Patric20878 wrote:I said that since you're using the same shore length for both 30 and 15 engines per row (assuming same # of engines), there's no actual point extending engines per row beyond 15. Getting it to 15 was to reduce wasting shore length (to 0 in fact, if a straight shore), not to make it longer per row.
Extending it to 30 is reducing wasted shore length. No, the point isn't to make it longer, it's to have more steam engines per row to reduce the amount of rows. If you use more steam engines per row it does become longer of course.
Patric20878 wrote:And the tech required is on the same reasoning as why my design stopped using medium electric poles.
I have nothing to say against your aversion to high tech. I don't personally agree and will use end game tech if needed or more convinient. But if you don't want to it's fine.
Patric20878 wrote: Can thank Aru for that, but my most major point in those long pages of discussion with him is that time is an important, if not the most important resource - in a straight race to rocket launch or any given goal, the person who simply finds another lake like right next to base easily wins over someone who spends time researching that landfill upgrade, landfilling a whole column, then building a 30 steam engine-row setup, which ranks extremely high on the "why aren't you doing something actually useful instead?" mental checklist. And like said, if it gets so late game that engine row length somehow matters, you should be aiming for stacking away from shore way more than just 30. Why stop at 30 when you can do multiples of 15 to as much as you need?
Putting it into clearer perspective for emphasizing low-tech, building my 15 engine setup just requires building the setup. I can obviously build 2 of my setups faster than someone who needs to research, then landfill a whole line, then build an unnecessarily long and complicated steam engine setup just to get a 30 engine setup, when there's no reason at all to stack away from shore like that.
Agree about time. And low time requires low space usage among other things. I'm not trying to speedrun though, so I guess I fall under "any given goal". Researching the landfill takes seconds and is insignificant when building a megabase where 10k of each science pack is worth doing. Not using landfill for straightening the shore means your steam engine setup is not blueprintable which means you will spend more time building each steam engine. You can't lump in speedrunning with building megabases, they are the opposites of two extremes. What is fast enough or good enough for one is the opposite for the other. The 30 steam engines on a row takes 0.1 seconds of the players time with robots building for you. If you build enough it's going to be worth it.
And you can't really stack more than 30. There's no more space for routing much more water further from the shore without making the design very space inefficient. How would you stack endless pumps from a finite shore? How can you route infinite water through limited pipes? What you can do is landfill the lake so that you can place pumps wherever you need them without having to route any water. But that is very time consuming since it requires landfilling all the area under the steam engines, boilers and belts too instead of just the small amounts required to straighten out the shore. Using the land fill mods flood fill item would speed up the process though.
Yes, if your goal is two lines using low tech is obviously faster. If your goal is 5000 rows then you probably don't want to do each line manually on a non-straight shore.
Best you read the discussion between Aru and me for insightful perspective (even if it wasn't exactly a pleasant discussion, it was quite productive), but the point I emphasize all the time is that you can optimize your design physically and do whatever all you want, but don't forget that the BIG PICTURE of optimizing the efficiency of anything is to get more stuff done in less time, and making a 30 engine row just to have longer rows is the complete opposite of the whole point. It optimizes nothing, just wastes time - producing more and/or doing other useful stuff is what matters, and even the part about minimizing wasting shore is at heart based around reducing wasting time unnecessarily finding lakes 1.5x more often as much as you should be.
Read the discussion a while ago. Even more important than optimizing your time is maximizing the enjoyment you get out of your time. And I enjoy making the best design possible even if I don't really need it. In the end I don't need Factorio at all, but I enjoy it. But I do find uses for my designs in Factorio. But as I've said before, 30 steam engines on a row do optimize something...
Patric20878 wrote:The underground rows do take space, but it's much more modularized and compact than trying to fit them in between the steam engines.
So you say. Can you show me? I don't get it.
Simple to visualize. Each time you add a pair of underground pipes between engines, you're increasing space usage by 2x3=6 tiles, for only occupying 2 tiles. So you get a horrible 33% efficiency on that, plus you need an additional 2 pipes just to link the steam engines.
Obviously you didn't look at my design because this is just false. I have a spacing of 1 tile between half of the steam engines. It's 4 times less than what you say. Closer to 92% space efficient.
Your trick with alternating engines like that places a hard cap of how far it can expand from shore, and even as it is, it's still 66% space occupancy.
It halves the cap, not placing any cap. Doubling the pipes means that you can transport more water without hitting the limits of the pipe.
Compare to just directly stacking columns of underground pipes that extend the maximum 10 tiles distance instead of 6 with steam engines, which is 9 tiles in between. Know what you do with large empty 9-tile wide spaces? Put 2 underground labs in them and their belts/inserters. Or a twin row of assemblers, whatever you want - 9-wide spacing is the natural width for factorizing. You waste much less space and resources modularizing it like that instead. In fact, doing it this way, you get 100% space occupancy with the pipes, and you kinda HAVE to do it this way if you plan on stacking it beyond 45 engines per row, unless steam engines are suddenly 4 tiles high or more now.
What is the point of piping the water far away from the shore? What do you achieve? It's not impossible to get some more shore. Space efficiency is still important and every pipe piping the water away is a waste if you can just put the steam engines next to the shore. And piping the water away from the shore would make blueprinting impossible.
And 9 spaces is not optimal if you are using beacons, productivity modules and robots..