Page 1 of 1
FPS/UPS using with differents setups.
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:21 pm
by zggz
Hello dear developers.
Which one of this lines uses more FPS/UPS and how much more? The same amount of production, but really big difference.Thats really important question for big base building. (blueprint included)
Line 1:
- line 1.png (40.76 KiB) Viewed 3272 times
Line 2:
- line 2.png (36.76 KiB) Viewed 3272 times
- Screenshot_1.png (1.84 MiB) Viewed 3272 times
Re: FPS/UPS using with differents setups.
Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 8:59 am
by zggz
Please anyone...
Re: FPS/UPS using with differents setups.
Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 9:33 am
by Aeternus
You would need to test it. Gut instinct tells me 1 is more UPS friendly assuming you've got no power issues (low power causes beacons to need to recalculate). I think it heavily depends on the load of these too, how much time they are active. Also, with this many beacons around them, might wanna replace the yellow inserter with a blue.
1 has fewer inserters, assemblers, but is wider so bots have to travel further to deliver their stuff. Bot gridlock tanks UPS.
2 has more assemblers and inserters, more active objects thus, but a shorter travel path.
Personally I'd go for version 2 because it's easier to do a row of roboports above/below this setup. And it looks better visually... just my preference.
Re: FPS/UPS using with differents setups.
Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 10:54 am
by zggz
Thank you.
Re: FPS/UPS using with differents setups.
Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 10:58 am
by Jap2.0
Aeternus wrote:You would need to test it. Gut instinct tells me 1 is more UPS friendly assuming you've got no power issues (low power causes beacons to need to recalculate). I think it heavily depends on the load of these too, how much time they are active. Also, with this many beacons around them, might wanna replace the yellow inserter with a blue.
1 has fewer inserters, assemblers, but is wider so bots have to travel further to deliver their stuff. Bot gridlock tanks UPS.
2 has more assemblers and inserters, more active objects thus, but a shorter travel path.
Personally I'd go for version 2 because it's easier to do a row of roboports above/below this setup. And it looks better visually... just my preference.
Yeah - some advantages and disadvantages to each. Beacons have a negligible impact on performance, so with less assemblers and inserters the first might work better. The second only has one roboport and a smaller area, however, which might help. I'm not certain of the relations between electric pole number and coverage area per and UPS
Re: FPS/UPS using with differents setups.
Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 11:18 am
by Aeternus
Jap2.0 wrote:Yeah - some advantages and disadvantages to each. Beacons have a negligible impact on performance, so with less assemblers and inserters the first might work better. The second only has one roboport and a smaller area, however, which might help. I'm not certain of the relations between electric pole number and coverage area per and UPS
As I recall the devs have stated that it doesn't matter much how big the power grid is, as long as everything is connected. Separate power grids is UPS unfriendly. So I'll assume that, as long as all structures are powered and all poles are connected, UPS for the power grid is not a factor here.
That one roboport is of course never going to pull the bots required to handle throughput here. You're heavily beaconing something that requires 6 items (of 3 types) in per 1.4 item out, so you've got per production cycle 4 bot movements. Roboports need to factor into these designs. The fewer logistic bots you can handle this with, the better the UPS will be, and in that respect design 2 has a definate leg up due to shorter distances.
Re: FPS/UPS using with differents setups.
Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 10:42 pm
by Zavian
Aeternus wrote:The fewer logistic bots you can handle this with, the better the UPS will be, and in that respect design 2 has a definate leg up due to shorter distances.
Whilst I agree that you want to minimise the number of active bots, as well as the number of active inserters and assemblers, you need to consider this over the whole design, not just part of a design. Personally, for bot based red circuits I use one copper wire assembler outputting to wooden chests to both the left and the right. Then those chests can each feed one 2 red circuit assemblers to each side. (That way you have 1 copper wire assembler feeding 4 red circuit assemblers. Ratio purists might be turning in their graves, but it saves a lot of bot movement of copper wires).
If you are really serious about which is better you need to build and then test the entire setup, including loading and unload stations. (If you are _really_ serious about max UPS efficiency, then you should use all stack inserters, and use circuit signals to control the output inserters (count game ticks), so they only swing when they can move a full 12 red circuits).
Re: FPS/UPS using with differents setups.
Posted: Sat May 05, 2018 6:04 am
by zggz
Zavian wrote:
If you are really serious about which is better you need to build and then test the entire setup, including loading and unload stations. (If you are _really_ serious about max UPS efficiency, then you should use all stack inserters, and use circuit signals to control the output inserters (count game ticks), so they only swing when they can move a full 12 red circuits).
Really good idea! I have 10k spm base and 6 ups/fps. i'm seriosly thinking about that.
Re: FPS/UPS using with differents setups.
Posted: Sun May 13, 2018 2:59 pm
by zggz
Can someone make a test?