Electric furnaces are much easier to set up at outposts of course. You don't need coal, so you don't need to worry about supplying coal. Easy. Electric furnaces also become superior when modules come into play. Regular steel furnaces can't use modules.

leadraven wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 20, 2019 7:28 pm

Why are you even talking about coal? Are you using burning furnaces in late game?

Steel furnaces are superior in several respects for quite a while. Until you start mass producing modules, and have massive energy production, steel furnaces are just better.
First of all, they are an effortless upgrade from stone furnaces. Literally just an upgrade, with double speed and no extra power consumption (coal consumption)
Sure, you still need to feed them coal, but you already were doing so.

Electric furnaces use more power, meaning more coal consumed and more pollution. This means you need to have either transitioned to solar panels, nuclear power, or just upscaled power generation massively.
They take up more space, 3x3 instead of 2x2. Thus you have to tear out your old system entirely to install them. You probably have to clean up the belts that had coal on them too, regardless of how you did it.


Does this all apply to a mining outpost? Hard to say, depends on where you are in the tech level. If you are on one of those weird marathon slow-tech worlds, I can see it happening, but I can't imagine steel furnaces are better than electric furnaces if you had a choice from the start.

That makes me think - what is the point of considering electric furnaces without modules ? Modules are quite a bit earlier on the tech tree than electric furnaces...

BlueTemplar wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2019 4:21 pm

That makes me think - what is the point of considering electric furnaces without modules ? Modules are quite a bit earlier on the tech tree than electric furnaces...

Electric furnaces don't use coal. Electric furnaces work off of solar panels. You don't need a half&half belt of coal and ore, or a full lane of iron and the other half iron and half coal. Steel doesn't require coal fed into both sides.

You can send the coal elsewhere, to produce power via steam engines, or use solar power, instead of using coal in the furnace setup.

In other words, reduced complexity. One input to one output instead of two inputs one output. Even if electricity is kinda an input, its an almost global mechanic where distribution doesn't apply. Just having enough steam engines eating coal or enough solar panels or enough nuclear reactors or whatever.

No, my question is : if you intend to use electric furnaces - why would you even use them without modules ?

We were talking about multiple mining outposts, that means late-game (automated satellites, modules mass-production etc).
Replacing steel furnaces with electric ones in-place is insanity. They have absolutely different layouts. I replac burner smelter with railroad terminal, placing electric smelter far away.
And yes, I'm using electric furnaces only with efficiency modules 2. Later - productivity 3.

And I have no idea why are we talking about mid-game in thread about late-game.

leadraven wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2019 4:55 pm

We were talking about multiple mining outposts, that means late-game (automated satellites, modules mass-production etc).
Replacing steel furnaces with electric ones in-place is insanity. They have absolutely different layouts. I replac burner smelter with railroad terminal, placing electric smelter far away.
And yes, I'm using electric furnaces only with efficiency modules 2. Later - productivity 3.

And I have no idea why are we talking about mid-game in thread about late-game.

Thread got derailed, kinda. Specifically, the idea that lategame mining involves, instead of mining and transporting to the forge, you build the forge as part of the mine instead. Which went into whether you use steel furnaces or electric furnaces. Which went into the differences between each of them.

I think.

I think the main issues for late-ish game mining operations are:

-Inability to create custom blueprints from "within" the game, meaning that you cannot make big mining blueprints that will reliably cover the whole deposit. Basically every deposit requires your personal attention to fit your drills/blueprint fragments over it's unique shape and connect everything with belts and the railway, which, after the 10th deposit or so kinda becomes a chore.
This one is the big one, because it makes automated construction of mining outposts impossible. You can drop a blueprint for a complete and functional factory, but you can almost never drop a blueprint for a simple complete and functional mining outpost.

-Few options for long-range remote (de)construction. Basically you have to personally walk to every deposit for (de)construction. Actually though, I think this one is circumventable to a certain degree with smart usage of roboports and robots.
Though on that note, the robot system has probably room for improvement but I guess that would be off-topic.

mudcrabempire wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2019 5:18 pm

I think the main issues for late-ish game mining operations are:

-Inability to create custom blueprints from "within" the game, meaning that you cannot make big mining blueprints that will reliably cover the whole deposit. Basically every deposit requires your personal attention to fit your drills/blueprint fragments over it's unique shape and connect everything with belts and the railway, which, after the 10th deposit or so kinda becomes a chore.
This one is the big one, because it makes automated construction of mining outposts impossible. You can drop a blueprint for a complete and functional factory, but you can almost never drop a blueprint for a simple complete and functional mining outpost.

Yep. We need a force-place option for mining drills. Drills don't physically explode or anything once they run out of ore. It should be like force-placing a blueprint where it doesn't fit. Place it anyway, to the best of your ability.

-Few options for long-range remote (de)construction. Basically you have to personally walk to every deposit for (de)construction. Actually though, I think this one is circumventable to a certain degree with smart usage of roboports and robots.
Though on that note, the robot system has probably room for improvement but I guess that would be off-topic.

Well yea. Everything requires you to be there to construct or deconstruct, unless you use robots. Why do you consider mines a special case worth mentioning?

Ranakastrasz wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:54 pm

Well yea. Everything requires you to be there to construct or deconstruct, unless you use robots. Why do you consider mines a special case worth mentioning?

Your factory is built for the ages, you only need to tear (parts of) it down, when you realize that you cannot expand otherwise. Almost every instance of you having to modify your factory can be prevented by proper planning.

Mining posts are strictly temporary. You build them. You mine them dry. You tear them down (unless you are swimming in resources, but even then usually, to keep the map clean). You have to do this for every single ore deposit. Personally. It get's tedious after a while. It would be nice to better automatize the process, though I guess better blueprints would already be a great step in that direction.

What's wrong with force-placing blueprints ?
Also, as I already mentioned, autotorio.

BlueTemplar wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2019 8:38 pm

What's wrong with force-placing blueprints ?
Also, as I already mentioned, autotorio.

Uhm, that you cannot make the blueprints ingame, because you can't just place mining drills anywhere you want?

Hmm, but you can make a modular blueprint fairly easy to tile, can't you ?