Factorio Forums

I always thought of solid fuel as a type of early alpha place holder, because factorio did not support using a fluid as a source of fuel.

I do think it'd be pretty awesome if boilers could accept liquid fuel input in the same way that heat exchangers accept having heat "piped" into them. Along the same line I also think it'd be awesome to use pumps as a way of injecting fuel into a locomotive's fuel reserve. It doesn't even have to be fuel, it could be a supporting liquid like "lubricant" that gets consumed along side fuel to create acceleration boost.

Liquid fuel and liquid locomotive storage are not a critical feature for Factorio 1.0, so I'm not gonna push for it. It'd simply be a cool thing.

Zavian wrote:See viewtopic.php?f=6&t=59481&p=355589#p355589

I forwarded my question to bobingabout in the thread you linked.

bobucles wrote:I always thought of solid fuel as a type of early alpha place holder, because factorio did not support using a fluid as a source of fuel.

I do think it'd be pretty awesome if boilers could accept liquid fuel input in the same way that heat exchangers accept having heat "piped" into them. Along the same line I also think it'd be awesome to use pumps as a way of injecting fuel into a locomotive's fuel reserve. It doesn't even have to be fuel, it could be a supporting liquid like "lubricant" that gets consumed along side fuel to create acceleration boost.

Liquid fuel and liquid locomotive storage are not a critical feature for Factorio 1.0, so I'm not gonna push for it. It'd simply be a cool thing.

From what I remember back in 0.9, the roadmap actually included that as part of the fluid overhaul (that gave us a fluid wagon) for 0.14 (which is 0.15 due to 0.14 being a multiplayer remap when 0.13 was still experimental)

Due to my nattering, and Klonan's KS Power mod, this was PARTIALLY implemented in that the steam engine (Generator entity) can be modded to "Burn" fluids with a fuel value. So the fluid itself is ready to go, but the side of the code to make use of it isn't done yet. (Also some tooltips that tell you what has a fuel value would be nice)

When I get back into coding again, this is something I want to look into adding myself (I don't think it would work on trains due to it having a burner= tag instead of an energy_source= tag), Adding a new energy source type "fluid", along with "solar", "wind" and "none". (none being free energy).

bobingabout wrote:

Hedning1390 wrote:I think electrified rail could work if it wasn't compatible at all with regular rail.

According to the devs, Electrified rail will never happen.

Why were multiple rail types removed?
The train had to check if the track it was running on matched the type of rail it was supposed to run on, adding extra checks, this was removed to increase performance.

Why will there never be electrified rail?
It's just another piece of data the rail has to hold, and be checked, which 90% of the time will be ignored anyway. (Also devs said there will only ever be 1 type of locomotive in the base game, they have no plans for electric trains)

What part of "not compatible at all" did you not understand? If they weren't compatible at all then locomotives would have to check rail type just as much as the car does, ie not at all. I don't like the idea as suggested by the rest of my post, but keeping them completely complementary is a way to get around that exact problem you bring up.

Hedning1390 wrote:

bobingabout wrote: Why were multiple rail types removed?
The train had to check if the track it was running on matched the type of rail it was supposed to run on, adding extra checks, this was removed to increase performance.

What part of "not compatible at all" did you not understand? If they weren't compatible at all then locomotives would have to check rail type just as much as the car does, ie not at all. I don't like the idea as suggested by the rest of my post, but keeping them completely complementary is a way to get around that exact problem you bring up.

Yes, there is no reason for trains to have to check anything if it's implemented either of two ways:
1.) trains can run on any track type
2.) different track types refuse to merge

bobingabout wrote:

Hedning1390 wrote:I think electrified rail could work if it wasn't compatible at all with regular rail.

According to the devs, Electrified rail will never happen.
Why will there never be electrified rail?
It's just another piece of data the rail has to hold, and be checked, which 90% of the time will be ignored anyway. (Also devs said there will only ever be 1 type of locomotive in the base game, they have no plans for electric trains)

Why does electric rail have to hold any data? Electric poles don't hold the data of the power network, they simply act as a port to connect to it. Electric rail should act as a port to connect the train to the electric network.

Handling electric and non-electric rail can be done one of two ways:
1.) the two do not merge
2.) they do merge but with a divider which separates the track into separate segments (one electrified and one not)

Totally second this whole post. I had a very similar idea not too long ago, but I had never considered the possibility of electric trains. My idea was actually to have an early game "burn everything" steam engine that's nerfed from the get-go (a heavier locomotive with a lower fuel efficiency/top speed), not unlike your idea. It would be cool if it's made using steam engines and boilers, also requires water to work, and possibly the option for a tender to be pulled behind it to increase fuel/water capacity for the long haul. My second idea, again much like yours, was having a diesel locomotive filled with oil like crude/light/heavy/petrol and have varying efficiency and acceleration bonus based on what fuel type you put in. My third and final idea, however, which has already been covered by several mods, is of course the nuclear/atomic locomotive that runs directly off of nuclear fuel cells and requires a nuclear reactor, heat exchanger, and turbine as well as electric engines in the recipe, complimented with need for water supply. Such a locomotive requiring end-game tech would have to be god tier in terms of fuel efficiency, pulling power, acceleration, and top speed.

I think it's cool that the devs added "nuclear fuel" and all, but it just seems silly to combine uranium with rocket fuel and call it done. That whole ordeal seems almost lazy like a quick and dirty patchwork (not trying to de-legitimize the hardworking devs though, who I respect a lot). What I really want is a loco with a reactor that runs off of nuclear fuel cells, and that would be the main point of the whole mod (at least for me who loves nuclear power and trains).

Hedning1390 wrote:

bobingabout wrote:

Hedning1390 wrote:I think electrified rail could work if it wasn't compatible at all with regular rail.

According to the devs, Electrified rail will never happen.

Why were multiple rail types removed?
The train had to check if the track it was running on matched the type of rail it was supposed to run on, adding extra checks, this was removed to increase performance.

Why will there never be electrified rail?
It's just another piece of data the rail has to hold, and be checked, which 90% of the time will be ignored anyway. (Also devs said there will only ever be 1 type of locomotive in the base game, they have no plans for electric trains)

What part of "not compatible at all" did you not understand? If they weren't compatible at all then locomotives would have to check rail type just as much as the car does, ie not at all. I don't like the idea as suggested by the rest of my post, but keeping them completely complementary is a way to get around that exact problem you bring up.

I understand perfectly. the problem is that, since you currently can't have a second type of rail, as in, the game refuses to load if you try to define one, then you would be allowed to place your train on the other type of rail, even if you intend to not allow it.

bobingabout wrote:I understand perfectly. the problem is that, since you currently can't have a second type of rail, as in, the game refuses to load if you try to define one, then you would be allowed to place your train on the other type of rail, even if you intend to not allow it.

I think the best way is to allow it. Rail networks should act as a power network interface just like you can do with an accumulator. It could not connect two separate networks, but it could draw power from either one if it were hooked up to both. There should be one train which has fuel slots to run it. All vehicles should have an equipment grid, and there should be a module just for vehicles which enables them to accelerate by using onboard power. It would be like the vehicle's version of the exoskeleton. There should also be a module (for vehicles or player armor) which draws power from any electrical network you're inside.

You want an electric train? Take the fuel out and put batteries in it along with an electric motor module or two. Or make a hybrid train using both fuel and electrical power just so you can go faster.

bobingabout wrote: I understand perfectly. the problem is that, since you currently can't have a second type of rail, as in, the game refuses to load if you try to define one, then you would be allowed to place your train on the other type of rail, even if you intend to not allow it.

I don't want more trains anyway since I would consider them so similar they would be mostly redundant (and I hate redundant items in this game), so I don't know why I'm even defending them... Well, this is the last thing I say on the topic.

I don't think you do understand. It wouldn't be a second type of rail. It would be to regular rail what belts are to regular rail today. Completely separate. Not type 2b but type 3. Trains don't have to check if they are on a belt, and items don't have to check if they are on a rail. Rail and belts don't connect and can't cross. There is no issue in the belt-rail case, so there would be no issue introducing electrified rail this way, from a performance or coding standpoint.

Here's another thing to consider with electric (and nuclear) trains: they would pollute less. Yeah, I understand that not all players care about this seemingly small detail. But if you're investing heavily in solar panels and nuclear power, which seem to be the two options (out of three) that a lot of players try to implement as soon as possible, then it (should) have a noticeable impact on pollution. This is especially true for when you have lots of trains running. It would put stress on your power grid for sure, being a tradeoff. But the devs have mentioned in the past the possibility of diplomacy with the aliens and how "green" alternatives would be beneficial to relations.

Take that as you will. I'm pretty much just brainstorming at this point.

EDIT: Grammar. Also, another consideration - Nuclear/atomic locomotives have little to no pollution and operate independently of your power grid, but are inherently more expensive since the uranium processing is so arduous. However, tweaking how ubiquitous uranium ore is in the map settings (default or player set) might help balance this out.

Hedning1390 wrote:

bobingabout wrote: I understand perfectly. the problem is that, since you currently can't have a second type of rail, as in, the game refuses to load if you try to define one, then you would be allowed to place your train on the other type of rail, even if you intend to not allow it.

I don't want more trains anyway since I would consider them so similar they would be mostly redundant (and I hate redundant items in this game), so I don't know why I'm even defending them... Well, this is the last thing I say on the topic.

I don't think you do understand. It wouldn't be a second type of rail. It would be to regular rail what belts are to regular rail today. Completely separate. Not type 2b but type 3. Trains don't have to check if they are on a belt, and items don't have to check if they are on a rail. Rail and belts don't connect and can't cross. There is no issue in the belt-rail case, so there would be no issue introducing electrified rail this way, from a performance or coding standpoint.

but how do you define it to the game?