Is active pollution sinking worth it?

Post all other topics which do not belong to any other category.
waterBear
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2020 2:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Is active pollution sinking worth it?

Post by waterBear »

Lighthouse wrote: Sun Dec 29, 2024 2:30 pm
waterBear wrote: Sun Dec 29, 2024 2:18 pm I don't know the numbers (and many people probably don't). Can you produce enough trees to keep attacks down with a 25k SPM megabase? How hard is that to do?

With good old fashioned turrets you have damage upgrades that make biters basically incapable of breaking through in late game (especially with Tesla turrets). Is tree farming really easier? It would be nice if you didn't have to set up turret resupply outposts everywhere.

An early to mid game optimization is less interesting to me personally.
In mega-base phase you probably have an easy time setting up and supplying captured biter nests. By egg processing to nutrients + recycling the nutrients to spoilage and reprocessing to nutrients + tree farms to supply some tree processing biochambers... that's rather feasibly and each biochamber with 4 Productive Modules lvl3 has a pollution of -5.88. That allows for much smaller footprints and the pollution sinking is only about how much bioflux you can/want to import.

I'd guess no tree farms for the endgame/mega-bases, except to do some wood processing if desired for tree farms in the outskirts of your base to negate the outlier pollution.

Actually tests showed that in extremely polluted areas you could potentially have millions of consumed pollution per minute with a couple of tree farms.
Interesting info. I just checked and there is a truly huge area covered by our Nauvis base with pollution values between 2-4k on each chunk.

Thanks for the reply.
mmmPI
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 3974
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Is active pollution sinking worth it?

Post by mmmPI »

This conclusion feels so wrong, it's hard to disregards the facts so much, when the numbers were given already , continuing to ignore them seem ridiculous : 125246

Saying that the optimal way to remove pollution is to use the negative pollution value from biochamber compared to planting trees just make no sense at all given how trees function. It is very easy to dwarf by several thousand fold the pollution it can absorb just by using 1 or 2 tree farm in the heavily populated area as was demonstrated.
Lighthouse
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2024 3:09 am
Contact:

Re: Is active pollution sinking worth it?

Post by Lighthouse »

mmmPI wrote: Wed Jan 01, 2025 9:21 am This conclusion feels so wrong, it's hard to disregards the facts so much, when the numbers were given already , continuing to ignore them seem ridiculous : 125246

Saying that the optimal way to remove pollution is to use the negative pollution value from biochamber compared to planting trees just make no sense at all given how trees function. It is very easy to dwarf by several thousand fold the pollution it can absorb just by using 1 or 2 tree farm in the heavily populated area as was demonstrated.
The statement is outdated, yes.

A biochamber uses ~12 tiles in an optimal case (9 by itself, 1 loading inserter, 1 unloading inserter, 2 shared chests with adjacent biochamber). This setup could pottentially reduce pollution by 5.88units per minute.

A tree farm contains 45 trees (7*7 plants -1 for Agricultural Tower, -1 for incoming logistics -1 for outgoing/tileable logistics. -1 for loading/unloading) and uses 441 tiles -> 441/45 trees means: 9.8 tiles per tree. Thus in the same footprint as the biopchamber fit 1.22 trees. The tree has a growth cycle of 10 minutes, after which it is replanted via the Agricultural Tower. If the area is polluted enough the optimal case is the tree is damaged completely and on average 100 units of pollution are removed per tree.

Averaging to the tile:
Each tile of the biochamber setup can reduce 0,49 units of pollution per minute.
Each tile of the tree farm setup can reduce 1,02 units of pollution per minute.
A tree is 208% as effective as the biochamber.

A tree farm (assuming 45 trees) can remove 450 units of pollution per minute.

These numbers are only valid for areas that are polluted enough to totally destroy the trees by pollution within 10 minutes.

"Totally damaging 45 trees" means applying on average 10 times damage to each tree. Damaging a tree happens every second for every 50 units of pollution (rounded up) above the threshold of 60 units of pollution in any given chunk. This means 450 applied tree damages over a duration of 600 seconds can total all the trees in one tree farm. This would mean an continuous pollution level above 60 should suffice in theory, but as tree damage and pollution level interact, the actual pollution would have to be higher (or requires a continuous 'resupply' of pollution).

The pollution level mentioned by waterBear (2-4k in some chunks) could potentially destroy ~4-8 trees every second. Calculation for 2k pollution:
2,000 units - 60 units threshold value = 1,940 units. For every 50 units (rounded up) a tree damage would be applied: 1,940 / 50 = 39. Thus potentially reducing pollution 390 pollution every second = 23400 pollution per minute.

That's my current understanding of the pollution-tree-dynamics.

As of now I would not advise to go with the biochamber setup. And about the "Is pollution sinking worth it?":
Tree farms need an import of bioflux so the wood can be processed to seeds via wood processing in biochambers. 1000 bioflux can (i.e. one rocket capacity) (with an Effeciency Module setup) be used to process about 50k wood to ~37k seeds. Obviously this only has to be done in very long intervals and appears feasible even in mid-game (post-Gleba of course).
37k seeds = 37k trees = 3,700,000 removed pollution by tree damage. (Theoretically all within seconds).

Wood Processing is a Gleba tech, but can be done in Assemblers.


Here you see an attempt for a tiled tree farm.


It includes a circuit logic to set a harvesting schedule. ((H)ours, (M)inutes, (S)econds) can be set via constant combinator for planting cycle and growth cycle working a power switch... just delete it if not needed. Otherwise you can use it to add additional time to the growth cycle if desired. For testing or whatever.)

And a blueprint for wood processing with biochambers:


But all this was just 'running the numbers'. If some of you now try out tree farms, we surely would like to hear: Was it worth the trouble setting up the tree farm and the wood processing?
Last edited by Lighthouse on Wed Jan 01, 2025 7:39 pm, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
Khagan
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Is active pollution sinking worth it?

Post by Khagan »

Lighthouse wrote: Wed Jan 01, 2025 10:24 am A tree is 213% as effective as the biochamber.
But does a biochamber merely remove pollution, like trees (or indeed land surface) do? I read the description as saying that it actually emits negative pollution. That would reduce the global pollution emissions (and hence the rate of evolution) as well as the local pollution levels.
Lighthouse
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2024 3:09 am
Contact:

Re: Is active pollution sinking worth it?

Post by Lighthouse »

Khagan wrote: Wed Jan 01, 2025 10:40 am
Lighthouse wrote: Wed Jan 01, 2025 10:24 am A tree is 213% as effective as the biochamber.
But does a biochamber merely remove pollution, like trees (or indeed land surface) do? I read the description as saying that it actually emits negative pollution. That would reduce the global pollution emissions (and hence the rate of evolution) as well as the local pollution levels.
(I adjusted the percentage sligtly in the meantime - counted the available trees in a tiled tree farm again).

The pollution of biochambers works just as any other pollution (albeit negative), meaning: The pollution level of its chunk is adjusted accordingly. If you have two biochambers working with -1/m pollution each and you have a stone furnace running with its +2/m pollution in the same chunk, then you have a net +-0 pollution. There is no "negative pollution cloud".
mmmPI
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 3974
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Is active pollution sinking worth it?

Post by mmmPI »

Lighthouse wrote: Wed Jan 01, 2025 10:24 am The statement is outdated, yes.
I would say wrong, as it has never been true in the past. Since you learned a bit better about the pollution on the other thread i found it surprising that you seemingly contradict your findings on this one.
Lighthouse wrote: Wed Jan 01, 2025 10:24 am But all this was just 'running the numbers'. If some of you now try out tree farms, we surely would like to hear: Was it worth the trouble setting up the tree farm and the wood processing?
As mentionned earlier, yes, also a biochamber require nutrient, and thus bioflux import, a tree farm made from assembling machine doesn't . it's quite easy to set up, as i mentionned earlier you also don't need to wait for Aquilo tech to have captive spawner and is overall much better than using biochamber for absorbing pollution in ligthly polluted or heavyly polluted environment.
Lighthouse wrote: Wed Jan 01, 2025 10:24 am As of now I would not advise to go with the biochamber setup. And about the "Is pollution sinking worth it?":
That sound oddly familiar , you keep asking the same question, hopefully you don't refuse the answer now x)

This was my previous answer :
mmmPI wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2024 5:36 pm This doesn't change the facts mentionned previously. You don't need to use the biochamber here, you can use the tree farm just fine without the nutrient from biter eggs for the purpose of reducing pollution. The biochamber pollution reduction is very minimal compared to the effect of the trees i found because they won't be runnin often compared to the lifetime of the trees they produce and how much every single of them can absorb. That would be like 1/1000th of the pollution reduction come from the biochamber if not less so it's neglible imo.
208% or 213% , to me this seem different (bad) setup, choosen arbitrarily to refuse the 1/1000th, but it'd be curious to know in game what are the pollution value that you have in the center of your megabase, because the more pollution there is the more effective will be the trees and the least effective will be the biochamber.

I think in order of magnitude to illustrate what happens in game 208% is very misleading because it appear to me the number choosen by someone who really wanted to proove a point and not an attempt at trying to be exhaustive and comprehensive. The amount of precision 208 vs 213% is not appropriate because it is very variable, and most of the time, if used for active pollution thinking, very much under the reality.
Lighthouse
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2024 3:09 am
Contact:

Re: Is active pollution sinking worth it?

Post by Lighthouse »

mmmPI wrote: Wed Jan 01, 2025 1:34 pm
Lighthouse wrote: Wed Jan 01, 2025 10:24 am The statement is outdated, yes.
I would say wrong, as it has never been true in the past. Since you learned a bit better about the pollution on the other thread i found it surprising that you seemingly contradict your findings on this one.
Compare the time stamps of the post. You will find in the other thread the then current state of info. Please pay attention to the details. But let us not argue about that in public, please. It is annoying to me and probably to others as well.

mmmPI wrote: Wed Jan 01, 2025 1:34 pm
Lighthouse wrote: Wed Jan 01, 2025 10:24 am But all this was just 'running the numbers'. If some of you now try out tree farms, we surely would like to hear: Was it worth the trouble setting up the tree farm and the wood processing?
As mentionned earlier, yes, also a biochamber require nutrient, and thus bioflux import, a tree farm made from assembling machine doesn't . it's quite easy to set up, as i mentionned earlier you also don't need to wait for Aquilo tech to have captive spawner and is overall much better than using biochamber for absorbing pollution in ligthly polluted or heavyly polluted environment.
Nobody is talking about spawners... but I overlooked that wood processing is available with Assemblers. In that case one does not even need the biochamber setup for seed production, true.
mmmPI wrote: Wed Jan 01, 2025 1:34 pm
Lighthouse wrote: Wed Jan 01, 2025 10:24 am As of now I would not advise to go with the biochamber setup. And about the "Is pollution sinking worth it?":
That sound oddly familiar , you keep asking the same question, hopefully you don't refuse the answer now x)
I was trying to lead this thread back to topic. Please try not to keep it off-topic. Please refrain from derailing it. Please.
mmmPI wrote: Wed Jan 01, 2025 1:34 pm This was my previous answer :
mmmPI wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2024 5:36 pm This doesn't change the facts mentionned previously. You don't need to use the biochamber here, you can use the tree farm just fine without the nutrient from biter eggs for the purpose of reducing pollution. The biochamber pollution reduction is very minimal compared to the effect of the trees i found because they won't be runnin often compared to the lifetime of the trees they produce and how much every single of them can absorb. That would be like 1/1000th of the pollution reduction come from the biochamber if not less so it's neglible imo.
208% or 213% , to me this seem different (bad) setup, choosen arbitrarily to refuse the 1/1000th, but it'd be curious to know in game what are the pollution value that you have in the center of your megabase, because the more pollution there is the more effective will be the trees and the least effective will be the biochamber.

I think in order of magnitude to illustrate what happens in game 208% is very misleading because it appear to me the number choosen by someone who really wanted to proove a point and not an attempt at trying to be exhaustive and comprehensive. The amount of precision 208 vs 213% is not appropriate because it is very variable, and most of the time, if used for active pollution thinking, very much under the reality.
Actually it's math. Please also try to base your posts on facts, not emotions. But actually, try to do that in PMs. 208% is the results of algebra. If you think I applied it wrong, if you think I made an error, please try to prove it wrong using math yourself and paying attention to the details. If you can come up with a better ratio by implementing a smarter blueprint, please do so and share. I would be curious to see what is out there.
But we know by now how you feel - I would like to hear less of it and more on the topic.
mmmPI
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 3974
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Is active pollution sinking worth it?

Post by mmmPI »

A tree absorb 0.001 pollution per second forever if in an area that has less than 60 pollution per chunk thus leading to an infinite amount of pollution absorbed overtime.

A biochamber only need to be active for about 1 second to make a seed during which the pollution absorbed is insignificant.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that any attempt at precisely measuring how much worse is the biochamber with precise number is futile to me.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion”