Factorio Forums

Optera wrote:The easiest way to allow players flagging certain paths as reserved would be the ability to add a path penalty to signals via circuit network.

Right. But without the ability to recalculate the path in the "right moment" this is useless.

ssilk wrote:

Optera wrote:The easiest way to allow players flagging certain paths as reserved would be the ability to add a path penalty to signals via circuit network.

Right. But without the ability to recalculate the path in the "right moment" this is useless.

It seemed to me trains already are forced to recalculate when they reach a circuit controlled signal. Wiring up a signal with a nil trigger before the switch leading into the unwanted path should force it to recalculate without slowing down.
Unless they only recalculate when the signal is red. I should test this in more depth.

Don't know, if the stations have to be RORO for some reason (throughput, aesthetics,...). But if not:
When i ran into similar problems with trains taking less optimal paths i switched to double-headed trains and terminus stations. Never had any train visiting a station it did not had any business at since. Terminus stations also seem to be more space efficient in average (not always, because the trains need locomotives on both ends. increasing their length) because of not needing a loop for turning the train.

Hm, well, that subject is a very tight view.
Yes, in general Terminus stations are smaller. Yes, it makes finding paths sometimes more simple.
But it's no a general strategy, cause it adds length and longer trains tend to deadlock more. With Terminus layout of your factory, the amount of throughput is more limited than with RORO - it cannot be expanded so much. You cannot have tracks with one train each 10 seconds or so. A RORO layout is much more resistant to extreme throughput rates.

ssilk wrote:Hm, well, that subject is a very tight view.
Yes, in general Terminus stations are smaller. Yes, it makes finding paths sometimes more simple.
But it's no a general strategy, cause it adds length and longer trains tend to deadlock more. With Terminus layout of your factory, the amount of throughput is more limited than with RORO - it cannot be expanded so much. You cannot have tracks with one train each 10 seconds or so. A RORO layout is much more resistant to extreme throughput rates.

I don't think that is true.

With terminus stations and high throughput you need to add acceleration and deceleration lanes to the stations, which is easy to do if you have the space. You can also time the start time of trains so they slot nicely into the main flow. With enough planing you could have a train every 90 ticks or so. But that probably negates the "Terminus stations are smaller" argument.

Exactly. And yes, it's not a really valid comparison.

Perhaps like so: But when I compare the total afford to build Roro vs. Terminus (including solving deadlocks and other kind of problems), I would say the afford to get the same throughput with Terminus than with Roro is 20-60% higher, whereas when I compare the first initialization without any optimization, then terminus is 50% easier.

ssilk wrote:Exactly. And yes, it's not a really valid comparison.

Perhaps like so: But when I compare the total afford to build Roro vs. Terminus (including solving deadlocks and other kind of problems), I would say the afford to get the same throughput with Terminus than with Roro is 20-60% higher, whereas when I compare the first initialization without any optimization, then terminus is 50% easier.

Are you confusing Terminus vs. Roro station with bidirectional vs two unidirectional tracks?

Hm. I was so focussed, that I totally forgot that Teminus could be used with two-way train network. X)

Or a circular network. I actually got very good results with a large unidirectional ring with terminus stations.

I always do two-tracked lines connected with T junctions and terminus stations everywhere.

When throughput becomes an issue i first outsource ore smelting, steel smelting, gears, basic circuits, advanced circuits, and processing units (in that order). Then i might build more "platforms" for receiving end products.

I also build additional stations around the main base later on to spread the load (and because seperate stations look good). Liquids are easy to relocate somewhere near the liquids processing area. They are relatively low traffic but get trains from all over the map in end game and therefore need huge buffers for waiting trains.

As i am not into megabases i never really need to outsource blue circuits or relocate the liquids out of the main station. But the next thing to do would probably be to outsource basic and rocket science. At that point you also could use dedicated logistic centers for distributing all the stuff to multiple consumers by priority so science will never snatch up all red circuits - stopping processing unit production.

So using terminus stations does not limit the throughput of a base as a whole even if they are more throughput limited than the roll-on-roll-off version (wich i would expect them to be). You only might need to build more stations or outsource productions a bit earlier than when using ROLO stations.

Oktokolo wrote:I always do two-tracked lines connected with T junctions and terminus stations everywhere.

When throughput becomes an issue i first outsource ore smelting, steel smelting, gears, basic circuits, advanced circuits, and processing units (in that order). Then i might build more "platforms" for receiving end products.

I also build additional stations around the main base later on to spread the load (and because seperate stations look good). Liquids are easy to relocate somewhere near the liquids processing area. They are relatively low traffic but get trains from all over the map in end game and therefore need huge buffers for waiting trains.

As i am not into megabases i never really need to outsource blue circuits or relocate the liquids out of the main station. But the next thing to do would probably be to outsource basic and rocket science. At that point you also could use dedicated logistic centers for distributing all the stuff to multiple consumers by priority so science will never snatch up all red circuits - stopping processing unit production.

So using terminus stations does not limit the throughput of a base as a whole even if they are more throughput limited than the roll-on-roll-off version (wich i would expect them to be). You only might need to build more stations or outsource productions a bit earlier than when using ROLO stations.

For fluids (and ores actually) I use a demand train instead of a supply train. The consumer of a liquid has a train waiting at their unloading station, which is always on. The suppliers (oil pumping stations) have 4 storage tanks and only enable the station when >= 75000 crude oil are available and no train is present. The consumers control the number of trains so there is no need for a ton of waiting bays. Fluid wagons fill and drain so fast the trains are usually 90+% idle. I would say if you base gets so big you need more than 2 fluid trains for a station then you should use longer trains. And maybe have collection stations outside the base where short trains come from all over to fill a depot and then you send long trains to the main base.

Another suggestion of this kind. A rather simple one.

Make a train skip the stations to which it has no path.

This will allow you to place a train in a position from which it can not reach some stations (dead end with one station to get the train back out of it) and skip some of the stations. Balances 2 things: you don't get a heavy gui and complicated features which are hard to use for new players (and need to be implemented) and allows at least one way of skipping stations which are on.

IV  wrote:Another suggestion of this kind. A rather simple one.

Make a train skip the stations to which it has no path.

This will allow you to place a train in a position from which it can not reach some stations (dead end with one station to get the train back out of it) and skip some of the stations. Balances 2 things: you don't get a heavy gui and complicated features which are hard to use for new players (and need to be implemented) and allows at least one way of skipping stations which are on.

Too likely to cause annoying breakage, if someone is working on rail lines, and temporarily causes a train with a complicated schedule to no path. Consider a train that picks up 15 stacks of copper, then goes to another station and picks up 10 stacks of iron, then goes to a green circuit station, where the iron and copper is turned into 1000 green circuits, then drops off the green circuit somewhere else and repeats. What happens if the iron pickup station is temporarily unreachable, perhaps because someone is working on the rail lines, or maybe because you are smelting where you mine, and disabling stations that don't have enough smelted plate ready, and none of the iron plate pickups is enabled? If the iron pickup station gets skipped, the train ends up waiting for its 1000 green circuits, that can't be made, because green circuits has no iron. And every other train that wants to use that green circuits station is also blocked.

I believe the following thread, which suggests that it should be possible to set routing restrictions for the pathfinder, is worth mentioning in this link collection thread:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=58395 Block rail section based on train condition