[0.15.*] Feedback topic
Re: [0.15.*] Feedback topic
After playing a bit I'm currently thinking about buffing iron patches.
Once you start getting into new science packs iron usage goes insane.
Once you start getting into new science packs iron usage goes insane.
Re: [0.15.*] Feedback topic
How does this compare with the new "train world" vanilla game setting?
-
- Inserter
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:10 am
- Contact:
Re: [0.15.*] Feedback topic
I have played now a bit more weith rso and have quite a good feeling about it.
Have explored a big chunk of the map. Indeed iron is a little lower, I have found 2x as many coper patches. And about 7 oil wells close together, so that change was indeed good. That could be a only random outcome, I based my experience only on 1 map.
I set my uraium on low frequency and other ores to normal and havent found it yet, but that is to be expected, right
Have explored a big chunk of the map. Indeed iron is a little lower, I have found 2x as many coper patches. And about 7 oil wells close together, so that change was indeed good. That could be a only random outcome, I based my experience only on 1 map.
I set my uraium on low frequency and other ores to normal and havent found it yet, but that is to be expected, right
Re: [0.15.*] Feedback topic
Curious if there's been any tweaks in regards to Bob's Ores since 2.2.7 which is the version I used in my last playthrough.
The starter resources included some ore patches which Bob did not intend to be starter resources. Also, many of the ore types were far too abundant overall.
The starter resources included some ore patches which Bob did not intend to be starter resources. Also, many of the ore types were far too abundant overall.
-
- Long Handed Inserter
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:34 pm
- Contact:
Re: [0.15.*] Feedback topic
First remember that the presets don't generate the game any differently that it did before....just sets the options. In that regards the 0.14 and 0.15 are "the same". Thus...RSO still does a much better job in patch generation. Until the Dev's move away from the noise pattern method they use..i'm not sure it will ever reconcile.Jarin wrote:How does this compare with the new "train world" vanilla game setting?
-
- Long Handed Inserter
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:34 pm
- Contact:
Re: [0.15.*] Feedback topic
Only thing I would mention is to favor ore density over patch size. Robports for logistics can only cover a 100x100 area in effect. If the patch gets bigger than that you need to put a port in the middle. Because the miners only allow a 2 space gap maximum you will leave non-minable ore to place a port in the middle. My solution to this was to put SP3 modules in the miners surrounding the roboport so I can shift it before the patch runs out.orzelek wrote:After playing a bit I'm currently thinking about buffing iron patches.
Once you start getting into new science packs iron usage goes insane.
Re: [0.15.*] Feedback topic
I weren't tweaking those for now.Recon777 wrote:Curious if there's been any tweaks in regards to Bob's Ores since 2.2.7 which is the version I used in my last playthrough.
The starter resources included some ore patches which Bob did not intend to be starter resources. Also, many of the ore types were far too abundant overall.
I'm waiting for full set of bob mods to start doing work on them.
As for resources abundance - all of that was mostly guess work by me so it is what it is. If you have some experience let me know the outcome.
Starting area resource presence I'll update based on what bob has in his ore settings.
-
- Inserter
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 12:11 pm
- Contact:
Re: [0.15.*] Feedback topic
Any chance for a setting to remove trees on top of ore?
Re: [0.15.*] Feedback topic
orzelek,
RE buffing iron patches vs copper.
From what I've seen, Copper seems to be more abundant (more patches) than Iron even in vanilla. Not sure why. I've still got a statistically irrelevant amount of maps explored in 15 but they all felt that way, even in vanilla.
I think it'd be nice to see them actually spawn in equal numbers.
RE buffing iron patches vs copper.
From what I've seen, Copper seems to be more abundant (more patches) than Iron even in vanilla. Not sure why. I've still got a statistically irrelevant amount of maps explored in 15 but they all felt that way, even in vanilla.
I think it'd be nice to see them actually spawn in equal numbers.
-
- Burner Inserter
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 9:51 pm
- Contact:
Re: [0.15.*] Feedback topic
I generated a map using the default settings for everything. Then I used a map exchange string to generate the same map, except that I changed the 2nd attempt to only have water in the starting area. Most of the resources were the same, except oil. Oil drastically changed, outpost contained 2-8 times as much oil as in the map where water was everywhere.
Re: [0.15.*] Feedback topic
I would be interested in the exchange string and RSO version for this one. It shouldn't happen unless water was close to outpost as that could lead to loss of oil patches.silentdeth wrote:I generated a map using the default settings for everything. Then I used a map exchange string to generate the same map, except that I changed the 2nd attempt to only have water in the starting area. Most of the resources were the same, except oil. Oil drastically changed, outpost contained 2-8 times as much oil as in the map where water was everywhere.
-
- Burner Inserter
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 9:51 pm
- Contact:
Re: [0.15.*] Feedback topic
RSO v3.0.1orzelek wrote: I would be interested in the exchange string and RSO version for this one. It shouldn't happen unless water was close to outpost as that could lead to loss of oil patches.
A good example: With water at default settings: striaght west of the starting area is a large lake with oil on the west bank, it has 3 oil wells. With water set to only in starting area, it has 12 (some of which are not visable on the map unless you mouse over them.)
Map String
-
- Inserter
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 12:11 pm
- Contact:
Re: [0.15.*] Feedback topic
Is there a reason my request is being ignored? No is an acceptable answer if you don't want to add the feature.
Re: [0.15.*] Feedback topic
Sorry it got lost there.Adventurer wrote:Is there a reason my request is being ignored? No is an acceptable answer if you don't want to add the feature.
I'm not 100% sure on this but if trees can be searched for by type it should be doable. Might look tad strange after with ore shaped holes in forest
I'll add it to my list - I have few big things to do already (settings and random generator upgrade) so no promises as when it would happen. And there is also Factorio to play - with new science it needs lots more to even get to first rocket.
Re: [0.15.*] Feedback topic
Did you look at overall %-ages on wells?silentdeth wrote:RSO v3.0.1orzelek wrote: I would be interested in the exchange string and RSO version for this one. It shouldn't happen unless water was close to outpost as that could lead to loss of oil patches.
A good example: With water at default settings: striaght west of the starting area is a large lake with oil on the west bank, it has 3 oil wells. With water set to only in starting area, it has 12 (some of which are not visable on the map unless you mouse over them.)Map String
This would be by design most likely. Oil well generation tries to place new one and if it fails it will try to add to existing ones. I can take a look later on if it actually works as it should if you can't test it. Thanks for the map string will be useful for testing.
-
- Manual Inserter
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:58 pm
- Contact:
Re: [0.15.*] Feedback topic
Getting this error today. Is it something to do with the move to random generation? RSO version 3.1.0. Factorio build 0.15.5
Code: Select all
Error while running event rso-mod::on_chunk_generated (ID 12)
__rso-mod__/control.lua:1248: bad argument #2 to 'rng' (interval is empty)
Re: [0.15.*] Feedback topic
It's the result of rng change - built in one is very strictMarcontian wrote:Getting this error today. Is it something to do with the move to random generation? RSO version 3.1.0. Factorio build 0.15.5
Code: Select all
Error while running event rso-mod::on_chunk_generated (ID 12) __rso-mod__/control.lua:1248: bad argument #2 to 'rng' (interval is empty)
In general it seems to be a result of botched config - are you using bob's ores?
I'll post 3.1.2 soon please test with it - it might fix the issue.
-
- Inserter
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:10 am
- Contact:
Re: [0.15.*] Feedback topic
Could you please explain, how does the vanilla biter setting work? I know what happens when I set it either to vanilla or RSO spawning, but what if I set both to be true? Will there be even more biters?
Re: [0.15.*] Feedback topic
I tried to write that in descriptions - they will both work and you'll get more biters.CaptainHook wrote:Could you please explain, how does the vanilla biter setting work? I know what happens when I set it either to vanilla or RSO spawning, but what if I set both to be true? Will there be even more biters?
Considering that vanilla is much more dense you might not notice anyway
-
- Filter Inserter
- Posts: 255
- Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 5:28 am
- Contact:
Re: [0.15.*] Feedback topic
I'm just wanting some clarification regards to settings.
With 0.15, do the Vanilla options/settings matter?
If I set the biters to Disabled Evolution or Disabled Expansion, will RSO respect that?
As RSO uses it's own Generation, the Resources Settings don't do anything?
Basically I'd like to use Angels Infinite ores with the Infinite patches in the middle of the Fields.
But that only works with RSO.
So I have to use RSO generation. But I don't want double biters, or the settings to have ores extremely far apart.
Cheers
With 0.15, do the Vanilla options/settings matter?
If I set the biters to Disabled Evolution or Disabled Expansion, will RSO respect that?
As RSO uses it's own Generation, the Resources Settings don't do anything?
Basically I'd like to use Angels Infinite ores with the Infinite patches in the middle of the Fields.
But that only works with RSO.
So I have to use RSO generation. But I don't want double biters, or the settings to have ores extremely far apart.
Cheers