[YouTube] FishSandwich's Factorio playthroughs

[FishSandwich]

Thanks @ketil, I'll keep that in mind.

Guys, part 37 of my "Hard Mode" playthrough is up!

Train Rides! - Factorio 0.10.8 "Hard Mode" #37

and part 34 of my F-MOD/Dytech playthrough is up!

Coal Shortage.. Again! - Factorio 0.10.8 F-MOD/Dytech #34

Thanks for watching and enjoy.

[JoshLittle]

Sorry that it gets a bit longer:

Why you are wrong to blame my solar design

Don't compair apples and oranges. I got you two solar designs. Both are optimised for low costs (substations make it expensive), self connecting poles (also if gaps are made) and the highest possible density under these conditions.

The one you used now is also optimised for running through. It is clear, that only this one is not winnig a density-contest. Because it has 36 not-used (= pole + lamp + free space) tiles in a blueprint.

The other design is also optimised for a high density, but with the side effect, that you can't run through. It has only 12 not-used tiles on the same area.

Both designs have the same outershape so they can be combined easily without a need of rearanging neighbouring blueprints.

The design you used before uses 324 tiles. It can be discussed if there is used an area of 18x18 or 20x18 because of the needed big poles. Sometimes they fit, sometimes not. So it is fair to say there is an area of 19x18 used in average, specially if you want to cover big connecting areas.

Your old design has a density of 320/342 tiles = 93.567%
My design one has a density of 216/252 tiles = 85.714%
My design two has a density of 240/252 tiles = 95.238%

So if you compare your old with the second which is optimised for density, then mine is slightly in front. There are also other designs with diagonal outlines that are a bit better (up to 98.2%), but I think they are not practical because of the irregular outlines. Because of the rectangle shape is has sometimes advantages against a square-shape.

By replacing your old structure of 16 blueprints (and two small ones) you lost 512 (+2x8 = 16 = 528) panels and 128 accumulators. With 22 (counted the lights) of my second designs you would get 528 panels and 132 accumulators and you would win the advanced circuits from the substations (iron/steel of it goes into poles). Not a real difference you might think.

But the advantage comes with bigger structures (the tiles you won in the outline you couldn't use because the other areas where set around the old structure, and the tiles you lost made it bad to place more). And you have everytime the chance of changing a line of blueprints (the 4th, 5th, 6th.. whatever you want) for the first version where you can run through. The idendical outline makes it possible.

So perhaps you change the area to the second design, but with a line of the first design in the center to run through (somewhere south of the labs, where you need it). Perhaps you also want to expand south to fit 3-4 lines of blueprints in

You complained a while ago about not be able to run through this area. Do you remember?

So perhaps you want to rethink your evaluation about it

• The problem of a a miner with mixed ores is not the biggest problem. Just put a smart inserter somewhere. The one miner will not produce to much that a smart inserter could not filter out all items.
• Ok, perhaps your trains will work out fine. The whole walls of the two outposts would probably be enough to also be able to enclose the whole area. But it's ok.
• Did I understand it right that you want to put the ore out of the chests to transport it a few tiles with belts to put it back into chests again? One roboport more and you wouldn't lose stack size bonus two times.

[FishSandwich]

Sorry that it gets a bit longer:

Why you are wrong to blame my solar design

Don't compair apples and oranges. I got you two solar designs. Both are optimised for low costs (substations make it expensive), self connecting poles (also if gaps are made) and the highest possible density under these conditions.

The one you used now is also optimised for running through. It is clear, that only this one is not winnig a density-contest. Because it has 36 not-used (= pole + lamp + free space) tiles in a blueprint.

The other design is also optimised for a high density, but with the side effect, that you can't run through. It has only 12 not-used tiles on the same area.

Both designs have the same outershape so they can be combined easily without a need of rearanging neighbouring blueprints.

The design you used before uses 324 tiles. It can be discussed if there is used an area of 18x18 or 20x18 because of the needed big poles. Sometimes they fit, sometimes not. So it is fair to say there is an area of 19x18 used in average, specially if you want to cover big connecting areas.

Your old design has a density of 320/342 tiles = 93.567%
My design one has a density of 216/252 tiles = 85.714%
My design two has a density of 240/252 tiles = 95.238%

So if you compare your old with the second which is optimised for density, then mine is slightly in front. There are also other designs with diagonal outlines that are a bit better (up to 98.2%), but I think they are not practical because of the irregular outlines. Because of the rectangle shape is has sometimes advantages against a square-shape.

By replacing your old structure of 16 blueprints (and two small ones) you lost 512 (+2x8 = 16 = 528) panels and 128 accumulators. With 22 (counted the lights) of my second designs you would get 528 panels and 132 accumulators and you would win the advanced circuits from the substations (iron/steel of it goes into poles). Not a real difference you might think.

But the advantage comes with bigger structures (the tiles you won in the outline you couldn't use because the other areas where set around the old structure, and the tiles you lost made it bad to place more). And you have everytime the chance of changing a line of blueprints (the 4th, 5th, 6th.. whatever you want) for the first version where you can run through. The idendical outline makes it possible.

So perhaps you change the area to the second design, but with a line of the first design in the center to run through (somewhere south of the labs, where you need it). Perhaps you also want to expand south to fit 3-4 lines of blueprints in

You complained a while ago about not be able to run through this area. Do you remember?

I don't remember seeing a second design from you(please refresh my memory if you definitely showed it to me, because my memory is bad at times ) The design I used here I took from the forum post you linked a few pages back. If you do have a second design please show it and I will try it out.

Just to be super clear I wasn't bashing your design, just stating that I prefer my prior one over that one because of the extra accumulators. My recorded playthroughs are different, but in my own playthroughs I don't put solar banks anywhere that I would need to return to later, so the more compact the better. And also, the resources that need to go into the design are usually not an issue for me.

[JoshLittle]

Hmm f*ck, it might be possible that I only posted it for the Hydra Dilemma (twice) and linked here only to the first development stage.

[Redominus]

Remeber you can rename stations.

[JoshLittle]

After watching two episodes of your modded factorio... what do you think is better/more insteresting/... to play? with or without?
One of your problems I know too: That constant shortage of iron on my map. So good luck for finding new sites

[FishSandwich]

Guys, part 38 of my "Hard Mode" playthrough is up!

Train Outposts! - Factorio 0.10.9 "Hard Mode" #38

and part 35 of my F-MOD/Dytech playthrough is up!

Dancing King Emerald Biter! - Factorio 0.10.8 F-MOD/Dytech #35

Thanks for watching and enjoy.

[Xecutor]

Why do you bother with iron up there if you have huge field of iron inside your base?
And that left wall of iron outpost... Within few steps from water... Feels like a waste really

IMO you should go on a little rampage and destroy a lot of biters around, to decrease constant attacks.
Unlike F-MOD you don't get anything from this attacks, so it's just a resource sink.

[JoshLittle]

• Only 10 construction robots for repairs is a bit risky. They can be attacked and sooner as you think the area has no constant protection. Laser turrets will do the best they can, but after the walls were ripped down one after another the biters start to destroy the turrets at each attack and each following attack will be easier for them.
• Specially if they fly over open fields they will die off soon. So perhaps it is better to NOT connect the roboports or to make one outpost out of the two.
• I think the one coal could be too less to get to the base
• Perhaps you think about a concept of service train.

Some thoughts for the service train

I don't have the best answer for it. But I think it is a necessary side effect of dealing with trains. I'm trying out to have one service wagon on each train with fixed stacks (for walls, repair packs, turrets, in your case robots, ..) and after it two wagons for the ore. But you can also build a seperate service train with just one wagon and at the outposts is only that taken out into a one stack limited provider chest (or also limited by smart inserters/logistic system, that are on the other side of the train as the ore loading. If all stacks of the wagon are fixed or limited, then there will be no big mess with ore in the service train. It could wait in the main area of a seperate station for five minutes or so, take the route to an outpost, throw out some stuff and come back to wait. If the roboports are connected only one trip is needed, otherwise it makes two single trips (because of the desing of your rails system.

@xecutor:
I can understand why and I think it is not bad. To find iron can be a constant pain. And to establish the outpost while the area is still more or less cleared is better than to just shift the problem to the future by first taking the easy field and then struggling to reach the other one. If the field in the outpost will dry out, then there has to be a search for a new outpost, but it will not come with any shortage in the factory, because transitionally there is an established source.

But I'm on your side with the walls. It would be much more efficient to protect 3 slightly bigger sides than 2 times 4 sides. I think it would bind also much less walls. At the top there are around 10 tiles to the water, to connect to east wall of iron with the northwest wall of copper perhaps 15, and to reach the water for the south wall of copper I think the stuff of the west wall of copper is enough. The west and the south wall of iron can be droped out. The additional space seems to be useless, but I don't cry on situations with better protection, less border length and more space. (perhaps then a train could be only for the transport of circuits.. just an idea )

[Redominus]

Why do you bother with iron up there if you have huge field of iron inside your base?
And that left wall of iron outpost... Within few steps from water... Feels like a waste really

Facepalm moment of the entire Let's play. Also the moment you build the provider chests in chain with the steel chests. Just replace the steel chests and save the energy wasted on those blue inserters >_<.

[FishSandwich]

I mentioned in an earlier video that I didn't need the copper or iron ores, I was just expanding there to show off trains which was requested by a few.

[FishSandwich]

What's up guys, episode 39 of my "Hard Mode" series is up!

Chasing Trains! - Factorio 0.10.9 "Hard Mode" #39

Also, episode 36 of my F-MOD/Dytech series is up!

Expand.. Where?! - Factorio 0.10.9 F-MOD/Dytech #36

Thankyou for watching, and enjoy.

[JoshLittle]

• what is the point in sorting the ore at the main station? if you just take out everything with fast inserters the logistic bots will sort it out automaticly. they can carry multiple items per ride but they will not mix the types of items?
• if you run out of electricity at the end of the night, then you need more accumulators, not solar panels. just if your accumulators are not full at the end of a day, then you need more solar panels
• the safest way to make shure stacks (as long as boxes can't be set to specific stacks) is to use one box per type of item. so if the two stacks are filled back up every minute up to 50 the cance is small that one stack gets used up and gets spamed by the other item, but perhaps it's better to do it the right way. you know.. children are watching
• you really should use active provider chests for your train output with enough storage chests between there and the smelters. even if you don't need the ore right now, it is better to mine the fields faster just because to not waste ressources to hold up protection unnecessary long.
• in your long iron+copper line you have many normal splitters. they increase the space between the items as well as the not-express-corners. So these two things can help to improve the copper density to the end of the line.
• rocket defense needs rockets? oh, wow. Maybe that's why it's not called paper plane defense

[JoshLittle]

@"Iron Plates, Finally":

• Your old outpost is going to dry out. One train with a longer time should solve your problems. The second rail could be deconstructed.
• If you want to stick with the old two trains, then you could micromanage the situation with renaming the stations. If you give the stations the same name (like "main station" for the two platforms inside), then they would appear as one platforms for all three trains and they would choose the next free one. Then you don't have the fixed binding of two specific trains for one platform and you don't have to micromanage over the train shedule.
• If you give the three ore stations the same name, the trains also can choose from where to get the next ore. As long as the length of the trains is the same, this would be no issue.
• But then there still will be the situations with one train blocking the way for the other two (in case you didn't build the loop), so the loop solves a problem. A bit better would it be to generally have one direction for the platforms and enough wating area in a loop for every possible other incoming train. If your stations are directing east, then the waiting area is just inside the gap. The loop prevents constant blocking, but the waiting of the third train for the unloading of the first train because the second train is waiting in the gap for the first train would still be an issue. If you just turn the signals to the west and also connect the northern platform from behind, then the wating area would be inside the loop and not in the gap.

[FishSandwich]

@JoshLittle Wew, glad I decided to end one series. Don't think I could handle two huge posts from you.. Pretty good idea to rename the stations, I didn't even know it was possible to rename stations the same thing! Definitely will be using that in my next episode.


Alright well, here is the final episode of my "Hard Mode" playthrough.

Fin! - Factorio 0.10.9 "Hard Mode" #40

And of course, my next episode of my F-MOD/Dytech playthrough.

Iron Plates, Finally! - Factorio 0.10.9 F-MOD/Dytech #37

[R Daneel Olivaw]

• If you want to stick with the old two trains, then you could micromanage the situation with renaming the stations. If you give the stations the same name (like "main station" for the two platforms inside), then they would appear as one platforms for all three trains and they would choose the next free one. Then you don't have the fixed binding of two specific trains for one platform and you don't have to micromanage over the train shedule.
• If you give the three ore stations the same name, the trains also can choose from where to get the next ore. As long as the length of the trains is the same, this would be no issue.

Hi, I don't want to derail the discussion on these playthroughs, but I found these points to be quite interesting, and a possible answer to some of the questions I posted at https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... =18&t=5590 about how to keep train schedules up-to-date as you add mining outposts. Would you be willing to clarify some things (either here, or in that thread)?
If I interpret what you say correctly, it seems like I could just give all stations in Iron mining outposts the same name, and then when I build a new Iron outpost and also give that station the same name, it would automatically be visited by the trains I already had to service my existing Iron outposts? That would mean I would not have to track down those trains to add the new station to their list!
Also, when you say that trains pick "the next free one", do you know a bit more about how that works exactly? Does it just look at the station itself being free, or does the entire route to the station have to be free? Does it always start by looking at the same station (for example, the oldest with that name), or does it basically start at a random point (that would be the nicest option, as it would be the most likely to result in an even distribution of train visits to stations)? If it's not that last option, do you think a relatively even distribution is still fairly easy to achieve (for example by always having roughly the same amount of trains as active stations)?

[JoshLittle]

This idea was just for this specific scenario. If there are three trains and three outgoing lines then it could go right. But I can also think of a sideeffect, because his three ore lines are not completely seperated. Two lines end on the same place. So it is possible to have a situation where one train is in the station, the second waits on one line and the third has green on the second line and they end all up at the same intersection. Even in this scenario the idea with the same name for outposts (without two side traffic) isn't great. And even if it is implemented and works flawless, it can easily be break down by just a new signal somewhere.

So no, I would go with different names for outposts. I renamed stations like "Ore 01 - Loading" (because it also exists a "Ore 01 - Parking" beside it). But the same name for idendical unloading platforms is a good thing. Then you don't have to manage a equal shedule and the trains put the stuff whereever a platform is free. I experimented a bit with it and now I have one roboportarea that helps to unload the trains (the outer chests get filled a lot slower) and one roboportarea where the belts from the stations are completely emtied (active provider chests) on one side and filled with the wanted stuff on a specific line (3 chests with 6 inserters fill a slow belt). With this system I don't have to care on the oresite which stuff goes into which wagon and which trains goes to which platform in the center and I can also mine not so much needed stuff like coal if the ore begins to dry out and trains are not riding completely filled.

I didn't have multiple outposts for the same ore and so I didn't try to give them the same name, but I can imagine, that a train would check the first station with this name in his shedule and will go to the next in the list which would not be the next oresite but the center. And it's possible that multiple trains just would go for the same site (with the shortest route if the signals are green) and leave others completely alone. Probably the second train would make his way to the closest station with this name and only if the last signal for the station is red (because another train is inside) he would go for the next closest site, but could probably change mind back if meanwhile the first train leaves the station. This would be a completely inefficient mess.

In short: Same name for multiple platforms for unloading: yes. Same name for outposts: no.

@Fish:
Didn't saw the last vid yet, but sad to see
Could you give me the last savefile of the map? Perhaps I will play on it a bit

[FishSandwich]

Of course. I will stick a link to it in the videos description when I get a chance.

[FishSandwich]

Latest video from my F-MOD/Dytech playthrough is up!

Where Did it Go?! - Factorio 0.10.9 F-MOD/Dytech #38

Thanks for watching, enjoy.

[Xecutor]

Liquid handling, especially in case of boilers and steam engines, is very confusing.
Once I had some issues with coal and I noticed, that there is 2.0 water in the pipe instead of 10.0!
The problem was - the water wasn't hot enough and steam engines were consuming much more of that water.
But why 2.0? After some experiments I think I more or less got it.
Normal pipe has a limited throughput. When demand is higher then the pipe can bring through, the number of water in the pipe decreases.
It's like steam engines are sucking all the water in the pipes so that it doesn't even accumulate there.
You might need separate pipes for different set of engines.

And pipes splitting and joining is separate and even more confusing topic