[Suggestion] Barrelling Thruster Fuel & Oxidizer

[Squish8294]

We can barrel fluids. We cannot barrel thruster fuel and oxidizer. We should be able to barrel these.

Why? I don't want to create oxidizer and fuel per-ship, I want to barrel it and move it around.

Thank you for your consideration.

[Stargateur]

I would remove barrel from game :p but who I am ? XD

[mmmPI]

I would remove barrel from game :p but who I am ? XD

Someone who offended all my robots ! ( laugh in fluoroketone )

I think there are reasons for the fluids one can't barrel, either because they are not meant to travel into another planet ( like some ressources from Aquilo), or because the quantity in which you are likely to use them would make barrels very annoying, i think thruster fuel & Oxidizer are part of the later. Apart from the early game, you are most likely to have a consumption of fuel in thruster that would require several stacks of barrels per minutes of flight, versus much less logistic for carrying ice iron and carbon.

[Squish8294]

Nah, think of two platforms in orbit above the same planet. Barrels for transferring fuel and oxidizer between platforms is the idea.

[mmmPI]

you can't transfer from platform to platform, and it would be much much more efficient to transfer ice and iron or carbon than the fuel under the form of barrel , where 1 stack of barrel is like 4 second of fuel for the lowest quality engine

[Khazul]

Old topic, but just had some flashes of annoyance at how long it can take to fuel up with some ship designs above Nauvis after building just because they are designed to be moving and are great at what they are intended to do while moving, but not so great when stuck in orbit, so thought I should make a fuel platform just speed fueling up of newly built ships - and it turns out you cant barrel up fuel. (Why build at nauvis?, then you can just build stuff and not have to keep repairing it as well).

The use case for this is narrow as actually barrel fueling a ship for normal use normally is impractical, however me being impatient would really like the option to make fuel in space over time, drop it to a plant and when I build a ship, be able to sent at least some jump-start fuel up to get the thing moving ASAP.

Sure it would need one time use unbarrelling assembler, but anyone making fusion reactor ship has that anyway for coolant and the same assembler could be easily shared for all uses.

I therefore think it would be useful for ship fuel as well just for this one time use and right is the only time I ever barrel up coolant for reactors and don't really see a good reason for this restriction other than forcing people to wait for much longer than they may like.

[mmmPI]

it is already possible to ship the fuel ingredient which is much more efficient for the use case of " i made a ship and it need fuel to start moving"

[territrades]

I can see why you cannot barrel fuel and oxidizer as it is only used on platforms and the devs want to encourage building fully functional platforms.

But what I can really not understand is why you cannot barrel holium solution and electrolyte. I already built barreling and unbarreling assemblers for electrolyte on Fulgora when I realized that the recipe does not exist. I don't think it is stupid to use it in a bot mall or to ship it to another planet if you have big bot mall there.

Well, those recipes can be easily added with a few lines of code in a mod.

[spacedog]

But what I can really not understand is why you cannot barrel holium solution and electrolyte.

The "puzzle" for Fulgora is "self-contained islands". Whether someone finds that fun or not is obviously subjective (I'm looking at you, spoilage), but it is what it is. At least they give us the option to sidestep this puzzle later, once foundation is unlocked.

[Tinyboss]

The "puzzle" for Fulgora is "self-contained islands". Whether someone finds that fun or not is obviously subjective (I'm looking at you, spoilage), but it is what it is. At least they give us the option to sidestep this puzzle later, once foundation is unlocked.

But we can already move holmium solution and electrolyte between islands with fluid wagons and regular elevated rails, right?

[spacedog]

The "puzzle" for Fulgora is "self-contained islands". Whether someone finds that fun or not is obviously subjective (I'm looking at you, spoilage), but it is what it is. At least they give us the option to sidestep this puzzle later, once foundation is unlocked.

But we can already move holmium solution and electrolyte between islands with fluid wagons and regular elevated rails, right?

Yeah, sorry, I should have been more clear. I was referring to the fact that Fulgora keeps you from just running pipes and belts everywhere. Honestly, that's what I think the majority of people would do if they could, since the islands aren't very far apart.

You're totally right that the remaining solution is to use fluid wagons. You could bother with barreling/unbarreling everything, and using cargo wagons instead, but why add an unnecessary layer of complexity and inefficiency?

The only other case I can think of is if you wanted to ship the holmium solution and electrolyte off-planet, to produce supercapacitors or tesla weapons elsewhere. But my assumption is that those recipes were intended to be flagged as "craftable only on Fulgora", and the lack of that is just an oversight no one noticed since you can't get the fluids off planet.

[CyberCider]

The only other case I can think of is if you wanted to ship the holmium solution and electrolyte off-planet, to produce supercapacitors or tesla weapons elsewhere. But my assumption is that those recipes were intended to be flagged as "craftable only on Fulgora", and the lack of that is just an oversight no one noticed since you can't get the fluids off planet.

Personally I think they simply didn’t feel the need to add the condition, because the game mechanics alone already enforce it. A similar thing is the case with Aquilo items that require any of the new fluid resources. Fusion fuel cells probably being the most notable one.

[Khazul]

it is already possible to ship the fuel ingredient which is much more efficient for the use case of " i made a ship and it need fuel to start moving"

Yes - you can ship the ingredients. That isnt in the subject.

[mmmPI]

Yes - you can ship the ingredients. That isnt in the subject.

That's much better to send the ingredient regarding the following use case :

so thought I should make a fuel platform just speed fueling up of newly built ships - and it turns out you cant barrel up fuel. (Why build at nauvis?, then you can just build stuff and not have to keep repairing it as well).

The use case for this is narrow as actually barrel fueling a ship for normal use normally is impractical, however me being impatient would really like the option to make fuel in space over time, drop it to a plant and when I build a ship, be able to sent at least some jump-start fuel up to get the thing moving ASAP.

[Khazul]

Yes - you can ship the ingredients. That isnt in the subject.

That's much better to send the ingredient regarding the following use case :

so thought I should make a fuel platform just speed fueling up of newly built ships - and it turns out you cant barrel up fuel. (Why build at nauvis?, then you can just build stuff and not have to keep repairing it as well).

The use case for this is narrow as actually barrel fueling a ship for normal use normally is impractical, however me being impatient would really like the option to make fuel in space over time, drop it to a plant and when I build a ship, be able to sent at least some jump-start fuel up to get the thing moving ASAP.

Well maybe it is - but also maybe I would like to stock actual fuel to keep it inventoried separately from ingredients or whatever. Does it matter how I like play? You do you - Ill do me.

Anyway, I guess this wont ever happen, so I guess something like the following in a mod will do it (I'm not really a modder, so appreciate there is probably more to to):

if mods["space-age"] then

data.raw.fluid["thruster-fuel"].auto_barrel = true
data.raw.fluid["thruster-oxidizer"].auto_barrel = true

end

[mmmPI]

Well maybe it is - but also maybe I would like to stock actual fuel to keep it inventoried separately from ingredients or whatever. Does it matter how I like play? You do you - Ill do me.

Obviously you do what you want, but that seem weird to me that you complain things are taking long when you use a slow and inneficient method and suggest another even slower one as a potential solution. I thought doing the math would have been enough a good reason to open eyes.

don't really see a good reason for this restriction other than forcing people to wait for much longer than they may like.

I see many good reasons, but i guess it's just a matter of opinion if the reasons are considered "good" or not. When i read your previous comment i think it's a good incentive that the game has, like rubber band in racing game to prevent inexeperimented players to go to far off track. It can be removed with mods easily, but i think for the majority of the players it is not necessary nor desirable.

[Khazul]

Well maybe it is - but also maybe I would like to stock actual fuel to keep it inventoried separately from ingredients or whatever. Does it matter how I like play? You do you - Ill do me.

Obviously you do what you want, but that seem weird to me that you complain things are taking long when you use a slow and inneficient method and suggest another even slower one as a potential solution. I thought doing the math would have been enough a good reason to open eyes.

You did the maths? [Moderated by Koub : don't be aggressive]

[mmmPI]

You did the maths? [Moderated by Koub : don't be aggressive]

It's fairly obvious i didn't kept the result, you can see for yourself here the receipe if you don't have it mind : https://wiki.factorio.com/Thruster_fuel
2 carbon 1 calcite and 100 water or 2 ice, is yielding 1500 thruster fuel.

1500 thruster fuel is 3 stack of barrels, for 2 carbon 1 calcite and 2 ice lol

Your comment seem to me that you can't just do a quick eyeball estimation, so it further confirm my thought that some rubber band is not superfluous x).

[Khazul]

You did the maths? [Moderated by Koub : don't be aggressive]

It's fairly obvious i didn't kept the result, you can see for yourself here the receipe if you don't have it mind : https://wiki.factorio.com/Thruster_fuel
2 carbon 1 calcite and 100 water or 2 ice, is yielding 1500 thruster fuel.

1500 thruster fuel is 3 stack of barrels, for 2 carbon 1 calcite and 2 ice lol

Your comment seem to me that you can't just do a quick eyeball estimation, so it further confirm my thought that some rubber band is not superfluous x).

Or maybe I know I don't need to and just need to get a ship moving even slowly, so it can become self sufficient.

Anyway - past caring about arguing [Moderated by Koub : don't be aggressive] -

12-13-2024, 15-52-36.png (613.87 KiB) Viewed 592 times

[mmmPI]

Or maybe I know I don't need to and just need to get a ship moving even slowly, so it can become self sufficient.

Yeah you are free to use the slow and inefficient method for this, my comment was just meant at illutrating a reason to do otherwise, another alternative method. That would work better than the proposed solution.

Anyway - past caring about arguing [Moderated by Koub : don't be aggressive] - 12-13-2024, 15-52-36.png

You can fit 50 fluid in a barrel, and 10 barrel per stack, so 500 fluid per stack of barrels hence 1500 require 3 stacks. When you just send 3 asteroids you get much much more fuel. I would advise doing the math as you said you thought of shipping barrel and even suggested it should be possible claiming to see no reason why you are forced to wait longer than necessary.

You can already in game use a method that's faster for the use case mentionned. If you want to get a ship going and it only need a few asteroid before it is self sufficent. That's what you CAN do in game currently, that's why i think it's the worst use case to illustrate the suggestion.

If it was to make "small ship that don't produce their own fuel" at least, that would have a point, it would be terribly inneficient but consistent. Whereas here i think you are suggesting something that makes little sense with the use case you attach to it.