Factorio Forums

EDIT: Before you answer to this, please look at viewtopic.php?f=5&t=51575&p=301955#p301955


We can say Factorio is a new type of game, a new game genre. There where already many ideas about how to name it. Here is my idea:

10^6 Simulation Game

Why? Simply this: It's the first game that enables to simulate a world in the dimensions of 10 exponent 6. Or 100,000.

10^1: The minimum size you can "see" in Facorio is about one decimeter, 10 cm. The size of the small lamps on top of the circuits. One pixel.
10^2: One meter (10 decimeters). One tile.
10^3: 10 meters. The dimension of the small structures you build in the early game.
10^4: 100 meters. Bigger structures, small factories, big train stations.
10^5: 1000 meters, one kilometer. Very big factories. The size, where the map begins to reveal the resources.
10^6, 10,000 meters, 10 kilometers. Well, maybe 20 kilmeters. Once I had a world with about 40, but that are the absolute limits.

And why is that so special? Because any other simulation game I know is factor 10-1000 "smaller".

Yes, there are games which can simulate much bigger worlds. But we speak here about resolution, about that any item is a real object in game, not just a statistic, not a number of objects. The things are what they are, there is nothing which pretends to be bigger, than it really is.

Another thought: a 10^7 game is of course 10 times more difficult to make.

ssilk wrote:Another thought: a 10^7 game is of course 10 times more difficult to make.

It's every 10 times wide is also 10 higher, so it will be 100 times difficult to make.

10^6 means 10*10*10*10*10*10=1.000.000

steinio wrote:10^6 means 10*10*10*10*10*10=1.000.000

but his 10^0 = 1 is a cm. so it is 1Mcm

ssilk wrote: 10^6 Simulation Game

Why? Simply this: It's the first game that enables to simulate a world in the dimensions of 10 exponent 6. Or 100,000.

10^1: The minimum size you can "see" in Facorio is about one decimeter, 10 cm. The size of the small lamps on top of the circuits. One pixel.
10^6, 10,000 meters, 10 kilometers. Well, maybe 20 kilmeters. Once I had a world with about 40, but that are the absolute limits.

Yes, there are games which can simulate much bigger worlds. But we speak here about resolution, about that any item is a real object in game, not just a statistic, not a number of objects. The things are what they are, there is nothing which pretends to be bigger, than it really is.

6 - 1 = 5

So it's a 10^5 simulation game. If 10cm is your unit then 10^6 is 10^5 times as much.

To make it obvious why you need to subract your unit exponent, here is your quote with the same distances and difference of scale (10^5) between the largest and smallest.

10^2: The minimum size you can "see" in Facorio is about one decimeter, 100 mm. The size of the small lamps on top of the circuits. One pixel.
10^7, 10,000,000 mm, 10 kilometers. Well, maybe 20 kilmeters. Once I had a world with about 40, but that are the absolute limits.

Woah! Factorio is now a 10^7 simulation game? No, 7 - 2 = 5.

In nanometers it would be a 10^13 game if we don't subtract the unit exponent.

ssilk wrote:We can say Factorio is a new type of game, a new game genre. There where already many ideas about how to name it. Here is my idea:

10^6 Simulation Game

Why? Simply this: It's the first game that enables to simulate a world in the dimensions of 10 exponent 6. Or 100,000.

And why is that so special? Because any other simulation game I know is factor 10-1000 "smaller".

Yes, there are games which can simulate much bigger worlds. But we speak here about resolution, about that any item is a real object in game, not just a statistic, not a number of objects. The things are what they are, there is nothing which pretends to be bigger, than it really is.

I love that factorio actually simulates all the aspects completely. You can follow a single piece of hand mined iron ore all the way to your rocket if you want to. And I love the scale I can build factories at.

Another measurement for scare would be iron ore/minute. You can go for a couple/minute hand mined without an axe to maybe 1 or 3 millions at most. That is a 10^6 increase. Those are really the extremes though.

Think of Kardashev scale.

K0, 10^6 W: a stone age city of about 50,000, one tank driver or fighter pilot.

K1, 10^16 W: a stellar civilization able to convert all the power that would reach one Earth-class planet.

K2, 10^26 W: a stellar or interstellar civilization able to convert all the power emitted by one G2 type star.

K2SO: Automation that starts talking back.

K3, 10^36 W: a civilization able to convert all the power produced by a typical galaxy.

K480: Typical 100% build in Swarm Simulator

Joly s*** I just lost 1 hour of my life in that swarm simulator. thx a lot >.<

ssilk wrote:Another thought: a 10^7 game is of course 10 times more difficult to make.

Not necessarily. Fractal techniques can produce arbitrarily large worlds with arbitrarily small details. For example Factorio's terrain generation.

There is better (in that sense) example, Kerbal Space Program. Its smallest scale is on the order of 10 cm too (like vehicles on surface or two docking vessels) and its largest scale is astronomical. Let's say about 10^12 m. It is possible to put planets or spacecrafts even further (for example real solar system mod) but it is not very practical. Actually it is near the limit where double sized floating numbers can work (however, as far as I know KSP uses floats and complex math to achieve enough accuracy because limitations of Unity engine (or lazyness of devs), which gives some problems). But I think it has not taken million times more work hours.

Complexity depend more on how many (active) entities there are and how complex interactions the have with each other. Factorio can handle much higher number of active entities because interaction between them are very simple compared to complex forces between hundreds of spacecraft parts.

Hannu wrote:

ssilk wrote:Another thought: a 10^7 game is of course 10 times more difficult to make.

Not necessarily. Fractal techniques can produce arbitrarily large worlds with arbitrarily small details. For example Factorio's terrain generation.

There is better (in that sense) example, Kerbal Space Program. Its smallest scale is on the order of 10 cm too (like vehicles on surface or two docking vessels) and its largest scale is astronomical. Let's say about 10^12 m. It is possible to put planets or spacecrafts even further (for example real solar system mod) but it is not very practical. Actually it is near the limit where double sized floating numbers can work (however, as far as I know KSP uses floats and complex math to achieve enough accuracy because limitations of Unity engine (or lazyness of devs), which gives some problems). But I think it has not taken million times more work hours.

How is this related to the topic? We are not talking about simulating small objects that are far apart. The distances in OP are the sizes of factories that are somewhat densly populated and not about how far apart you can space out your items.
As OP said:

ssilk wrote: Yes, there are games which can simulate much bigger worlds. But we speak here about resolution, about that any item is a real object in game, not just a statistic, not a number of objects. The things are what they are, there is nothing which pretends to be bigger, than it really is.

Hannu wrote:Complexity depend more on how many (active) entities there are and how complex interactions the have with each other. Factorio can handle much higher number of active entities because interaction between them are very simple compared to complex forces between hundreds of spacecraft parts.

Are forces between parts actually simulated in KSP? Can a vehicle break apart due to it's own thrusting force if you design it badly?

Ok, I see I was a bit unclear. And a bit too fast, cause I tricked me myself, mixing 10^1 with 10 decimeters and forgot, that 10^0 is just factor one.

What meant was the difference between the smallest and the biggest thing in game.
So when the smallest thing is 10 cm and the biggest is 10 kilometers the factor of the smallest size goes how often into the biggest?

10 kilometers = 10,000 meters = 100,000 decimeters, which means, there is the factor of 100,000 between the smallest and the biggest element.
Which is 10^5.

So the corrected version is this:

Factor 10^0: The minimum size you can "see" in Facorio is about one decimeter, 10 cm. The size of the small lamps on top of the circuits. One pixel.
Factor 10^1: One meter (10 decimeters). One tile.
Factor 10^2: 10 meters. The dimension of the small structures you build in the early game.
Factor 10^3: 100 meters. Bigger structures, small factories, big train stations.
Factor 10^4: 1000 meters, one kilometer. Very big factories. The size, where the map begins to reveal the resources.
Factor 10^5, 10,000 meters, 10 kilometers. Well, maybe 20 kilmeters. Once I had a world with about 40, but that are the absolute limits.

I changed the topic according to that and sorry for this stupid fail.

EDIT: And perhaps some are asking, what that means? There are lot of other games, that already simulate worlds in sizes of universes. Factor 10^20 or more.
The difference between that games and Factorio is, that those games do not simulate that completely. Real entities are there in most cases just what you can really see; such games ignore a real interaction between the smallest and the biggest sizes and just make it look like that.
For example: The belts in such games would be some kind of "magical" object with some properties, like how much items are in which part of a belt for example and the game engine displays a more or less crowded belt.
But in Factorio every item on the belts is an real object in memory and is simulated in realtime. I think that is the main difference.

ssilk wrote: Factor 10^5, 10,000 meters, 10 kilometers. Well, maybe 20 kilmeters. Once I had a world with about 40, but that are the absolute limits.

Here I have counting maximal chunks of the game.

The best world was 565610 chunks, it's a square with side around 24066 tiles. Here was default difficult and only trees, units and spawners, nothing else. It was huge. No. HUGE map, then I get out of video memory.

Koub wrote:Joly s*** I just lost 1 hour of my life in that swarm simulator. thx a lot >.<

Play as the bugs

Qon wrote:Are forces between parts actually simulated in KSP? Can a vehicle break apart due to it's own thrusting force if you design it badly?

Yes they are and yes you can.

Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg wrote:Look how it dangles. Yep, that's- That's safe, don't worry. Come on. Come on, b- (dead)

ssilk wrote: But in Factorio every item on the belts is an real object in memory and is simulated in realtime. I think that is the main difference.

Technically no. Because optimization

featherwinglove wrote:

ssilk wrote: But in Factorio every item on the belts is an real object in memory and is simulated in realtime. I think that is the main difference.

Technically no. Because optimization

Well, I see it's really difficult to define, what I mean. The useful process in that case is to spiral around the truth, until you find the right spot.

In the end the basic idea of this thread is to define, how Factorio differs from other games, so I make another try:

1. The player and/or other entities can pick up/place any object and the objects doesn't loose their individuality
2. The factor between the smallest structure and the biggest is 10^5 or more
3. The game can handle 10^6 object-state-changes per second or more

Sounds pretty uncool, but let"s look at it more detailed:

1: That means, even if objects are somehow "compressed" (think of chests, stacks, belts, robots, wagons, etc.) so that one object contains many others, the objects inside can be picked up into single items and restore their state, when they where put into that. Think to items, that needs repair or with the latest change it will be possible to have items, that contains items...
2: That was about my original definition; I think this is more clear...
3: Factorio can handle one million object-state-changes per second or more (10^5 * 10). An object state change is for example the position (player, belts, robots, trains...), assembling/crafting, creating new area, powering, fluid levels... I'm not sure how to count that correctly, but I assume here that Factorio is able to handle one million objects without slowing down. With 60 ticks per second you need 16,700 state changes per second. I'm sure this is the case...

ssilk wrote: EDIT: And perhaps some are asking, what that means? There are lot of other games, that already simulate worlds in sizes of universes. Factor 10^20 or more.
The difference between that games and Factorio is, that those games do not simulate that completely. Real entities are there in most cases just what you can really see; such games ignore a real interaction between the smallest and the biggest sizes and just make it look like that.

You are right. However, if you are strict the smallest functional things are on the order of one tile and on the other hand that 10 x 10 km^2 are are mostly filled with passive tiles and entities. Only the simplest calculations are done over the whole area. If you fill 100 square kilometers with active entities the game breaks.

But it is surprising how well Factorio can handle huge world and massive number or active and passive entities with decent desktop computer. I have never seen any game to be even near. Devs have made great programming work.

Hannu wrote:You are right. However, if you are strict the smallest functional things are on the order of one tile and on the other hand that 10 x 10 km^2 are are mostly filled with passive tiles and entities. Only the simplest calculations are done over the whole area. If you fill 100 square kilometers with active entities the game breaks.

Yes. Therefore I added the rule number 3 in my previous post:

The game can handle 10^6 object-state-changes per second or more

That definition can also be seen as some kind of limitation and the deeper sense around it is this: The more outside you come, the more "dead" the world is: Not every tree can be changed each tick. Of course.

But even there, completely at the border of that range you can still build a new outpost which collects > 100,000 items of ore per minute.

But it is surprising how well Factorio can handle huge world and massive number or active and passive entities with decent desktop computer. I have never seen any game to be even near. Devs have made great programming work.

That can be underlined.

Factorio is a "10^5 Simulation Game"

Roger. 10^4.

I think you are going to lose against Game Of Life. That is unless you start listing HD graphics

whynotboth wrote:I think you are going to lose against Game Of Life. That is unless you start listing HD graphics

The only game that challenges my graphics card is Star Trek.