Is this a reference to the results having both a probability and an amount, or to something else? If the former it may be redundant, but it seems to do the job. I just ran 20 batches of portable uranium cell reprocessing as a test. The recipe has a 75% chance of 1 U-238, a 50% chance of 1 radioisotopes, and (because I have Nuclear Fuel loaded) a 25% chance of 1 plutonium. The results from 20 runs were 14 U-238, 9 radioisotopes, and 3 plutonium, which fits the expected percentages reasonably. Runs of the other recipes that can return radioisotopes have similar results.Optera wrote: Percentages of Radioisotopes are set incorrectly. You have over 100% total for both recipes producing them.
I didn't try to balance them against base reactors for efficiency, but rather against the fact that they don't have to use any non-infinite consumables other than electricity to create their fuel once the the reactor and fuel chain infrastructure has been built. I'm open to discussion about it, though.Fusion reactors burn through deuterium too fast to be more energy efficient than base reactors.
Okay. I didn't actually touch the base game recipe for those, just the tech and the item description. What's your rationale for the change? Closer realism? Requiring more automation in their production? Something else? Having a portable fusion reactor made of nothing but processing units does seem odd to me -- I just didn't have any better ideas.Portable fusion reactor should require materials like deuterium to build.
Hmmm. This is an interesting idea. I guess I'd need to create a number of different entity-item pairings to either save the depletion state (kind of like Factorissimo does it) or to represent percentage drops in capacity, so that mining an RTG wouldn't reset it. I'll play around with that.RTG should be made into non-rechargeable batteries/accumulators so they burn out after a while.
No recipe can output over 100%.Is this a reference to the results having both a probability and an amount, or to something else? If the former it may be redundant, but it seems to do the job. I just ran 20 batches of portable uranium cell reprocessing as a test. The recipe has a 75% chance of 1 U-238, a 50% chance of 1 radioisotopes, and (because I have Nuclear Fuel loaded) a 25% chance of 1 plutonium. The results from 20 runs were 14 U-238, 9 radioisotopes, and 3 plutonium, which fits the expected percentages reasonably. Runs of the other recipes that can return radioisotopes have similar results.
Even as basically free energy source with only costs in setup, maintenance and preprocessing they have to compete against base game Reactors.I didn't try to balance them against base reactors for efficiency, but rather against the fact that they don't have to use any non-infinite consumables other than electricity to create their fuel once the the reactor and fuel chain infrastructure has been built. I'm open to discussion about it, though.
I always viewed the portable fusion generator as a placeholder for a more realistic energy source with more gameplay value. With RTG you should probably just delete it or replace it with an RTG.Okay. I didn't actually touch the base game recipe for those, just the tech and the item description. What's your rationale for the change? Closer realism? Requiring more automation in their production? Something else? Having a portable fusion reactor made of nothing but processing units does seem odd to me -- I just didn't have any better ideas.
The reason why I initially wanted RTG to burn up was so they didn't become a free energy source like the fusion reactor.RTG should be made into non-rechargeable batteries/accumulators so they burn out after a while.
Aha. I see where you're going with that now, and after looking at the uranium processing recipe again I understand your point. That recipe is written as though all result probabilities are tallied and only one roll made to choose one output. I assumed for my recipes that each probability was rolled for separately. I went to submit a bug report to find out whether my assumption was a bug (since it seems to be working in 15.10), but at least one person had beaten me to it. According to that thread, all result probability rolls are made independently of one another. It is thus possible for my previous example recipe to output all three items, or nothing at all, or anything in between.Optera wrote: No recipe can output over 100%.
If you have a 75% chance of U238 that leaves 25% chance for anything else.
Fair enough. I don't tend to build megabases, and thus probably have the wrong mindset there. Any thoughts as to what combinations of power and efficiency changes might be most attractive would be welcome.Even as basically free energy source with only costs in setup, maintenance and preprocessing they have to compete against base game Reactors.
In an endless map you can just hook up the next uranium field and run a 3GW plant for several more days.
Fusion reactors have the same energy output/area as Fission Reactors. The only difference is they use a static infinite source while uranium mines have to move a bit every couple of days/weeks.
The same sort of size/power logic applies to RTGs as well, though. They are extremely power-inefficient for their size compared to other generation technologies, trading that off for longevity and lack of maintenance. The values I have for them currently are a bit of a cheat that implies some future-tech combination of more efficient heat-to-electric conversion and/or higher energy density radioisotopes.I always viewed the portable fusion generator as a placeholder for a more realistic energy source with more gameplay value. With RTG you should probably just delete it or replace it with an RTG.
Fusion reactors would be massive structures, not some kitchen appliance you slap on your car and go back to the future.
Yeah, I was basically modeling the Plutonium-238/Strontium-90 kind of RTG with long half-lives and no meaningful decline within the span of a game. That said, something more along the Polonium-210 line (but faster decay) which would lose percentages of its output over game-time days might make for more interesting gameplay.After reading into RTGs and their performance I think modeling them as infinite energy source is fine for a game that doesn't span decades.
Oh I didn't know factorio used a faulty % calculation to begin with.undarl wrote:]Aha. I see where you're going with that now, and after looking at the uranium processing recipe again I understand your point. That recipe is written as though all result probabilities are tallied and only one roll made to choose one output. I assumed for my recipes that each probability was rolled for separately. I went to submit a bug report to find out whether my assumption was a bug (since it seems to be working in 15.10), but at least one person had beaten me to it. According to that thread, all result probability rolls are made independently of one another. It is thus possible for my previous example recipe to output all three items, or nothing at all, or anything in between.
From the concept Fusion seems like something only feasible to long running megabases.Fair enough. I don't tend to build megabases, and thus probably have the wrong mindset there. Any thoughts as to what combinations of power and efficiency changes might be most attractive would be welcome.Even as basically free energy source with only costs in setup, maintenance and preprocessing they have to compete against base game Reactors.
In an endless map you can just hook up the next uranium field and run a 3GW plant for several more days.
Fusion reactors have the same energy output/area as Fission Reactors. The only difference is they use a static infinite source while uranium mines have to move a bit every couple of days/weeks.
Taking up a more grid space than other energy sources seems like a great balance idea.The same sort of size/power logic applies to RTGs as well, though. They are extremely power-inefficient for their size compared to other generation technologies, trading that off for longevity and lack of maintenance. The values I have for them currently are a bit of a cheat that implies some future-tech combination of more efficient heat-to-electric conversion and/or higher energy density radioisotopes.I always viewed the portable fusion generator as a placeholder for a more realistic energy source with more gameplay value. With RTG you should probably just delete it or replace it with an RTG.
Fusion reactors would be massive structures, not some kitchen appliance you slap on your car and go back to the future.
The original impetus for the fusion line, as expressed in the thread started by Roxor128, was to give the small and effectively free portable fusion generator some sort of predecessors.
Since we have U-235 in the base game I'd model stationary RTG after the 385kg heavy Bes-5 mentioned above.Yeah, I was basically modeling the Plutonium-238/Strontium-90 kind of RTG with long half-lives and no meaningful decline within the span of a game. That said, something more along the Polonium-210 line (but faster decay) which would lose percentages of its output over game-time days might make for more interesting gameplay.After reading into RTGs and their performance I think modeling them as infinite energy source is fine for a game that doesn't span decades.
Bizarre.HAMMERFALL314 wrote:as a note the radioisotope thermoelectric generators research overrides the crafting system for copper cables breaking inventory crafting
Apparently there's an issue with recycling-type recipes that run on the same machine as normal production recipes, leading to the issue you ran into (which was with the Fast RTG recycling recipe).HAMMERFALL314 wrote:as a note the radioisotope thermoelectric generators research overrides the crafting system for copper cables breaking inventory crafting
Nice to know folks are still using it. Apologies for not having done so yet -- new job and limited time. A kind fellow Factorian has submitted a pull request with 0.16 tweaks, and I will endeavor to get that merged and tested and a new version uploaded this evening (GMT-5 time).numgun wrote:Bumping this to request an update of this mod for version 0.16.X of Factorio.
I see your point, and can look into doing this -- probably via more mod settings with different defaults. What are your thoughts about new output values for the reactors?Tomik wrote:The Portable Fission Reactor (PFissR) is more powerful than the vanilla Portable Fusion Reactor (PFussR):
The PFissR has 3×3 (9) slots and 500 kW: 500 ÷ 9 = 55.55555 kW per slot.
The PFussR has 4×4 (16) slots and 750 kW: 750 ÷ 16 = 46.875 Kw per slot.
PFissR is so space and power efficient as to completely forgo using PFussR's in any game with this mod on.
Either modify and boost vanilla PFussRs, or make a second tier of PFussR's with better energy values or nerf PFissRs.
Did you update the mod? When?undarl wrote:I see your point, and can look into doing this -- probably via more mod settings with different defaults. What are your thoughts about new output values for the reactors?Tomik wrote:The Portable Fission Reactor (PFissR) is more powerful than the vanilla Portable Fusion Reactor (PFussR):
The PFissR has 3×3 (9) slots and 500 kW: 500 ÷ 9 = 55.55555 kW per slot.
The PFussR has 4×4 (16) slots and 750 kW: 750 ÷ 16 = 46.875 Kw per slot.
PFissR is so space and power efficient as to completely forgo using PFussR's in any game with this mod on.
Either modify and boost vanilla PFussRs, or make a second tier of PFussR's with better energy values or nerf PFissRs.
No, I have not updated it since the 0.16 fixes.Tomik wrote: Did you update the mod? When?
If you do not have time to create new content, like (option 1) e.g. a qualitatively better (a 3×3 slot, produces more energy than the PFissR but less than the PFussR Mk.1) Portable Fusion Generator based on the tech of the "Magnetic Conversion Fusion Generators"...which means it would also do not need to be refueled like the Mk.1 because it would be filtering deuterium atoms out of the water vapor in the air. Like the Iron Man suit from the Marvel comics (not the movies)...undarl wrote:No, I have not updated it since the 0.16 fixes.Tomik wrote: Did you update the mod? When?
You provided me with calculations to back up your argument about why either the portable fission reactor or portable fusion reactor should be changed, then asked for "better energy values". I invited your thoughts about new numbers -- you did not reply.
Currently I am very busy, and also am not actively playing Factorio. I am willing to respond to bug or update needs as quickly as I'm able, but I'm unlikely to add any new content to the mod on my own until I'm playing the game again. However, I'm willing to discuss and potentially implement smaller changes that are suggested to me. I do need something a bit more concrete than "buff", "nerf", or "make better" though.
