Does a beacon consume too much energy?

[siggboy]

Nah I think I understand it and I get your point. BTW I've tested my 0.12 base and I'll send you the map and modpack now.

[MeduSalem]

For megabases with beacons you want to have one big block of beacons and assembly machines producing everything. Serparation increases energy wasted by beacons that can't cover 8 machines. And then you can't shut down beacons for individual machines any more without also affecting the production of other machines producing something else while sharing beacons. It's also superior for making expansions.

On the other hand if you do it at the correct ratio you either have all machines running or none, so you can turn off the whole megabase with an energy switch instead.

I guess with megabase you mean something like launching a rocket every other minute...? So basically stuff that is running 24/7 and therefore becomes predictible, which allows to use perfect ratios?

Because some recipes may run only once in a while (like crafting items for expanding your base, etc), which is unpredictible but you still may want to use beacons on the intermediate items to save resources or whatever. There exact ratios may depend on circumstances like how many of these unpredictible recipes run in concurrence and if one is sharing intermediate resources between them to save footprint (like having one spot to produce ECs to share for all these unpredictible recipes because it might not make much sense to produce everything locally). There it is better if the beacon+assembler arrays would be seperated and switched on/off on demand.

If you have enough production then items will build up on the belt enough for all inserters to pick up items as long as you aren't looping the belts back.

Even with looping belts back the items would eventually build up if you don't have enough consumers but too many producers. Brings the loop to a grinding halt eventually (which may be pretty bad if the loop is carrying more than 1 item type on a single belt side, because starting up from there may be impossible once all assemblers are deadlocked with "no resources" because the belt didn't move to bring the lacking one in range of an inserter).

[Qon]

I guess with megabase you mean something like launching a rocket every other minute...? So basically stuff that is running 24/7 and therefore becomes predictible, which allows to use perfect ratios?

Because some recipes may run only once in a while (like crafting items for expanding your base, etc), which is unpredictible but you still may want to use beacons on the intermediate items to save resources or whatever. There exact ratios may depend on circumstances like how many of these unpredictible recipes run in concurrence and if one is sharing intermediate resources between them to save footprint (like having one spot to produce ECs to share for all these unpredictible recipes because it might not make much sense to produce everything locally). There it is better if the beacon+assembler arrays would be seperated and switched on/off on demand.

Yes, that is what I meant. If you don't have a resource sink that is predictable things change of course. But it's usually rockets. I should specify that.

Agree with separation being a good idea. But having locally produced intermediates is also a good alternative in some cases so it's not always clear which is best. A bit is up to personal taste here. Recipies for expanding your base are extremely cheap for the most part. Roboports, blue belts, robots and module 3 are quite demanding and are required in big amounts though.

If you have enough production then items will build up on the belt enough for all inserters to pick up items as long as you aren't looping the belts back.

Even with looping belts back the items would eventually build up if you don't have enough consumers but too many producers. Brings the loop to a grinding halt eventually (which may be pretty bad if the loop is carrying more than 1 item type on a single belt side, because starting up from there may be impossible once all assemblers are deadlocked with "no resources" because the belt didn't move to bring the lacking one in range of an inserter).

Yeah I meant that a looping belt that would be kept sparse by not inserting more than necessary or items looping far back enough for assemblers of other types to use the items or similar case. Which is of course not always true for all looping belts. The point was that you could build an endlessly looping sparse belt to prevent inserters from picking up the items, not that no looping setup would ever halt or fill up. Production would halt then if it isn't allowed to flow on to the belt.

[siggboy]

Agree with separation being a good idea. But having locally produced intermediates is also a good alternative in some cases so it's not always clear which is best. A bit is up to personal taste here. Recipies for expanding your base are extremely cheap for the most part. Roboports, blue belts, robots and module 3 are quite demanding and are required in big amounts though.

I think in most of these cases Prod3+Beacon is kind of wasteful, because these machines need to run for a long time until they've amortized the cost of the modules (if Prod modules are even possible, e.g. with robot frames and engines).

So I guess if you actually mass produce stuff that requires green or red circuits, it's better to get those from the place where you make the circuits for the rocket factory.

If you're min-maxing to the point where you want to disable individual beacons to save energy, then it's probably very ill-advised to put a lot of resources into modules that you will never be able to recoup.

[Qon]

Agree with separation being a good idea. But having locally produced intermediates is also a good alternative in some cases so it's not always clear which is best. A bit is up to personal taste here. Recipies for expanding your base are extremely cheap for the most part. Roboports, blue belts, robots and module 3 are quite demanding and are required in big amounts though.

I think in most of these cases Prod3+Beacon is kind of wasteful, because these machines need to run for a long time until they've amortized the cost of the modules (if Prod modules are even possible, e.g. with robot frames and engines).

So I guess if you actually mass produce stuff that requires green or red circuits, it's better to get those from the place where you make the circuits for the rocket factory.

If you're min-maxing to the point where you want to disable individual beacons to save energy, then it's probably very ill-advised to put a lot of resources into modules that you will never be able to recoup.

Not really sure if you are criticising my statement or even responding to what I said. Your statements are only vaguely related to my statements. I'll try to respond...

I think in most of these cases Prod3+Beacon is kind of wasteful, because these machines need to run for a long time until they've amortized the cost of the modules (if Prod modules are even possible, e.g. with robot frames and engines).

I said you need a lot of them. In a productivity focuses factory you do. The costs are regained in a few hours or minutes depending on what you use them for. In a rocket silo it's regained immediatly, otherwise AntiElitez would not use them in his sub 2h speedrun. I don't consider tens of hours a long time for a megafactory so modules are worth it for me.

So I guess if you actually mass produce stuff that requires green or red circuits, it's better to get those from the place where you make the circuits for the rocket factory.

I said it was up to personal taste and it really depends on many factors. Now you assert that it's always definitly the best way to do it by taking the circuits from the rocket factory. But then you might possibly have to rebuild your rocket factory to accomodate the logistics and sacrifice your rocket production speed and so on. You can't just say that. Better for what exactly? Energy? Modules used? Yes limiting your production is great for limiting your energy used/second or modules required. I don't want to limit my production.

Yes, if you use beacons then reducing separation is positive energy-wise for constant rocket production. But that doesn't mean that your circuit production is the most efficent place for producing circuits for everything else. If you remove circuits from the rocket factory it will not have enough for itself to run at 100%. Then everything else in that rocket factory will start to idle and all beacons there are wasting your energy. So you can't even use energy efficiency as an argument there. Then building more circuit production where it's needed would be preferable even if you can't utilise beacons as well and either run your rocket factory at 100% or shut power to it completely.

If you're min-maxing to the point where you want to disable individual beacons to save energy, then it's probably very ill-advised to put a lot of resources into modules that you will never be able to recoup.

Why would I never be able to recoup the resurces? Energy isn't the only resource. Why can't I min-max my energy and my productivity if I want to make something as good as possible?

Did I say I need to disable individual beacons? It would be nice to be able to do it with circuits though so I don't have to cut power to roboports at the same time. Wish wires between power poles and switches were blueprintable. Has anyone reported that they aren't yet?

[siggboy]

Probably I was responding more to MeduSalem that to what you've said, since he started the conversation about disabling individual beacons.

Conversations like this one, that deal with "efficiency" in an infinite sandbox world where nothing really matters, only make sense in the context of min-maxing, or optimization for its own sake, if you will.

So, yeah, you can produce your robots in any way your like, robots will be robots, it does not matter.

However if you want a lean, or efficient, or min-maxed or "nice" solution, then putting Prod3 into a machine that makes Flying Robot Frames is ugly, because those two modules have to amortize their cost in that machine you've put them into, and that's barely possible (because Flying Robot Frames has a long manufacturing time, so that machine will probably never have cycled often enough to recoup the investment in the Prod3 modules).

Maybe you agree with that, maybe you disagree, it was not really my goal to disagree with you here, not everything I write is in order to disagree with you .

[Qon]

Conversations like this one, that deal with "efficiency" in an infinite sandbox world where nothing really matters, only make sense in the context of min-maxing, or optimization for its own sake, if you will.

Optimization, the source of our enjoyment in Factorio q:
Isn't that the whole point of sandboxes?
Well at least for me. Probably you too since you are here at the forum in threads like these!

However if you want a lean, or efficient, or min-maxed or "nice" solution, then putting Prod3 into a machine that makes Flying Robot Frames is ugly, because those two modules have to amortize their cost in that machine you've put them into, and that's barely possible (because Flying Robot Frames has a long manufacturing time, so that machine will probably never have cycled often enough to recoup the investment in the Prod3 modules).

Did you calculate that crafting time affects recoup time negativly? I don't find it obvious. Show me how you proved that please?

Maybe you agree with that, maybe you disagree, it was not really my goal to disagree with you here, not everything I write is in order to disagree with you .

Well I only disagree with people who are wrong xD

[siggboy]

Did you calculate that crafting time affects recoup time negativly? I don't find it obvious. Show me how you proved that please?

People smarter than myself have done it two years ago already: Productivity Module Math

(But if you want to see me being wrong about this point and then eventually conceding then you should go here )

[MeduSalem]

People smarter than myself have done it two years ago already: Productivity Module Math

Ahh that thread. Haven't seen it in a long time... It's definitely one of the classics and probably the source of all the PM3/SM3 craziness.

[Qon]

Did you calculate that crafting time affects recoup time negativly? I don't find it obvious. Show me how you proved that please?

People smarter than myself have done it two years ago already: Productivity Module Math

(But if you want to see me being wrong about this point and then eventually conceding then you should go here )

Well I agree that crafting time is a factor, but not the only factor. My point is that amount of ingredients and their worth is should also be considered since the resources per second can be quite high even for slow recipies. And that is key, resources per second. Or maybe "value" per second (and investment cost) is even better if you want since you save more than just raw resources. And flying robot frame is fairly high on that list by DaveMcW. Engines are very low though.

But for logistics placing things later in the chain has advantages even if it isn't always in resources saved.

I realise now that my message reads like crafting time isn't a factor at all in the calculation, which would be wrong. Not really what I meant. Tried to keep it short and distorted my message.

But those are useful threads that I've found but never read properly before, so thank you.

[siggboy]

Robot Frames are high, and also Sulfuric Acid, but usually one doesn't make enough of them to amortize the cost of the Productivity modules; and then it's just a net negative to use them.

My rule of thumb now is that outside of maxing rockets/minute (on a map that you play for a long time) the tier 3 modules are usually not worth it, because you put a lot more resources into making them that you get out of using them.

Of course there are all sorts of specialized goals or constraints you can set for yourself where this is not true (e.g. making the factory as small as possible, or minimizing the train count, etc. etc.)

[siggboy]

probably the source of all the PM3/SM3 craziness.

There's nothing "crazy" about spamming PM3+SM3 if you're making a rocket factory, it's simply the most effective way if you're min-maxing (and if you make more than only a couple of rockets).

It's not useful to have a discussion of the merits of this and that unless it's made clear what the goals are, what the constraints are that you're working under, and so forth. If you just do a normal playthrough, launch 1 rocket and then quit it's completely beyond the point to even think about using expensive modules in bulk, and saving energy does not matter either. Nothing of it matters at all.

[Qon]

Robot Frames are high, [...] but usually one doesn't make enough of them to amortize the cost of the Productivity modules; and then it's just a net negative to use them.

Well once you have all the robot frames you need you can take out the modules and use them in the factory you needed the robots for if you aren't constantly requiring more of them. You don't lose the modules.

[MeduSalem]

probably the source of all the PM3/SM3 craziness.

There's nothing "crazy" about spamming PM3+SM3 if you're making a rocket factory, it's simply the most effective way if you're min-maxing (and if you make more than only a couple of rockets).

It wasn't meant like that... and more like a expression that I know that min/maxing stuff can get out of control quite fast because how I'm a min/max guy myself... and because of how everyone has a different oppinion what are the most important characteristics to min/max around.

[siggboy]

Well once you have all the robot frames you need you can take out the modules and use them in the factory you needed the robots for if you aren't constantly requiring more of them. You don't lose the modules.

That's of course true, and usually what I end up doing. It's just that plugging PM3 into everything mindlessly (even if the product is "valuable") and then not think about it again is a costly mistake. The modules should ideally always be in a machine that is cycling/producing something.

[MeduSalem]

Well once you have all the robot frames you need you can take out the modules and use them in the factory you needed the robots for if you aren't constantly requiring more of them. You don't lose the modules.

That's of course true, and usually what I end up doing. It's just that plugging PM3 into everything mindlessly (even if the product is "valuable") and then not think about it again is a costly mistake. The modules should ideally always be in a machine that is cycling/producing something.

What would you guys say if I told you that by sheer accident of forgetting to set an output limit in one of my maps I have 750 PM3s, 500 SM3s and 500 EM3s sitting around in storage chests doing nothing but mock me?

I didn't realize it until I hovered over one of my chests and thought "WTF"... at which point it was too late to revert to an earlier save because the autosaves all have been overwritten already.

Happened because I blueprinted the assembler configuration and didn't think about changing the inserter conditions.

[siggboy]

Do you already have a rocket factory at your target speed on that map? Otherwise I wouldn't say it's really difficult to use these modules in useful places. The EMs are sort of wasted, but you simply put one of each into your mining drills and the rest into machines where PMs are not allowed or not very effective (speed module assemblers, maybe AC, too).

[Qon]

What would you guys say if I told you that by sheer accident of forgetting to set an output limit in one of my maps I have 750 PM3s, 500 SM3s and 500 EM3s sitting around in storage chests doing nothing but mock me?

Well all you have to do is to use them to not waste the resources q:

In an endless resources save I have 10k or more SP3 + PM3 in my logi network...