Production Calculator Google Sheet [2.0 Space Age & Vanilla]

[ignatio]

EDIT
New copy of calculator.
Want - 40 - Advanced circuits.
Items to manufacture - 400 - Copper cable

Correct items to manufacture 160 copper cable.

I take it that's without any productivity modules anywhere. The reason for the 400 is that it includes both direct and indirect requirements: You need 160 directly for advanced circuits, but you also need 80 electronic circuits which use up 3 copper cables each, so 3x80 = 240 more copper cables. (You can see the relations if you click "Production Graph".)

If you don't want to include the requirements for the electronic circuits, put "TRUE" in the "Do not manufacture" column for them. Then it will stop there and just tell you how many finished electronic circuits you need.

[irbork]

I take it that's without any productivity modules anywhere. The reason for the 400 is that it includes both direct and indirect requirements: You need 160 directly for advanced circuits, but you also need 80 electronic circuits which use up 3 copper cables each, so 3x80 = 240 more copper cables. (You can see the relations if you click "Production Graph".)

If you don't want to include the requirements for the electronic circuits, put "TRUE" in the "Do not manufacture" column for them. Then it will stop there and just tell you how many finished electronic circuits you need.

Indeed that makes perfect sense and explains why my build calculation were off. Thanks for the "Do not manufacture" advice, it is very helpful.

[irbork]

Is there a way to put productivity modules into rocket launch calculations?
From my understanding it should apply productivity bonus to Rocket Parts but not Satellite. But I have no idea where to put it. Anyone has any info on this?

[ignatio]

Is there a way to put productivity modules into rocket launch calculations? /.../

The PMs should go into the "Rocket part" production goal - it's what most closely corresponds to the rocket silo facility.

"Satellite launch" is a combo goal to easily select 1 satellite and 100 rocket parts, but the PMs still go on the "Rocket part" row.

Btw, it's also on the "Rocket part" row you see how many rocket silos you need. Note however there is a fairly large error there due to the long time from finishing one rocket to starting the next (the launch itself which takes ~42 secs). The calculation on that row completely ignores that time so it underestimates the number of silos quite a bit, especially if they have lots of speed modules affecting them. Maybe I'll try to correct it in some way, e.g. by showing silo counts on the "Satellite launch" row, but it gets a bit messy implementation-wise.

[malventano]

First - amazing sheet work, ignatio!

Is there a way to put productivity modules in the mining drills? As it looks currently, they can be speed beaconed and speed moduled, but no productivity module. Understood that there is no 'raw raw' resource (from the patch itself), but without the ability to calc reduced speed due to productivity mods in the drills, the drill required count ends up incorrect if prod mods are used there. Also can't figure how quickly a given patch will last without knowing the corrected ore pull rate when productivity modded, etc...

[ignatio]

First - amazing sheet work, ignatio!

Cool, I'm glad you find it useful!

Is there a way to put productivity modules in the mining drills?

I had overlooked that mining drills (and pumpjacks) can take productivity modules. Fixed now - please give it a go and check that it gives the results you expect.

Thanks for letting me know!

[malventano]

First - amazing sheet work, ignatio!

Cool, I'm glad you find it useful!

Is there a way to put productivity modules in the mining drills?

I had overlooked that mining drills (and pumpjacks) can take productivity modules. Fixed now - please give it a go and check that it gives the results you expect.

Thanks for letting me know!

The change makes the desired end result (increases the number of pumpjacks or mining drills required when prod mods are added), but the resource needed remains constant while the time needed *decreases* when adding prod mods. That seems backwards somehow...

[ignatio]

/.../ but the resource needed remains constant while the time needed *decreases* when adding prod mods. That seems backwards somehow...

Agreed, that's confusing. I've fixed the "Resources needed" column to take prod modules into account, just like "Items to manufacture". (However if "Do not manufacture" is ticked then they're ignored, which makes sense since there isn't any factory for that item then.)

As for "Time needed", it's just the baseline time from the recipe (times number of items), without regard to multipliers from machines, speed modules etc. That goes down with prod modules since the number of ordinary items produced in the machine goes down (the prod module bonus items just pops out in parallel with them). I've added a note to explain that column a bit more.

[Sactorio]

It probably should be "Cost (∑ time needed)" rather than "∑ time needed (cost)".

This spreadsheet is so good, it puts all other calcs to shame in terms of practical utility.

[ignatio]

Sactorio: Thanks, it's a detail but you have a point. Changed.

[ignatio]

Small update: I fixed the rocket silo calculation to take the fixed 42 second launch time into account.

For completeness, I should also mention that I updated the facility combo costs which were a bit too high for some items since some rebalancing change in early 0.16. This only affected the relative costs that the "Optimise for max count" button uses - it had no other effects. This could cause it to suggest solutions that are slightly off the optimal ones.

(Then again, the combo costs actually depend on the manufacturing method used to produce the items in the combos. E.g. if one has some productivity modules in the factory that produces the speed modules then those get a little bit cheaper, and combos using more of them should have slightly lower relative cost compared to combos using less. So the "Optimise for max count" solutions might be slightly off wrt the circumstances in any particular game anyway. The costs used are a best-effort approach, and anyone who want complete accuracy there needs to adjust them anyway.)

[ignatio]

Put out a first version of the sheets for 0.17 - links in the original post. The main calculations with recipes etc should all be fine, but I haven't gone through all the details yet.

For instance, I'm not at all sure the throughput values for inserters still are accurate, and the belt throughputs probably aren't since the item density has changed. I'll get to that in a while, but please feel free to tell me about any errors you find!

[zeebo404]

In 0.17, the assembler machines no longer have a max ingredient count. The max ingredients needs to be updated on the sheet

[ignatio]

Thank you zeebo404, it's fixed now.

[TwentyEighty]

Hi, wanted to give this a try with mods. What version of lua are you using exactly nowadays? I tried downloading 5.1.5 and it's giving what seems like a minor syntax error

Code: Select all

C:\Program Files (x86)\Lua\5.1\lua.exe: error loading module 'circuit-connector-sprites' from file './data/core/lualib/circuit-connector-sprites.lua':
        ./data/core/lualib/circuit-connector-sprites.lua:100: ambiguous syntax (function call x new statement) near '('

[ignatio]

Hi, wanted to give this a try with mods. What version of lua are you using exactly nowadays? /.../

It uses Lua 5.3, just like the game itself I believe.

Hope it works out with your mods! Note that the sheet is dimensioned to 250 items or recipes atm. Enlarging that might be a bit of trial and error as there are formulas here and there that assume that size. Tbh I can't even remember myself all the places that might need changes, so I've put off enlarging it. If necessary you can save a few rows by deleting the research goals in the "items" list in the script.

[Bomaz]

Does the 0.17 sheet have the new (15/30/45) belt speeds?

[ignatio]

Does the 0.17 sheet have the new (15/30/45) belt speeds?

I've been working on new measurements for inserter throughputs for 0.17, but I wanted to be more thorough than in earlier versions and it's proving to be quite tricky to get reliable readings, so it's taking a bit of time.

That's no reason to not update the belt speeds though, because they're simple (and the theoretical calculations align perfectly with actual measurements). Done.

I also added a note that inserter calculations better be taken with a grain of salt. Other than that I think the sheets should be accurate. (Didn't write a note about it, but some weeks ago I also fixed the mining productivity bonus calculation that changed in 0.17.5.)

[ignatio]

I've updated the 0.17 sheets to accurate inserter throughputs. Chest → belt is slightly faster, which I believe is due to the better belt compression (4 items per belt lane per tile instead of the 3.56 in older versions).

Belt → chest figures are somewhat lower, even though inserters ought to be a bit faster in the game for the same reason as above. The lower figures are instead due to more comprehensive measurements - I measure across a lot of different setups now and pick the lowest figures, so that when they are used for determining required inserters they won't cause underdimensioning. The situations covered are more specific: "An inserter on the side of a belt with a single lane of fully compressed items moving at full speed, excluding outer lane turns, blocked exits of splitters, and sideloaded situations." The excluded situations, as well as items in both lanes, can give lower throughputs.

I've also updated mining and ore speeds so that they are correct for 0.17 now. As usual, please let me know if you find any errors.

[ignatio]

A few small updates:
- The "Resources needed" column now shows ore resources before the mining productivity bonus. (It's still taken into account when calculating the required number of mining drills.)
- New measurements of inserter throughput since inserters changed in 0.17.44 and 0.17.45.
- Work around what looks like a Google sheet bug when executing custom functions that sometimes could cause inserter throughput lookups to fail.