I've been using a very similar layout, except that instead of trying to bring the iron in through the middle where it gets in the way, I bring it in outboard of the copper belts, through the gaps in the wire assemblers. Cleans up the output area considerably, allowing even loading of both sides of a single belt, or double belts with one long and one fast inserter per circuit assembler (not-quite-even loading of both sides of two belts, but the sum of the respective sides should be equal, so they should merge to a single balanced belt).DerivePi wrote:1. added 2nd fast inserter to feed copper cable assemblersDerivePi wrote:Actually, there are 3 mistakes with my circuit layout schematic:
1. There need to be more inserters from the copper plate belt into the wire assemblers
2. You can't fully load an express belt with inserters. I need to add branch belts and splitters to combine.
3. The colors are too garish. Not Feng Shui at all!
2. added 2nd belt for exporting circuits with balancer in the middle.
3. changed the background to "salmon" for this one time only
Final (Maxed) Designs
Forum rules
Circuit-free solutions of basic factory-design to achieve optimal item-throughput
-
SpeedDaemon
- Fast Inserter
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Fri May 22, 2015 3:31 pm
- Contact:
Re: Final (Maxed) Designs
Re: Final (Maxed) Designs
Belt production is limited by gear input. One full express belt of gears is almost completely used up (27.5 gears per second) by 1 belt, 1 fast belt and 1 express belt assembler 3s. To make it a full 30 gears per second we could just add another assembler 3 for the basic belt production.Batsma2 wrote:if you'd like I can set you a challenge as well, try and build an optimized design for building all belt types efficiently. although you might just want them to unload in logistics chests for your bot, the supply lines can be quite tricky.
In short, any setup that has more than 1 assembler 3 for: fast belts, fast UG belts, fast splitters, express belts, Express UG belts and Express splitters is probably not balanced since it takes 190 gears per second to run all of those assemblers at full speed (Over 6 full express belts of gears which is over 12 full express belts of iron plates).
The trick for the basic logistics department (transport belts and inserters) is not to fully implement the assemblers but to balance the output so that used items are replenished quickly. I notice this problem most when I fill up on Express belt products (belts splitters and UG) and Fast belt products. Replenishing the Express Belts takes a considerable time since, in my system, the fast belt assembler has priority.
Re: Final (Maxed) Designs
Aren't those difficulties exactly what makes it interesting?
(to be honest I always end up using bots to create belts
)
(to be honest I always end up using bots to create belts
)-
DoctorWho?
- Long Handed Inserter
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2015 3:42 am
- Contact:
Re: Final (Maxed) Designs
My solution to the priority issue: simply send the gears from the other direction. Make the gear input at the "end" of the line, that way you prioritize blue belts, fast belts and basic celts, in that order. Hope this helpsDerivePi wrote:Belt production is limited by gear input. One full express belt of gears is almost completely used up (27.5 gears per second) by 1 belt, 1 fast belt and 1 express belt assembler 3s. To make it a full 30 gears per second we could just add another assembler 3 for the basic belt production.Batsma2 wrote:if you'd like I can set you a challenge as well, try and build an optimized design for building all belt types efficiently. although you might just want them to unload in logistics chests for your bot, the supply lines can be quite tricky.
In short, any setup that has more than 1 assembler 3 for: fast belts, fast UG belts, fast splitters, express belts, Express UG belts and Express splitters is probably not balanced since it takes 190 gears per second to run all of those assemblers at full speed (Over 6 full express belts of gears which is over 12 full express belts of iron plates).
The trick for the basic logistics department (transport belts and inserters) is not to fully implement the assemblers but to balance the output so that used items are replenished quickly. I notice this problem most when I fill up on Express belt products (belts splitters and UG) and Fast belt products. Replenishing the Express Belts takes a considerable time since, in my system, the fast belt assembler has priority.
-
MantisShrimp
- Long Handed Inserter
- Posts: 87
- Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:35 pm
- Contact:
Re: Final (Maxed) Designs
Very cool design. Here's what it looks like in-game and what's needed to build it, if others are interested. No offense, but the pink/salmon picture wrecked my eyeballs. I haven't turned it on since I need to sort out my train stations, so I have no idea how well it preforms. It looks neat though. Also, I'm not sure what color some of the splitters are supposed to be so I just used the color of the belt that came before it.
Re: Final (Maxed) Designs
Guys, it would be really helpful, if you where using the Blueprint String mod ( https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... =86&t=6742 ) to have a real copy of your setup.
Code: Select all
Put the blueprint-string into a code-block like soCool suggestion: Eatable MOUSE-pointers.
Have you used the Advanced Search today?
Need help, question? FAQ - Wiki - Forum help
I still like small signatures...
Have you used the Advanced Search today?
Need help, question? FAQ - Wiki - Forum help
I still like small signatures...
Re: Final (Maxed) Designs
Here is an updated design for circuit production
Advanced Circuits (red)
And a smelting area for iron or copper
Just reworking the designs for the "new" transport belt mechanics.
- CIRCUITS FINAL.jpg (117.57 KiB) Viewed 10107 times
- ADVANCED CIRCUITS FINAL.jpg (369.99 KiB) Viewed 10107 times
- SMELTING FINAL.jpg (128.46 KiB) Viewed 10107 times
-
hansinator
- Fast Inserter
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Final (Maxed) Designs
Why is this topic even sticky? There are still no blueprints, just awkward CAD drawings and frankly the designs from vanattefeldt for example are even more "maxed" out.
Re: Final (Maxed) Designs
I think the idea of assigning space at the beginning of the game that expands to an efficiently laid out system by the later stages of the game feeds our CDO nicely. How many times have we played multiplayer games where we know that another player is bottlenecking a design and then landlocking it? Wouldn't it be nice if most players know that:hansinator wrote:Why is this topic even sticky?
- A balanced ratio of pump/boiler/ steam gen is 1/14/10 (most players know this)
- 70 furnaces will smelt a full belt of copper or iron ore (less furnaces are expedient but never more - ie 72 furnaces is "wrong")
- Reserving space for 8 cells of 5 assemblers for circuit production is good. When fully expanded and running, that circuit production will fully absorb 1 1/2 belts of copper plate and 1 belt of iron. This means it is appropriate to replace 1 lane of copper plate with a full lane of circuits on a multi "copper plate" laned bus. Why would you continue to run an empty lane on your most precious real estate?
I think the real question is "Why there aren't more contributions?"
Here is the link to vanatteveldt's smelting layout - viewtopic.php?f=202&t=33375&p=236930hansinator wrote:the designs from vanattefeldt for example are even more "maxed" out
This is why I don't promote or recommend modules for smelting - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5705 - further, if you are going to use modules, don't bottleneck your design by only using 1 blue inserter when greater capacity is available.
-
hansinator
- Fast Inserter
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Final (Maxed) Designs
Mhh that are some valid points you made there. The content of this thread is not bad at all, but the "how it is presented" could be improved, as some posts before already suggested. See, the CAD drawings are nice, but they are alienating to many players, I guess. Maybe you could add in-game screenshots and wrap-up the latest designs in the first post (by editing it) so everybody that stumbles across this sticky thread can get a quick overview on the first glance?
And of course blueprints would be nice. I personally think it is somewhat mean if people post pictures of their cool designs where everybody thinks "nice!" but won't share their blueprints.
Edit:
And for the contributions and module side of things, I think it'd be nice to link other maxed designs and the thread about modules in the first post. There are lots of player contributions, they are just not in this sticky thread. They are instead cluttered all over the forum. As this thread is already sticky it would make a good place to collect some of these other contributions.
And of course blueprints would be nice. I personally think it is somewhat mean if people post pictures of their cool designs where everybody thinks "nice!" but won't share their blueprints.
Edit:
And for the contributions and module side of things, I think it'd be nice to link other maxed designs and the thread about modules in the first post. There are lots of player contributions, they are just not in this sticky thread. They are instead cluttered all over the forum. As this thread is already sticky it would make a good place to collect some of these other contributions.
Re: Final (Maxed) Designs
Sounds good hansinator! You're hired 
-
hansinator
- Fast Inserter
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Final (Maxed) Designs
Glad you agree, but it's your thread. I can't edit it. If you have already built your setups you could at least post blueprint strings so I or others wouldn't have to build it just to post blueprints..DerivePi wrote:Sounds good hansinator! You're hired
Re: Final (Maxed) Designs
Alright. I wasn't planning on editing. But, you're right - if ssilk wants this sticky then it makes sense to update the top thread and keep things current. Updates forthcoming.
Re: Final (Maxed) Designs
Final Smelting Design
There are several layouts that work well for smelting. The advantage provided by this version are:
- putting two red belts together to fully compact a blue belt for the output is simpler than trying to fully compact a single blue belt (usually using UG belts)
- Only 2 inserters are required per furnace (no long handed inserters)
- When starting, the player can utilize each side separately until faster belts are available towards the late game
- I prefer a stouter furnace layout than the long 35 furnace layout.
Schematic
Picture
There are several layouts that work well for smelting. The advantage provided by this version are:
- putting two red belts together to fully compact a blue belt for the output is simpler than trying to fully compact a single blue belt (usually using UG belts)
- Only 2 inserters are required per furnace (no long handed inserters)
- When starting, the player can utilize each side separately until faster belts are available towards the late game
- I prefer a stouter furnace layout than the long 35 furnace layout.
Schematic
- smelting schematic.jpg (307.52 KiB) Viewed 9651 times
- smelting-final2.png (2.05 MiB) Viewed 9925 times
blueprint string
Last edited by DerivePi on Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Final (Maxed) Designs
Advanced Circuit - Final Design
This one sucks up a full blue belt of circuits, copper plate, and plastic just to produce 20 advanced circuits per second. This production would probably do fairly well with lines of beacons in between the advanced circuit assemblers.
Schematic
Picture
This one sucks up a full blue belt of circuits, copper plate, and plastic just to produce 20 advanced circuits per second. This production would probably do fairly well with lines of beacons in between the advanced circuit assemblers.
Schematic
- advanced circuit schematic.jpg (422.43 KiB) Viewed 9650 times
- advanced circuit - final.jpg (409.13 KiB) Viewed 9920 times
blueprint string
Last edited by DerivePi on Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
hansinator
- Fast Inserter
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Final (Maxed) Designs
Thank you <3
-
vanatteveldt
- Filter Inserter
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2015 11:44 am
- Contact:
Re: Final (Maxed) Designs
I agree that smelters are one of the least efficient places to use prod modules looking at consumption per second. However:DerivePi wrote: Here is the link to vanatteveldt's smelting layout - viewtopic.php?f=202&t=33375&p=236930
This is why I don't promote or recommend modules for smelting - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5705 - further, if you are going to use modules, don't bottleneck your design by only using 1 blue inserter when greater capacity is available.
- smelters are at the basis of all other chains, giving 20% resource discount on everything else
- smelters are most likely to be running the full 100% of time
And frankly, any non-beacon design are boring/trivial because there are no space constraints. You can set yourself a constraint or opt to aim for the most compact design possible, but I prefer using beacons everywhere so the beacon cost and range limit creates a real optimization problem. The utility/cost function I try to optimize is throughput/#modules with constraint that all plants have max prod modules (or in other words: first optimize output/input, then optimize throughput/#modules).
For convencience some other links to "my" designs (which in all cases steal or improve on existing designs by other users)hansinator wrote:the designs from vanattefeldt for example are even more "maxed" out
links
Re: Final (Maxed) Designs
Hello. There is actually huge benefit in energy saving with using blue modules in becons if you use it in combination with red modules. One blue moduled beacon rise speed by 50% and consumption by 70%, however this stats are summed with red modules statistic linearly. What does it mean? if you use assembly machine with four red modules, its base speed and energy consumption is:vanatteveldt wrote: ...And frankly, any non-beacon design are boring/trivial because there are no space constraints. You can set yourself a constraint or opt to aim for the most compact design possible, but I prefer using beacons everywhere so the beacon cost and range limit creates a real optimization problem. The utility/cost function I try to optimize is throughput/#modules with constraint that all plants have max prod modules (or in other words: first optimize output/input, then optimize throughput/#modules)...
energy consumption = 420%
speed = 40%
If you boost it with one simple becon your boost is very significant
new energy consumption = 490% = 1,16 × higher than no beacon version
new speed = 90% = 2,25 × higher than no beacon version
So each becon with blue modules gives you a 125% production boost (against base value) in cost of 16% energy consuption which very sigificatly beat a green module and in most cases strongly beat beacon's own energy consumption.
This is main arument for me. It practically corespond to your idea to have compact factories (different reasons, same results). I realize the energy problem when my solar panel plant start to be 20 times larger than rest of my factory when i start with "big" produtions.
(You start this topic allready in here: viewtopic.php?f=202&t=40886 , you can find my answer there about my "beacon rating")
-
vanatteveldt
- Filter Inserter
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2015 11:44 am
- Contact:
Re: Final (Maxed) Designs
@MBas: Yes, it is well known that the combination of sp3 (in beacons) and prod3 (in plants) gives very good results. What made you think I was arguing otherwise?
Re: Final (Maxed) Designs
We both try to optimize different factors. My goal is to reach minimum energy consumption per production, your goal is to reach minimum number of modules per production. Am I right? And what i try to say is that this two ways of optimalization has nearly similar results.vanatteveldt wrote:@MBas: Yes, it is well known that the combination of sp3 (in beacons) and prod3 (in plants) gives very good results. What made you think I was arguing otherwise?