Performance optimization - post your saves

[mrvn]

Take your existing blueprint and place 2x2 of them. Then remove the rails in the middle leaving everything else as is. Now you have a larger cell that works just like your existing setup.

You can also use landfill paintings (so you have different landfills) to put sand under rails and grass around them or some other combination. Then have one blueprint for the power/roboport grid that includes the sand/grass tiles. Place them everywhere and you get a nice outline of where rails might go. Then you can decide on a case by case basis where to put rails or where to ignore rails positions to e.g. build a big solar array.

[mr_fancy_pants]

Take your existing blueprint and place 2x2 of them. Then remove the rails in the middle leaving everything else as is. Now you have a larger cell that works just like your existing setup.

You can also use landfill paintings (so you have different landfills) to put sand under rails and grass around them or some other combination. Then have one blueprint for the power/roboport grid that includes the sand/grass tiles. Place them everywhere and you get a nice outline of where rails might go. Then you can decide on a case by case basis where to put rails or where to ignore rails positions to e.g. build a big solar array.

This is actually a pretty reasonable suggestion, however. there is another issue with using larger grid sizes, and that's to do with the fog of war. Since you can't deconstruct or blueprint into the fog of war anymore (which is a change I still really really hate), the larger cells are much more cumbersome to get the whole thing unfogged so you can place it in one go, especially as they're normally used for expansion into areas that don't have radar yet. Even the smaller grids I currently use sometimes run afoul of this, depending on where the chunk boundaries end up.

It also makes it trickier to lay down grids while not covering up delicious resource patches when the grids are twice as large - it can be tricky even with the smaller ones.

[mrvn]

Take your existing blueprint and place 2x2 of them. Then remove the rails in the middle leaving everything else as is. Now you have a larger cell that works just like your existing setup.

You can also use landfill paintings (so you have different landfills) to put sand under rails and grass around them or some other combination. Then have one blueprint for the power/roboport grid that includes the sand/grass tiles. Place them everywhere and you get a nice outline of where rails might go. Then you can decide on a case by case basis where to put rails or where to ignore rails positions to e.g. build a big solar array.

This is actually a pretty reasonable suggestion, however. there is another issue with using larger grid sizes, and that's to do with the fog of war. Since you can't deconstruct or blueprint into the fog of war anymore (which is a change I still really really hate), the larger cells are much more cumbersome to get the whole thing unfogged so you can place it in one go, especially as they're normally used for expansion into areas that don't have radar yet. Even the smaller grids I currently use sometimes run afoul of this, depending on where the chunk boundaries end up.

It also makes it trickier to lay down grids while not covering up delicious resource patches when the grids are twice as large - it can be tricky even with the smaller ones.

Yeah, I know that problem. I'm currently playing PyAddon mods and his roboports have construction area only slightly larger than the logistic area. So you have to place roboports closer together to build them and can later remeove some without loosing logistic coverage.

I've made a blueprint for expanding that's basically just roboports, radars and power poles on top of landfill in a big grid. Just place that anywhere and anything not in fog of war is placed. Wait for the next radar to be build, rince and repeat. And then I have to manually deconstruct half the roboports/radars that were added just to build the rest.

[DustFireSky]

Here is another little megabase. Round about 200-250 Trains (Why is in the train overview no train counter present? Have I missed a game option to find out how many trains I have?).

I get 41-46 UPS with an Ryzen 9 3900X. I build only needed rails! At some points, there is a traffic jam. But, it depends on the time (loading/unloading) of the trains. If all trains coming in the same time.... JAM Mania! The rail tracks/style and all what u see is my creation. Just the tiny nuclear power plants 480MW are a blueprint from another person. The huge nuclear power plant is my own creation.

PS: Can't Upload the file....

Maybe it helps to optimize the game.

External Download Link

[manjhi]

Posting my 1k SPM base which runs at ~26 UPS. It's relatively huge because of the restrictions I'm playing with.

- No beacons or modules
- No robots
- No nuclear power
- No solar power
- No assembling machine 3 (yellow assemblers)
- No express (blue) belts, underground belts or splitters
- No electric furnaces
- No nuclear fuel

What can be optimized here (without relaxing any restrictions) to improve UPS?



I'm guessing most of the impact is from these many assemblers and trains? There are lots of circuits too, which control the trains.

Savefile: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

[Rseding91]

What can be optimized here (without relaxing any restrictions) to improve UPS?

Basically: https://i.imgur.com/Pef9iV3g.jpg but replace "candles" with "the inefficient ways to play the game"

[manjhi]

What can be optimized here (without relaxing any restrictions) to improve UPS?

Basically: https://i.imgur.com/Pef9iV3g.jpg but replace "candles" with "the inefficient ways to play the game"

"inefficient" is such a weird way to spell fun.

[yagaodirac]

I think the algo for car impacting other cars when they are all moved by belts, the algo does not make sence.
If you would remove this, I believe the car belt system would get more friendly to ups.
I mention this at this moment, the reason is that, in the very popular map Mtn Fortress, people are already trying bus inside the cargo, they are definitely gonna try car belt system in a short time. At that time, people would probably find the game lag heavely. But they have no choice, because the space inside cargos is very limited.
So, why not modify the algo a little bit. When a car don't have enough space to go according to the calculating, it could simply stay at the coord. In this way, car belt system could get simpler. Less entities are needed to get cars back to the correct place in where cars interact with inserters correctly.
That's it.
Good luck.

[varundevan]

I'm looking for save files where people are experiencing specific (or extreme) performance issues so I can work on optimizing them.

i think my game needs some ups optimization, i am trying my ideas, but the no big impact on ups..
could you take a look , and share your thoughts ..

save file in this link

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuzJe4ODW7z1uyXUe6C ... o?e=7EMiSH

[Rseding91]

i think my game needs some ups optimization, i am trying my ideas, but the no big impact on ups..
could you take a look , and share your thoughts ..

save file in this link

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuzJe4ODW7z1uyXUe6C ... o?e=7EMiSH

I looked at your save and there's not much going on to optimize; you've just built a lot of everything and at some point it's too much to compute at 60 UPS.

[varundevan]

I looked at your save and there's not much going on to optimize; you've just built a lot of everything and at some point it's too much to compute at 60 UPS.

Thanks for talking a look ...
i have seen some posts that says like,
using undergrounds instead of belts, using beacons instead of more machines, avoiding circuits, use less splitters, avoid thermal computing like nuclear for improving UPS.
what is your opinion, How far is that will be effective ?

[Jap2.0]

Thanks for talking a look ...
i have seen some posts that says like,
using undergrounds instead of belts, using beacons instead of more machines, avoiding circuits, use less splitters, avoid thermal computing like nuclear for improving UPS.
what is your opinion, How far is that will be effective ?

Undergrounds don't really matter anymore, beacons are good, solar is effectively zero cost while nuclear is computationally more expensive, and excessive splitters won't help. I can't say how much it will affect your UPS, though, the only way to be able to tell for sure is to try.

[azesmbog]

could you take a look , and share your thoughts ..

4th_new4.jpg (42.02 KiB) Viewed 7833 times

Everything is relative. Everything.
Your base is not so hopeless yet, there is still room to grow

[varundevan]

could you take a look , and share your thoughts ..

4th_new4.jpg
Everything is relative. Everything.
Your base is not so hopeless yet, there is still room to grow

how is that you are getting 68 fps , what processor do you use ?
edit : plz explain, how to do benchmark ?

[azesmbog]

how is that you are getting 68 fps , what processor do you use ?
edit : plz explain, how to do benchmark ?

I think this is a bit offtopic regarding the topic, but I will try to explain.
My processor is Intel 9700K.
I don't know what kind of processor you have, but for example, AMD processors show much worse performance, no offense will be said
Everything is very clearly visible in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=42165&start=120
Take a look at the last couple of pages, there is also a performance testing methodology, the address of the site for testing, and the results on it, which are updated daily.
You can also find my results, and my base, which no optimization will help

[Zavian]

how is that you are getting 68 fps , what processor do you use ?
edit : plz explain, how to do benchmark ?

Search https://wiki.factorio.com/Command_line_parameters for benchmark options.

Edit: Also see Bilka's comment about https://factoriobox.1au.us/ in viewtopic.php?p=505532#p505532.

[varundevan]

how is that you are getting 68 fps , what processor do you use ?
edit : plz explain, how to do benchmark ?

Search https://wiki.factorio.com/Command_line_parameters for benchmark options.

Edit: Also see Bilka's comment about https://factoriobox.1au.us/ in viewtopic.php?p=505532#p505532.

how is that you are getting 68 fps , what processor do you use ?
edit : plz explain, how to do benchmark ?

Everything is very clearly visible in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=42165&start=120
You can also find my results, and my base, which no optimization will help

thanks to both of you

Zavian & Azsembog, i shall create a new thread for optimization help
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=87736

[azesmbog]

i shall create a new thread for optimization help

I'll answer here.
As they said above, it is useless to optimize something.
I honestly ran for 20 minutes around your base.
Why is it good to browse other people's databases - look, and NEVER! don't do that
I understand this is the concept of city blocks ??
On my computer, fps \ ups is exactly 60 and does not fall. But it depends on the power of the computer and the size of the base. When everything comes to a limit, someone earlier, someone later. When I lacked performance, I consistently changed processors, motherboards and added memory. That's all the optimization.
There are too many railways, intersections, junctions at your base, as well as unnecessary construction and transport drones that do nothing.
Also, you apparently have a peaceful mode turned on, biters do not attack, well, why were they even included? Disable them altogether.
See if the UPS goes up on a copy.
Well, the main recommendation is to increase the power of the computer in order to continue playing this map.

and yes - 450 trains are a big load on the UPS

[varundevan]

i shall create a new thread for optimization help

I'll answer here.
As they said above, it is useless to optimize something.
I honestly ran for 20 minutes around your base.
Why is it good to browse other people's databases - look, and NEVER! don't do that
I understand this is the concept of city blocks ??
On my computer, fps \ ups is exactly 60 and does not fall. But it depends on the power of the computer and the size of the base. When everything comes to a limit, someone earlier, someone later. When I lacked performance, I consistently changed processors, motherboards and added memory. That's all the optimization.
There are too many railways, intersections, junctions at your base, as well as unnecessary construction and transport drones that do nothing.
Also, you apparently have a peaceful mode turned on, biters do not attack, well, why were they even included? Disable them altogether.
See if the UPS goes up on a copy.
Well, the main recommendation is to increase the power of the computer in order to continue playing this map.

and yes - 450 trains are a big load on the UPS

i use bots for quick completion of construction ..
i planning on upgrading, may i know what processor do you use...
if you could share your save games , it would helpful for ideas and inspirations..

Thanks again azesmbog , that was helpful ..

[azesmbog]

i use bots for quick completion of construction ..
i planning on upgrading, may i know what processor do you use...
if you could share your save games , it would helpful for ideas and inspirations..

the number of bots can be reduced by 10 times - nothing will change. I think so.
I have a 9700K processor, as I have already said.
My save is good for performance testing, but not for inspiration
Try downloading of course
viewtopic.php?p=504613#p504613