Factorio Forums

Right. What I am looking at is from the mid-game, when most technologies aren't unlocked yet. Maybe arriving at Gleba as the first or second off-world.

I am not looking to leverage beacons or modules to reduce the number of biochambers at that point.


Beacons are expensive. Not about how much energy they consume per second. But the initial and ongoing investment to mass-produce fully up-tiered beacons, plus setting up or expanding to handle mixed-quality intermediates.

The beacon's ingredient list is: 135 copper plates, 110 iron plates, and 40 plastic bars. Most of those are then recrafted into other intermediates like Steel, green/red circuits, and copper wires.

On the other hand, a single Biochamber needs at most 25 iron plates, 7.5 copper plates, 5 nutrients, and 50 stones.


Uptiering a machine is a non-trivial sink of resources. Each tier level requires more resources based on the baseline machine's cost. So if a baseline machine costs much more, then fully up-tiering that same type of machine will cost more resources in proportion.


It doesn't help much that when I combine productivity modules and beacons with speed modules, I trade biochambers for a beacon at nearly a two-to-one ratio. I went from ~90 biochambers to 38 biochambers and 38 beacons. It goes without saying that this is not a favorable exchange for beacons.

Fully uptiered beacons don't save material or meaningfully reduce the computational footprint at 600 SPM. At a much higher SPM, PC running Factorio's simulation slower than 60 UPS, and with larger factories to handle quality, it might make sense to switch to fully uptiered biochambers, beacons, modules, and more on Gleba.



The thing is, I don't like spending more time on Gleba if I can help it. Gleba isn't fun for me for several reasons, so it makes sense to avoid mixing quality and Gleba and spend less time there by using a simple setup that can expand horizontally (copy/paste) instead of vertically.

As a result, I've designed a Gleba factory with mostly productivity modules, minimal interaction with quality mechanics, and no beacon, which works best for me.

XT-248 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2026 3:58 amBeacons are expensive. Not about how much energy they consume per second. But the initial and ongoing investment to mass-produce fully up-tiered beacons, plus setting up or expanding to handle mixed-quality intermediates.

The beacon's ingredient list is: 135 copper plates, 110 iron plates, and 40 plastic bars. Most of those are then recrafted into other intermediates like Steel, green/red circuits, and copper wires.

On the other hand, a single Biochamber needs at most 25 iron plates, 7.5 copper plates, 5 nutrients, and 50 stones.

It doesn't help much that when I combine productivity modules and beacons with speed modules, I trade biochambers for a beacon at nearly a two-to-one ratio. I went from ~90 biochambers to 38 biochambers and 38 beacons. It goes without saying that this is not a favorable exchange for beacons.

If you decide to load, say, biochambers with productivity 1 modules, a group of 8 biochambers boosted with one speed 1 beacon is the equivalent of 14 biochambers without the beacon.

Even completely ignoring the cost of the biochambers, that's still a difference of 22 module 1's, which has a raw cost of 715 copper plates, 330 iron plates, and 220 plastic bars. That looks like a pretty favorable exchange to me.

Or if you decide to load the non-beaconed setup with 3 prod 1's and 1 speed 1 to sacrifice some of the productivity bonus to reduce costs, you still need 11 biochambers to match the 1 beacon version, so it's still a difference of 10 module 1's: a raw cost of 325 copper, 150 iron, and 100 plastic.

Still looks favorable.

If you instead go with the 8 beacon setup so your biochamber to beacon ratio is 1:1 rather than 8:1, and still using the "3 prod 1 speed" in the non-beaconed setup, each beaconed biochamber is worth 2.5 unbeaconed biochambers. So the difference would only be 4 modules per beacon: a raw cost of 130 copper, 60 iron, and 40 plastic. Add in the cost of 1.5 biochambers, and this again looks favorable for the beacons.

And this will all tilt pretty hard in favor of beacons if you use module 2's since they're so much more expensive.

The thing is, I don't like spending more time on Gleba if I can help it. Gleba isn't fun for me for several reasons, so it makes sense to avoid mixing quality and Gleba and spend less time there by using a simple setup that can expand horizontally (copy/paste) instead of vertically.

As a result, I've designed a Gleba factory with mostly productivity modules, minimal interaction with quality mechanics, and no beacon, which works best for me.

Then don't do things on Gleba if you don't want to do things on Gleba. Just don't try to find some rationalization to justify your preference with bad analysis.

I usually don't use beacons with biochambers either, though my reasons are completely different: I find it convenient to set up minimal power infrastructure on Gleba, and I'm not allergic to spores, so I don't feel the need to invest in the electric power needed to maximize biochamber productivity.

XT-248 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2026 3:58 am Beacons are expensive. Not about how much energy they consume per second. But the initial and ongoing investment to mass-produce fully up-tiered beacons, plus setting up or expanding to handle mixed-quality intermediates.

A speed-beaconed factory has a small footprint. Small footprint means easier logistics, less belts, less inserters, less machines, less forest to cut down, less area to clean, less water to landfill, less area to cover with power poles and roboports. On Gleba less items in the machines and on the belts to spoil.

To hell with the cost of one individual building or module or beacon! You set up module production once, somewhere, no matter how slow it is. It will trickle into your storage chests and you just grab and use them.

It doesn't need these 12-beacon-per-assembler builds. Diminishing returns hit hard beyond 8. Sweet spot is somewhere around 4 beacons. Already 1 beacon helps tremendously, especially if you place it centrally and arrange as many production buildings around it as possible.

This is an effortless 1171 SPM agriculture pack production line. Just everything normal - quality stuff is for much later when the speed boost of T3 speed modules isn't sufficient any more and you need more output.

Often, quality is a red herring. Don't follow it if you're not absolutely sure about what you will get and absolutely need what you get. And don't try to craft quality science. Quality is for production buildings, not for consumables - until the very very late and post game, and probably not even then.

Tertius wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2026 8:55 am Often, quality is a red herring. Don't follow it if you're not absolutely sure about what you will get and absolutely need what you get. And don't try to craft quality science. Quality is for production buildings, not for consumables - until the very very late and post game, and probably not even then.

I actually don't play it that way. In my version, the puzzles are there to be solved.

By setting up quality on furnaces and mines, you get 2%-5% of your production diverted from things which are traditionally high cost. So if you're willing to just get more resources, you get a few production puzzles that are interesting to solve. Particularly once you have production or utility science attached to your supply chain.

One of them is that the space savings on space platforms is deeply debatable. Uncommon drills are conditionally effective, based off run schedule the 1.2 multiplier is either extremely powerful or it's something that takes up space big mining drill. Personal equipment, vehicles and armor can be breaking.

Solving those puzzles can be entertaining because it's a series of rewards for delaying gratification on a 4 hour schedule. But the hard part is that once you get a recycler there's no reason do it, because you can standardize your supply chain to highest quality and that's a lot less frightening. It also plays a lot better with a person with any kind of programming or math background because it eliminates a lot of complexity from a supply chain when you're doing top down planning.