Factorio Forums

So belt system will behave as if it were two separate conveyor belts side-by-side. I think that they should update graphic to avoid misunderstandings.

I struggled to get a properly working Y-shaped rail intersection here for a couple of hours, going through several awkward designs (and at one point getting fed up and putting in a roundabout, then going back and ripping it out after figuring out how to do an unjammable T intersection elsewhere)... Part of the problem was that when I ran the tracks from the SW and SE along the obvious route (with the fewest curves), the top two signals around the central six-way intersection stopped functioning due to the extra curved tracks partially overlapping the track segments they're attached to. There was also no room for the signals you can see to the left and right of those, which break up the left turns' forking and merging track sections. The bell shape created by the extra curves solved both issues. Since all crossing paths go through a single block, a deadlock situation should be impossible, just like a properly done T or X intersection (at least, until 0.12 comes out and we can make a four way where non-intersecting right turns can proceed simultaneously without risking deadlock).



(And here's the oddly-shaped T intersection where I figured out how to set up the signals properly, though I can't really take full credit since I know I've seen some guide on it a while back, but it does show a bit of retrofitting to adjust for the angle of the incoming track from the northeast.)

Tallinu wrote:the top two signals around the central six-way intersection stopped functioning due to the extra curved tracks partially overlapping the track segments they're attached to. There was also no room for the signals you can see to the left and right of those, which break up the left turns' forking and merging track sections. The bell shape created by the extra curves solved both issues.

Maybe if you'd swap the sides the trains are running on there'd be enough space for the signals because they are then on the outward side of the rail, providing more space for signal placement?

That might theoretically solve the first problem (I think it might still break because there would still be two overlapping curved tracks where the signal is placed) but it definitely wouldn't solve the second problem (can't put a signal in the middle of a curved piece). Plus it would mean refitting the entire rail network. And I wanted to run them on the left - mainly for aesthetic reasons, not because of some idea of what's "proper". Somebody pointed out that having them drive on the left means the signals go between parallel tracks, which he thought looked nice, and I have to agree. I'm not unhappy with the current design, anyway, I think it looks pretty neat.

British trains go on left rails as well?

Off-topic: As long, as we only have right-hand-traffic I can only recommend to use it, cause when you built two one-ways in left-hand-traffic-style you will have no space to place the signals, if you built the rails to close together.

That's what i was trying to say, that you can build rails close together if you use right hand traffic.

Other off-topic: In most cases it's not a good idea to build the rails close together.

I don't ever have to worry about intersections, because I just build massive loops going to all my outposts. (What I mean by massive loops is one long one-way track that never crosses itself and hits every outpost. While it does sometimes have to double back, I don't have to worry about signals not placing, as FARL takes care of it

So a few days ago I came up with something I haven't seen anyone else make before. Considering how many circuits these things guzzle, I'd say this is almost as great as not putting wire on belts! I made a blueprint out of this and tiled it a total of five in a row (like so) and was producing enough modules that I could've built several RDs an hour. Then 0.12 came out and removed RDs.



I made a logistics bot version of it here if anyone prefers that, and there's a lot of info on the resources used, such as getting the right amount of advanced circuits, in the other pages of that album. (Some more of the math is explained in this thread.)

Look at all this symmetrical sexiness, except for the belts. This is with the Yuoki Industries mod. It turns the green and blue ores into the pink/purple cube things. Even the brown cubes get turn into the pink/purple cubes using that changing machine thing at the left end. I just started using the mod so I don't know the names of all the stuff yet, I just go by the color of the things.

MantisShrimp wrote:Look at all this symmetrical sexiness, except for the belts. This is with the Yuoki Industries mod. It turns the green and blue ores into the pink/purple cube things. Even the brown cubes get turn into the pink/purple cubes using that changing machine thing at the left end. I just started using the mod so I don't know the names of all the stuff yet, I just go by the color of the things.

yep, looks really nice and powerful.
i'am not sure if it's more energy-efficent as direct transmutaion - how much energy consumes this setup ? (maybe also production-rate of UC-A2 and consumption-rate of green/blue)

(also reminds me to improve the graphics of the water-generators)

super fast clock circuit (I can't tell if it is 30Hz or 60Hz, I think it's 30Hz)

YuokiTani wrote: yep, looks really nice and powerful.
i'am not sure if it's more energy-efficent as direct transmutaion - how much energy consumes this setup ? (maybe also production-rate of UC-A2 and consumption-rate of green/blue)

(also reminds me to improve the graphics of the water-generators)

I'm having major power problems right now so pretty much everything is turned off for when biters attack. The only other purple block producing thing is one PFW thing trading those hammers for purple blocks. I'm pretty sure It's more power/resource efficient to use direct transmutation, mainly because you can stick modules in them and it'll be smaller so I can surround the factory with beacons.

MadZuri wrote:super fast clock circuit (I can't tell if it is 30Hz or 60Hz, I think it's 30Hz)

clock

60Hz if you are counting all changes. 30Hz if you are counting the 1 signals.

Tested that with an adder that runs at the same speed as game.tick.

Reverse Smart Filter

Pro: Filter only the one item out
Contra: Slow but i need a chest

Before: After: Config: I hope you like it!

ssilk wrote:Other off-topic: In most cases it's not a good idea to build the rails close together.

Name one.

Curves.
Busy sections that you need to cross on foot.
Slight protection for power poles.

There's three. Debate the last if you want, that'd be fair, but the first and second are perfectly valid.

Curves are not a problem, i can make them tight without problem.
Just zoom out and see if it's free, then run. If you cant do that play some frogger first.

n9103 wrote:Curves.

n9103 wrote:Busy sections that you need to cross on foot.