www.factorio.com
https://forums.factorio.com/
XT-248 wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 5:37 pm Those examples do not fulfill what I wanted to do precisely and often are overcomplicated unnecessarily.
Don't even look at what people did with trains then x)Okay.
I was under the impression that you said it was impossible to do because you failed at it while ignoring the "complicated" setup that exist ilustrating that it is in fact possible to create logic gate without electricity. I'm glad the misunderstanding is dispelled.XT-248 wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 11:46 pm I said it before, and someone didn't listen.
I have already tried and haven't found a solution (even with trains and splitters/belts), but a new feature is coming, either with patch 2.0 or Space Age DLC. I might be able to do something.
I am telling you. It can not be done because it is not yet Oct 21st, 2024, and it relies on a new feature that is unreleased before then.mmmPI wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2024 5:23 amI was under the impression that you said it was impossible to do because you failed at it while ignoring the "complicated" setup that exist ilustrating that it is in fact possible to create logic gate without electricity. I'm glad the misunderstanding is dispelled.XT-248 wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 11:46 pm I said it before, and someone didn't listen.
I have already tried and haven't found a solution (even with trains and splitters/belts), but a new feature is coming, either with patch 2.0 or Space Age DLC. I might be able to do something.
I thought you were ignoring working solutions because they were too complicated x)XT-248 wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2024 1:19 pm I am telling you. It can not be done because it is not yet Oct 21st, 2024, and it relies on a new feature that is unreleased before then.
I am not ignoring the other solutions because they have drawbacks or issues that make it impossible to use them.
I don't need to hope. I know it can be done.mmmPI wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2024 3:12 pmI thought you were ignoring working solutions because they were too complicated x)XT-248 wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2024 1:19 pm I am telling you. It can not be done because it is not yet Oct 21st, 2024, and it relies on a new feature that is unreleased before then.
I am not ignoring the other solutions because they have drawbacks or issues that make it impossible to use them.
Hopefully you can make your simple version, the (currently-broken) way you envisionned it, hopefully you will share it too it will be very interesting x)
I meant it for me too, i hope you share it nonetheless, because it's harder to share a vision that cannot be done in the game, it's like the vision was flawed or something x). I could see some splitter logic gate without using electricity on reddit, but i hope i will be able to understand the differences with the simpler version you plan to make once the game allow your vision to be realized.
Code: Select all
If( SteamFluid < Large_Steam_Number_Here & Nuclear_Reactor_Has_Less_Than_One_Fuel_Cell & Heat_Level < 750 & Time_Since_Last_Inserted > 200 seconds)
Then enable_fuel_cell_inserter_to_move_one_fuel_cell_to_nuclear_reactorYou can now read if the reactor has fuel and only insert one fuel if it is empty AND the stored heat/steam is below a certain level, so it will never have more than one. There is no need for a timer.XT-248 wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2024 3:17 pm By suggesting removing the timer condition, I would have to consider multiple fuel cells' energy content sitting in the reactor to distribute through the heat and steam network once the steam condition is met.
Yes and no, I plan to have a timer not just limited to preventing an extra fuel cell from being inserted.Loewchen wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2024 3:34 pmYou can now read if the reactor has fuel and only insert one fuel if it is empty AND the stored heat/steam is below a certain level, so it will never have more than one. There is no need for a timer.XT-248 wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2024 3:17 pm By suggesting removing the timer condition, I would have to consider multiple fuel cells' energy content sitting in the reactor to distribute through the heat and steam network once the steam condition is met.
You will lose the neighboring bonus if you don't fuel them all at the same time, staggering them is a waste. Run them all with full bonus, store the energy and then pause all until the heat storage is depleted, way simper and way more efficient.XT-248 wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:51 pm I plan to have an infinite scalable 2xN nuclear reactor layout. When I connect more than one reactor to the checker (that checker being if the reactor has less than one fuel), the condition would also have to consider the number of reactors.
IE: Four reactors have four fuel cells (one each). Then, the four reactors burn the four fuel cells until there is no fuel. Then, another fuel cell gets inserted. Only one is inserted in one reactor, leaving three reactors 'cold.'
So, I have to change the condition (< 1) to (< 4). Then I add another 6 reactors and change the condition to (< 10). Etc.
You just need to read one central value of either temperature or steam and they will be synchronized by default.XT-248 wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:51 pm Hypothetically, how do I ensure all inserters are synchronized after removing the timer condition?
It's an interesting new challenge with the more direct sensors of temperature and fuel content.XT-248 wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:51 pm Yes and no, I plan to have a timer not just limited to preventing an extra fuel cell from being inserted.
I plan to have an infinite scalable 2xN nuclear reactor layout.
When I wire all of the reactors, regardless of the number of reactors, to be checked globally on the red or green circuit network. I have to change the conditions manually to match the number of reactors.Loewchen wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2024 5:06 pmYou will lose the neighboring bonus if you don't fuel them all at the same time, staggering them is a waste. Run them all with full bonus, store the energy and then pause all until the heat storage is depleted, way simper and way more efficient.XT-248 wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:51 pm I plan to have an infinite scalable 2xN nuclear reactor layout. When I connect more than one reactor to the checker (that checker being if the reactor has less than one fuel), the condition would also have to consider the number of reactors.
IE: Four reactors have four fuel cells (one each). Then, the four reactors burn the four fuel cells until there is no fuel. Then, another fuel cell gets inserted. Only one is inserted in one reactor, leaving three reactors 'cold.'
So, I have to change the condition (< 1) to (< 4). Then I add another 6 reactors and change the condition to (< 10). Etc.
The timer is an external single central signal visible to the logical circuit, and service double-duty as a master-shutdown signal.
The way I do it now (before reading the temperature or fuel in a reactor) is to read a steam tank then at a certain XX% or YYYY value out of 25k units (connected to all of the steam storage tanks), only insert if the steam level is low enough to have sufficient capacity between reactor and heat exchanger to completely empty/drain everything down to 500-degree heat.Tertius wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2024 7:38 pmIt's an interesting new challenge with the more direct sensors of temperature and fuel content.XT-248 wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:51 pm Yes and no, I plan to have a timer not just limited to preventing an extra fuel cell from being inserted.
I plan to have an infinite scalable 2xN nuclear reactor layout.
Reading fuel is directly replacing the timer. With timer, you insert one fuel and reset the timer by doing it, then count to 12000. After that you know the fuel is empty (if you made sure you just inserted 1 fuel), because the fuel is always burning for 12000 ticks. With reading the fuel, it's a plugin replacement from C>=12000 to F=0 (F=fuel). This is convenience, nothing more.
In contrast, reading temperature is new. To produce some output power, the heat exchangers need some temperature. The higher the required power, the higher the required temperature, so more heat exchangers are active and produce more steam to produce more power.
Usually, power usage isn't spiky but increases slowly and steadily while the factory grows. There is fluctuation, but usually consumption doesn't change from 0 to full and from full to 0.
It seems we're still not able to directly read power consumption, so we're not able to directly relate temperature to power (temperature is proportional to power). We still need some helper able to tell "current power production is higher than consumption" or "current power production is lower than production", so it's still the steam that's telling us this. So, if steam does rise, we're too hot, and if steam does lower, we're too cold.
Until now, steam level vastly varied because of the huge latency between steam threshold transition and re-heating the reactors.
My new approach would be to keep the reactor temperature up, steam level constant, and constantly adjust the desired temperature to keep the desired steam level. If steam level lowers, I would increase the desired reactor temperature by some degree (by how much is yet to be defined), and if steam level rises, I would lower the desired reactor temperature. This must be a somewhat slow process, may be by implementing a PID controller. That's probably much more complex than a simple steam threshold, but much more exact.
Or may be the cheap version of this is just a copy of the old setups with a temperature threshold instead of a steam threshold and may be even require no combinator at all, since the 2 thresholds can be queried directly in the fuel inserter. You need to query fuel <= 0 AND steam <= [steam threshold] with one condition, which can be done by querying EVERYTHING <= 0 and adding -[steam threshold] from a constant combinator, so both thresholds are 0. Needs more steam buffer, since it's not as exact as a PID controller and you need to always use the temperature threshold for full reactor load.
A thing to investigate. My goal would be to build a reactor with as little steam buffer as possible but still wasteless and keeping the reactor under 1000°C all the time.
Even before any change in the game, it was very easy to synchronize refuel, just wire all inserter to the same steam storage array, there is only one per power plant, and when the steam is "low" it is for all the power plant, therefore all the reactor will be refueled at the same time. That's how the game is played currently, the addition of an easier optionnal system doesn't remove what is already possible to do like 2xN tileable designs ... duhLoewchen wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2024 3:34 pmYou can now read if the reactor has fuel and only insert one fuel if it is empty AND the stored heat/steam is below a certain level, so it will never have more than one. There is no need for a timer.XT-248 wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2024 3:17 pm By suggesting removing the timer condition, I would have to consider multiple fuel cells' energy content sitting in the reactor to distribute through the heat and steam network once the steam condition is met.
The timer condition is not necessary.
No, most players would add a constant combinator next to each reactor that add 1 so as to avoid changing manually the number everytime you add new reactors, i had a good laugh when hearing about that x).When I wire all of the reactors, regardless of the number of reactors, to be checked globally on the red or green circuit network. I have to change the conditions manually to match the number of reactors.
Wow. I completely forgot about that. I feel very stupid right now...CyberCider wrote: Sat Sep 14, 2024 10:14 amRoboports will be able to set min/max requests for specific robots inside them. That way you can make one roboport request all lower tier bots into itself, where they can be removed from the network by inserters.Roxor128 wrote: Sat Sep 14, 2024 9:46 am Will there be some easy way to get bots out of the system for upgrades?
Many mods have multiple tiers of construction and logistics bots, and upgrading them is a huge headache.
Funnily enough, they already used this exact example when introducing it.
IMG_2091.jpeg