Factorio Forums

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?

• 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.

JoshLittle wrote: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?

• 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.

Xecutor wrote: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

• 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

• 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.

JoshLittle wrote:

• 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.