Friday Facts #167 - Reactors Operational

Regular reports on Factorio development.
Veylon
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 5:44 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #167 - Reactors Operational

Post by Veylon »

TartarusMkII wrote:Hey just wanted to offer some quick feed back in regards to the broken decorative train tracks.

I am not so worried about the [why are there so many train tracks already here?], but I fee like individually, specifically, the way the metal rails are bent outward make it look like the whole line was carpet bombed, so much of the rails have been blown and bent outward so often. I feel like it should take considerable force to blast the rails bent so far, rather than simple decay. At least for how often in the example it appears.

That's all!
For gameplay reasons, it has to be obvious at a glance that they are broken, similar to how the machines and belts get turned to out-and-out rubble instead of merely non-functioning husks that might not stand out to the player. The bombed-to-hell look may be unrealistic, but it's a necessary abstraction.
vipm23
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 4:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #167 - Reactors Operational

Post by vipm23 »

Gertibrumm, would you mind if I made a suggestion thread for the boiler-furnace idea? I have a prompt written up and everything.
Aardwolf
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 2:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #167 - Reactors Operational

Post by Aardwolf »

Very excited about nuclear power :)

I wonder one thing: the current boilers, those made bigger here, are those for coal right?

What do they have to do with nuclear power? They're for coal... the nuclear plant should heat up steam right in its reactor, in a closed water circuit (because it's radioactive), which in turn gets cooled down by a second water system. The steam heated up in the reactor should definitely not leave the closed system.

Thanks for explaining :)
Last edited by Aardwolf on Sat Dec 03, 2016 1:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MalcolmCooks
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:32 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #167 - Reactors Operational

Post by MalcolmCooks »

Aardwolf wrote:I wonder one thing: the current boilers, those made bigger here, are those for coal right?

What do they have to do with nuclear power? They're for coal... the nuclear plant should heat up steam right in its reactor, in a closed water circuit (because it's radioactive), which in turn heats up a second water system.
The new boilers double-up as both fuelled boilers and as the second water system. The reactors and heat pipes make up the primary heat circuit. So the boilers can operate from fuel like they do now, or they can operate by recieving heat from a reactor through the heat pipes.
Mehve
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 318
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 9:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #167 - Reactors Operational

Post by Mehve »

Yeah, I had to stare at the pictures for a little bit to get my head around the apparent dual-purpose design of these new boilers. The idea of just "heat" being transferred (rather than referring to a heated medium such as steam) feels odd, but since the reactor seems to input nothing but the nuclear fuel, there's no reason to think a heated medium is outputted, so it winds up feeling like a process step has been left out. The idea of a combustion boiler also acting as a heat exchanger for an external source of heat feels un-intuitive as well. Logically, I realize that's what a boiler IS, but you still expect each type of operation to deserve it's own name?

Intuitively, I guess I would have expected the nuclear reactor to act as a large boiler itself, taking in water, outputting steam. Or at least connecting to something besides the old device which has been taking in combustion fuel until now.
User avatar
MalcolmCooks
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:32 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #167 - Reactors Operational

Post by MalcolmCooks »

I think they are just using the idea of heat pipes in lieu of coming up with an actual heat-exchange fluid, which could be any one of a number of things.
bk5115545
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 123
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #167 - Reactors Operational

Post by bk5115545 »

I'm really for having the reactor being a 6x6 building. I also like the tmp artwork. Thinking of making a mod that generates artwork like that if it would increase performance of mega bases.

The picture on the first page makes it seem like the designs could quickly become a lot more complex.
mrblob197
Manual Inserter
Manual Inserter
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 8:44 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #167 - Reactors Operational

Post by mrblob197 »

hitzu wrote:Please. If you want change the size of boilers then make them a different item/entity and keep existing 1x1 boilers as a legacy item and block its recipe instead of replacing boilers like it was with turrets and breaking existing setups. So the transition within current saves would be smooth since power supply is a critical point of the entire base.
Amen !!
Mendel
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #167 - Reactors Operational

Post by Mendel »

Is there a reason why I should use nuclear instead of solar?
malfunctionm1ke
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #167 - Reactors Operational

Post by malfunctionm1ke »

Mendel wrote:Is there a reason why I should use nuclear instead of solar?
Less space needed, more puzzling and more explosions. :)
User avatar
Sigma1
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #167 - Reactors Operational

Post by Sigma1 »

I got a few things to say about 0.15:
1. I hope there will be a cooling tower for the reactors to get that iconic look.
2. Will biomes be moddable in?
3. If you make the reactors heat the boilers then you should not allow us to put coal straight into the boilers, but instead either add a heat connection to furnaces or a coal powered external heater.
4. Please say I can blow up the reactor.
she/they
keb
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 2:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #167 - Reactors Operational

Post by keb »

The destroyed railroad image made me think that it'd be pretty neat if trains could derail when hitting broken track at high speed. They'd then create a wreck (new sprites for wagon sand locomotive) and spill their contents all over the area they land.

If carrying solids, the player would have to go recover them using bots or the pickup key; liquids like crude oil would create intense pollution in the area, perhaps enough to summon something extra-dangerous like a mega-worm?
User avatar
Sigma1
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #167 - Reactors Operational

Post by Sigma1 »

keb wrote:The destroyed railroad image made me think that it'd be pretty neat if trains could derail when hitting broken track at high speed. They'd then create a wreck (new sprites for wagon sand locomotive) and spill their contents all over the area they land.

If carrying solids, the player would have to go recover them using bots or the pickup key; liquids like crude oil would create intense pollution in the area, perhaps enough to summon something extra-dangerous like a mega-worm?
I like this idea, maybe you could somehow fix the wrecked train too?
she/they
User avatar
Gertibrumm
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:54 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #167 - Reactors Operational

Post by Gertibrumm »

Sigma1 wrote:I got a few things to say about 0.15:
1. I hope there will be a cooling tower for the reactors to get that iconic look.
2. Will biomes be moddable in?
3. If you make the reactors heat the boilers then you should not allow us to put coal straight into the boilers, but instead either add a heat connection to furnaces or a coal powered external heater.
4. Please say I can blow up the reactor.
1) There has to be a cooling tower for efficiency and health reasons. I you leave out the cooling tower you would release steam (maybe radioactive) instead of recirculating it int the ->reactor->turbine->coolingtower->reactor->... cycle.
The cooling tower actually further cooles down low pressure steam (condense to liquid form), after the turbine, with seawater in a heatexchange system. The cooling towers exhaust is actually just steamy seawater. If you dont recirculate and simply blow out radioactive steam after the turbines, than turbines work less efficient (in real life) and you have pollution increased by a million percent. An now you have to deal with mutant biters ;)
Powerplants will not be as simple as the current steam engines are. Should they inflict destruction to lazy players with poor layouts?
If devs go the realistic way, then whe have to deal with alot of destructive threats from nuclear energy if in game bad balanced and pooly designed.

3) Totally agree. Doing these heatconnections either by aligning buildings wall to wall or with special heat pipes. Both are fine to me. And furnaces should be connectable to boilers, so that we can make steam with simple coal burning furnaces early on. But I will help Vipm23 to spread this idea.

4) Actually the reactor will have a simple meltdown and turn itself into a radioactive volcano. The steam setup will blow up if it exceeds pressure limits!

Also steam engines should be kept as low power, low efficiency electricity production. Turbines are the upgrade!
Zaflis
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 512
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2016 12:51 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #167 - Reactors Operational

Post by Zaflis »

Will the large desert rocks be breakable? I'm imagining if not digged by hand one would need to bring a mining drill (or some new drill - break front, output back) to bring it down. Or maybe explosive tank shell?
User avatar
Proxy
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 11:10 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #167 - Reactors Operational

Post by Proxy »

malfunctionm1ke wrote:
Mendel wrote:Is there a reason why I should use nuclear instead of solar?
Less space needed, more puzzling and more explosions. :)
Reactors don't Explode tho (atleast Modern ones)
User avatar
Sigma1
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #167 - Reactors Operational

Post by Sigma1 »

Proxy wrote:Reactors don't Explode tho (atleast Modern ones)
But... Explosions are awesome!
she/they
Hertzila
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 1:15 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #167 - Reactors Operational

Post by Hertzila »

Sigma1 wrote:
Proxy wrote:Reactors don't Explode tho (atleast Modern ones)
But... Explosions are awesome!
I respectfully and highly disagree. I can't think of anything more inconvenient and un-awesome than a massive explosion right at the heart of my energy production.

Also, see the previous reactor friday thread.
User avatar
Gertibrumm
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:54 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #167 - Reactors Operational

Post by Gertibrumm »

factorio_powerplant_suggestion.pdf
(81.18 KiB) Downloaded 173 times
factorio_powerplant_suggestion.jpg
factorio_powerplant_suggestion.jpg (891.22 KiB) Viewed 7155 times
my suggestion and how the circulating water could make sense.
please correct if I am wrong with anything
User avatar
EstebanLB
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 3:00 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #167 - Reactors Operational

Post by EstebanLB »

Gertibrumm wrote:
factorio_powerplant_suggestion.pdf
my suggestion and how the circulating water could make sense.
please correct if I am wrong with anything
Nice idea, I like most of it.
On the lower left I think you changed the conections on the boiler
Post Reply

Return to “News”