Factorio Forums

mrvn wrote:Having intersections doesn't mean you don't have alternative ways. Just consider a simple grid with intersections like the one posted at the start. There are many alternatives ways only dependent on the number of grid cells.

Yeah okay... "large scale"-loops so to speak... which cover the entire base or something (which is what I've been using too until lately)... instead of having local loops everywhere.

mrvn wrote:One thing I'm thinking about is actually if those detours are harmful. Does a detour always include paths across a turn-around or intersection that blocks a lot of other tracks? Like going 3/4 around a turn around. That's why I mentions I want to limited the ways a turnaround can be used. Block the 3/4 way so it doesn't choose bad paths.

Well aren't 3/4 turns prohibited by Chain Signals as long as the train is longer than the 3/4 circle? Or does a train try to go that route even if it might end up in a deadlock intersecting with itself?

I don't use roundabouts anymore... so I can't say.

Whilst we're on the subject of 4 way junctions, this is the version being used in the Reclaiming Earth series Xterminator, Colonel Will etc are running.

It looks to have better throughput than the conventional design.........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT_PjRqU664

The only slight problem with it is that it uses a 3 rail spacing rather than the 2 most of us use, but there is a 2 rail spacing version later on in this series.

You can find the Blueprint string for it here.....
http://pastebin.com/i6ADnERd

And for the 2 space version.....
http://pastebin.com/E0UbVta1

I shall be testing this out shortly.

ChurchOrganist wrote:Whilst we're on the subject of 4 way junctions, this is the version being used in the Reclaiming Earth series Xterminator, Colonel Will etc are running.

It looks to have better throughput than the conventional design.........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT_PjRqU664

The only slight problem with it is that it uses a 3 rail spacing rather than the 2 most of us use, but there is a 2 rail spacing version later on in this series.

It has been established that that particular design isn't entirely optimal. Why? Because Xterminator's & Colonel Will's design doesn't allow for 2 right-turning trains AND 2 left-turning trains simultaneously.

So the above design shown in the Youtube video is inferior to that one below:
3-tile spacing may be something one has to get used to, but I find it highly beneficial because of the extra space between rails allowing for better signal placement in intersections.

MeduSalem wrote:3-tile spacing may be something one has to get used to, but I find it highly beneficial because of the extra space between rails allowing for better signal placement in intersections.

That is a very valid point which I will take into consideration in my next new build.

I'm afraid I'm not going to change the miles of track I have already laid in 2 space format though!

MeduSalem wrote:

mrvn wrote:One thing I'm thinking about is actually if those detours are harmful. Does a detour always include paths across a turn-around or intersection that blocks a lot of other tracks? Like going 3/4 around a turn around. That's why I mentions I want to limited the ways a turnaround can be used. Block the 3/4 way so it doesn't choose bad paths.

Well aren't 3/4 turns prohibited by Chain Signals as long as the train is longer than the 3/4 circle? Or does a train try to go that route even if it might end up in a deadlock intersecting with itself?

I don't use roundabouts anymore... so I can't say.

A chain signal prevents a train from entering the next block if the path up to and including the next signal isn't clear. It will also reserve all the chain signals along the paths up to and including the next signal in one go.

Going around 3/4 of a roundabout does not cross it's own path so nothing prevents the train from taking that path. Even a 4/4 doesn't cross it's own path if you have a dual lane setup (one entering, one leaving the turnaround on every exit). It's just that the further around the train goes the more segments of the turnaround it has to reserve. That means it has to wait for more trains to leave the turnaround and blocks more trains from entering it in parallel.

For example in a usual turn around setup 4 trains can take a left turn at the same time, 2 trains can go straight at the same time or 1 train can go right or make an u-turn.

This is just Factorio in a nutshell isn't it? Forget combat balance, ratios, etc, the hottest and most persistent discussion is whether a train should turn around or just drive the other direction, which basically has almost zero impact. It's purely down to preference lmao.

Deadly-Bagel wrote:This is just Factorio in a nutshell isn't it? Forget combat balance, ratios, etc, the hottest and most persistent discussion is whether a train should turn around or just drive the other direction, which basically has almost zero impact. It's purely down to preference lmao.

Not quite. You can choose to build two headed trains or not.

This is about the train taking left turns instead of right turns when it has both choices because one is more friendly to the junction (or right over left depending on your layout).

You can't put signals in a round about with 4 entries/exits where trains can go 1/4 or 1/2 the way around but not 3/4 or 4/4.

On the other hand roundabouts allow trains to turn around anywhere so you can have lower profile entrances/exits to/from outposts and with the insane throughput of rails and the speed of trains a few extra stretches of track is nothing to ARGH now you've got me involved xD

...

Personally I use junctions but again, it's circumstantial and down to preference and also one of the hottest topics in the game lol

Deadly-Bagel wrote:This is just Factorio in a nutshell isn't it? Forget combat balance, ratios, etc, the hottest and most persistent discussion is whether a train should turn around or just drive the other direction, which basically has almost zero impact. It's purely down to preference lmao.

True story. But seriously... isn't that how things are when it comes to pretty much anything in life?

People don't care about the really important things that should be discussed, instead majority likes to pretend those problems don't even exist. BUT when it comes to things that are a complete matter of taste...

Deadly-Bagel wrote:On the other hand roundabouts allow trains to turn around anywhere so you can have lower profile entrances/exits to/from outposts and with the insane throughput of rails and the speed of trains a few extra stretches of track is nothing to ARGH now you've got me involved xD

Triggered!

Funny you used that image from the other thread. I had just made it up as a quick example to showcase the right-turn bypassing effect, but it still suffers from only allowing one left-turn/u-turn at a time. These days, my go-to roundabout is this one:

Pretty much does everything the 4-way intersection design does, plus allows for u-turns. If you think you'll actually include u-turns as part of your routing, you can add on the right-turn bypasses to help keep the circle more available.

MeduSalem wrote:People don't care about the really important things that should be discussed, instead majority likes to pretend those problems don't even exist. BUT when it comes to things that are a complete matter of taste...

The really important things are not discussed, cause they tend to be no fun. Nobody likes serious problems.... except (!) when the serious problem solution is a matter of taste.

ssilk wrote:The really important things are not discussed, cause they tend to be no fun. Nobody likes serious problems....

Quite true... these kind of problems normally require a lot of understanding or in-depth knowledge on the subject to discuss them... and that often means that they get boring as sh*t at an exponential rate.

Either that or the problems are so serious that it crosses peoples' moral standards so they rather don't want to talk about it in fear of someone's feelings getting hurt in the process because it becomes personal, which often can't be avoided.

ssilk wrote:[...] except (!) when the serious problem solution is a matter of taste.

Metaception...


I think we can go back to the original topic of RoRo vs Terminus...

That said mrvn, vanatteveldt and I are discussing another approach/idea we came up with over in that Train Bus Factory thread by using a Central Storage logistic.

Might be relevant to some people who are interested in getting involved in matter of taste discussions... or solving train schedule problems.