Fix Bugged Concrete Recycling Recipe

[nasaboy007]

Currently, recycling Concrete takes 10x longer because the recipe didn't account for the 10x output for the forward crafting recipe iiuc. We'd work around this by using Hazard Concrete for recycling, but patch 2.1.7 "fixed" this by changing how Hazard Concrete recycles.

Please fix Concrete recycling to take the proper amount of time for a single entity rather than using the time for the 10x entity.

[Stargateur]

time to use train to "void" item, I can't find the reddit post but someone used train to destroy train instead of using recycler to void trash item (thus I don't think this affect my own way to play fulgora)

[secelt]

+1, i absolutely agree. i think it’s ridiculous that concrete almost takes more time to recycle than to craft. with 2.1 patching the hazard concrete “exploit”, Fulgoran factories now require a massive, disproportionate amount of recyclers to void all the unneeded concrete, which i just don’t find fun. it’s frustrating!

in general, i think recycling recipes should have 16 times the base throughput of their respective crafting recipes, which is how it currently is for most recipes. i see two ways of achieving this:

1. just inversely scale the recycling recipe’s crafting time with the output item count;
2. or make the recycling recipe have an input item count requirement equal to the output item count of the original crafting recipe (so that concrete could only be recycled in batches of 10, for example).

i think option #1 makes a whole lot more sense than #2, since it wouldn’t introduce any deadlocks where a recycler that’s partially full couldn’t accept any other items. plus, i don’t think a batched recycling system would work well with productivity.

(although you could give recyclers a dynamic input slot, where it could accept multiple item types at once and recycle any which eventually hit their “recycling threshold”, but then you would also have to limit the input in such a way that the recycler couldn’t serve as an unlimited chest, while still not limiting throughput. if you do end up doing that, then you might as well extend it to other furnaces, so that a mixed‐belt iron/copper/steel generic smelter could be possible.)

[Dullstar]

Agreed. I think, in light of the removal of the hazard concrete trick to recycle concrete faster, it would be good to reconsider if it really makes sense for concrete to take as long as it does to recycle compared to the other Fulgora scrap recycling outputs. Its slow recycle time seems to purely be a side-effect of 1 craft making 10 concrete, rather than a specific design choice, so the result is that the amount of recyclers required to deal with concrete specifically feels excessive compared to everything else... which is probably why that trick is so widespread in 2.0.

[evanrinehart]

There was an old bug report about concrete recycling and how it was "bugged", and didn't follow the formula. Except that when I looked at the formula, which factors in amount of item crafted explicitly, it seems to be acting exactly as described in the blog post introducing the recycler and the wiki explanation of recycling. So maybe people want everything in the game to be easy, but that's not the same as being buggy?

viewtopic.php?t=121103

[Nova]

The recycling time does not factor in the amount of items created by a recipe. That doesn't have to be a bug, but I absolutely think it's an inconsistency. Why is it a difference in recycling time if I craft 10 of something in 10 seconds, or 1 of something in 1 second?
The first one is an example for concrete, which has a recycling time of 0.62 seconds - equal to 10 seconds divided by 16. The second one is for example a splitter, crafting 1 item in 1 second. The recycling time is 0.06 seconds, which is 1 second divided by 16. The big difference is the recycler only recycles one item at a time, doesn't matter if the recipe creates 1 or 1000 items, which is why some things (like concrete) are disproportionally harder affected by this.
The resulting items from recycling are affected by the amount created by the original recipe, so it is possible to calculate that correctly (at least in theory), but it's not done. Why?

[evanrinehart]

I was wrong about that part. To get the situation straight I did some numbers for the process of crafting (by hand) concrete then recycling it vs crafting engine unit then recycling it. Ignore that concrete nor engine units can be crafted by hand

0.1 gears per second consumed crafting engine unit
0.1 iron ore per second consumed crafting concrete

0.1 engine units crafted per second
1 concrete crafted per second

recycling time for engine unit 1.25 s (0.8 recycles per second)
recycling time for concrete 1.25 s (0.8 recycles per second)

so 1 recycler could handle 8 guys crafting engine units to get 0.2 gears per second on avg
but 1 recycler can't even keep up with 1 guy crafting concrete. You need 10 recyclers to keep up with 8 guys crafting concrete for 0.2 iron ore back per second.

So 1 recycler is not enough to reverse (save 25% yield) the crafting process of 8 speed 1 crafters in all cases, making things more interesting than simply that. It makes sense to me just for the sake of avoiding too much uniformity, but also it's not a uniform situation, since 10x more concrete is going through the system per second.