)
It works. It provides power. It gives more than 15 steam engines in a row. Yes I'll have to optimise it, but as a proof of concept it is good enough.BlakeMW wrote:Hmm, are you sure that works? I haven't managed to get more than about 24 boilers in a row to contribute at full effectiveness, and in your screenie the steam engines are generating 37.2MW which is consistent with the amount of water which can fit down a boiler string, also 3 offshore pumps are no better than 2 in my testing.
Basically, designs with more than 24 boilers in a row just don't work and they are running very close to the limit, 21 boilers is a more sensible limit which gives a little wiggle room in the fluid simulation.
Yes, someting like this is what I'll do when I have completed my design. I might get even more steam engines lined up than 19.BlakeMW wrote: Something new enabled by landfill pump-packing though, is running a cold water pipe between the two center boiler strings and joining into them not further than 14 boilers from the end, this slightly improves efficiency, up to about 96% of maximum.
Landfill is green science, 50 red and green packs.Patric20878 wrote:What is this landfill madness? What's the tech level needed for landfilling?
And Qon's design produces 37.4 of the 38.8MW it should produce, wonky water simulation/pressure strikes again.
(And why did I sign up to keep updating a design for a game I don't play anymore
Oh and, unless the landfilling thingy is as low tech as small poles and yellow split belts, it'll be made into a variant rather than an upgrade.
Yes, that looks kinda similar to what I described. Good idea to interleave them vertically. And yes bypassing the steam engines is what I would do once you get above 15~20 steam engines in a row. I did it before, I can do it again q;BlakeMW wrote:Something I dreamed up is kind of "braided" strings of 14 boilers relying on offshore pump stacking:
picThis layout gets full efficiency and the individual strands stack well both with direct feed and another belt. One problem though is the maximum steam engine string length is about 25, it gets pretty hard to cram in the steam engines as tightly as the boiler strings without the steam engine strings exceeding this maximum length. A possible solution is to use a bypass underground pipe running between the steam engines delivering water to the end of the steam engine strings and extending the maximum length of the strings such that 80 or 100 steam engines can be packed into 3 rows (occupying the same space as 8 or 10 stacked offshore pumps).
Not necessarily. If you're speed running or something you may not have solar power.Patric20878 wrote:From a practical and teching up standpoint, I have little interest in rocket fuel optimization with a steam engine setup, as if you have modules to upgrade machines, you should be on solar power already.
All the things BlakeMW said and...Patric20878 wrote:From a practical and teching up standpoint, I have little interest in rocket fuel optimization with a steam engine setup, as if you have modules to upgrade machines, you should be on solar power already.
I completely forgot about inserts reuired to make the rocket fuel, thanks.BlakeMW wrote:I've been thinking about rocket fuel in boilers. You lose 10% of the fuel value by converting solid fuel to rocket fuel but otoh you can use productivity modules and with 4x Prod3 module in assembler 3 you get 26% more fuel value - a gross profit of 45MJ of electricity. The net profit is trickier, I think the minimum cost to perform the conversion (fully utilized alternating rows assembler/beacon) is about 15MJ leaving a net profit of 30MJ. Of course, if supplementing with solar power the electricity expense can be further discounted.
Rocket Fuel also saves energy on inserts (for all inserter types, not only burner inserter) but actually increases total factory inserts because the 10 solid fuel had to the inserted into the chemical plant to make the rocket fuel - you're not saving energy on inserts, only changing where those inserts happening and causing more inserts.
Well if you want steam engine plants that give you 30 engines/row then you probably have pretty beefy energy requirements which impies late game tech like rocket fuel and lots of destroyers to clear the land required for such long strings of steam engines.Patric20878 wrote:The tech rocket fuel requires though, lol.
Not gonna bother. And changing all inserters to burners would require no change in physical layout anyways.
And 0.13 increasing resource patch density by distance, welp, that's new. Guess it would make steam more viable late game then.
Well you could landfill an entire lake (after placing the offshore pumps) and repeat the 15 steam engine blueprint over and over. And I consider doing just that. Makes sense if you have big lakes and lots of landfill. But it requires way more landfills than just straightening the edge and adding a straight line or 2 of landfill and I don't think you can blueprint landfills either. Can you?Patric20878 wrote:When you can just landfill to maximize surface area of a body of water, what's the point in continuing to extend steam engines per row again? The whole reason I optimized it to 15 per row in the first place was to be able to stack offshore pumps vertically with no spacing in between, as to not waste shore tiles. There's no reason to do more than 15, the bottleneck is the offshore pumps and you're already maximizing space efficiency of that with 15 engines per row.
Reduced spacing between steam engines by almost 75%. Half as much space between each steam engine and only for half of the steam engines, the second half is your effiecient steam engine layout. And my zig zag interleave used for the first half is fairly compact and somewhat close to your design (about 2 steam engines longer). I think it's good enough and hard to get any better than this if you don't want to landfill entire lakes and deal with all the fuel routing that will be necessary for that. This is blueprintable, which is a must have for any large scale constructions. And twice the power/shore length and almost the same power/square tile (95% as area space effiecient is my guesstimate) makes it an easy choice for big bases. 4 rows (~60MW) is enough to win the game with though so you would probably not use it in base where your goal is to launch a single rocket.Patric20878 wrote:Heh. As much as the 30 engines per row thing works, you're fitting pipes between practically every engine. That's gotta be removed in a real design.
For now I'll let yar experiment with the changes that come with 0.13. Maybe once you're more familiar we'll work further on seeing how much advantage this can give over my current design.
5000.Patric20878 wrote:Well yeah, I wouldn't fill entire lakes. I'd only straighten the edge of them. How many rows would you want post-launch anyways if 4's enough for launch?
I'm using my method. Right click the picture -> view image and then zoom in with ctrl +Patric20878 wrote: And speaking of, are you using Blake's method of underground piping water over to the middle to solve the water pressure problem? I'd need a map save of a working prototype to see, these setups are getting ridiculously long.
Depends on how much power you need. With enough rows, making each row twice as effective gets more convinient. Should be fairly easy with low terrain segmentation (once they fix the bugs in 0.13) to find big lakes with big landmasses ready for some pollution.Patric20878 wrote:If I thought 15 had an increased likelihood to be too long for a continuous stretch of land, 30 is almost certainly too long to be convenient.
Nothing is stopping you except the limit to the shore length available to you. With 15 steam engines you need twice as many rows as 30. You can use 10 steam engines or 1 in a row if you want to. 30 is just more effective, if you don't want that then use something ineffective all over the place or limit your production.Patric20878 wrote:If you use landfills and underground pipes to carry water to the halfway point, what's stopping me from just pasting a copy of the 1.5/21/15 design right next to the first one? Does the same thing without the extra piping and whatever you need in between to make 30 work.
You won't be laughing when I show it to you. Eh, what do I know, maybe you will q:Patric20878 wrote:And lel, 5000
I'm using the same shore length with 30 steam engines as 15. It's 3 tiles shore for 30 steam engines. The extra lines in the water gives me the possibility to pump up more than twice as much water.Patric20878 wrote:Whatever do you mean, you need the same amount of offshore pumps for x amount of steam engines. Arranging it in 30's isn't going to reduce how much shore you need any more than 15 will. But rearranging it in 15 DOES reduce how much shore you need compared to 10, which was the point.
