Friday Facts #37

[Prezombie]

I think there would have been less complaints if they had rounded up , so 64 = 100 stack, 128 = 200 stack, 256 = 300 stack. You still get power of 10, plus buff instead of nerf

Yeah, there might have been less complaints, but personally, I'd dislike larger stacks with a power of ten as much. Stacks of 300 seems like a rather ridiculous arbitrary number, especially when you consider how wildly varying the rounding up would be. merely rounding up removes the symmetry of the system. 16 stacks of iron ore became 8 stacks of iron plate became 2 stacks of gears. Quick, how many stacks of gears would n stacks of iron plate make with 200 and 300 stacks?

It feels like anyone arguing for base ten stacks have never used logarithms...

[sciencemile]

uh...crap <_< I have to do math but I'm sure it's pretty simple.
---
2 stacks of iron makes 1 stack of iron plates makes 1/3 stack of gears. So if you want 1 stack of gears you need 6 stacks of iron, 6->3 ->1
----

EDIT: Err woops that's not right gears are 200 stacks, not 300...uhh...

2 Stacks of Iron makes 1 Stack of Iron plates makes 1/2 Stack of Gears....so 16 stacks of iron makes 8 stacks of iron plates makes 4 stacks of gears *nose bleeds*

[tterrag1098]

uh...crap <_< I have to do math but I'm sure it's pretty simple.
---
2 stacks of iron makes 1 stack of iron plates makes 1/3 stack of gears. So if you want 1 stack of gears you need 6 stacks of iron, 6->3 ->1
----

EDIT: Err woops that's not right gears are 200 stacks, not 300...uhh...

2 Stacks of Iron makes 1 Stack of Iron plates makes 1/2 Stack of Gears....so 16 stacks of iron makes 8 stacks of iron plates makes 4 stacks of gears *nose bleeds*

Heh, that seems more complicated to me. Anyways, I hate to make comparisons, but games like Minecraft have used the power-of-two system for a long time, and quite successfully. It just makes sense for these kinds of things, to be able to always split stacks easily and have simpler math. I personally will be installing square stack sizes

[Calico]

Really like the update. A very few sounds seem a tiny bit of from what it expected, but overall i feel like 90% are really good and not annoying in the slightest sense. Like the new graphics for radar, steam engine etc. I know it will be a stony, featureless road to multiplayer, but maybe you can throw us a bone or two and introduce 1-2 small new things before 0.11? Wind Generators? better accumulators? Something that can be done without having a lot to balance, model, etc.

I'm really no math freak, so i'm ok with 10. While i do see some minor advantges with Po2, i don't feel like i wont be able to live with out it. I'm still a Geek, just not a programmer/math one.

P.S: Can you tell us a few details how you actually recorded the sounds? Sure there is a interesting story there.

[kovarex]

The 2^x makes sense in minecraft, since making halves of the stacks is very typical user scenario, as you have to manually put those items in the crafting table.

In Factorio, items are used differently, as the manual crafting is automatic, I don't usually work in a way: I take 3X128 Iron plates so I can make 128 Iron gears. I usually just have bunch of iron plates, circuits etc in my inventory and craft items as I need them, when I want lot of iron-gear-wheels I take them from the factory directly, when I have not enough of some of the basic ingredients, I just take one of those from the chest. Later on, the automated crafting dominates anyway.

I, personally, can instantly say how much 3 stacks of iron is now (3X100), but I can't tell it instantly for 128.

[robhol]

The 2^x makes sense in minecraft, since making halves of the stacks is very typical user scenario, as you have to manually put those items in the crafting table.

In Factorio, items are used differently, as the manual crafting is automatic, I don't usually work in a way: I take 3X128 Iron plates so I can make 128 Iron gears. I usually just have bunch of iron plates, circuits etc in my inventory and craft items as I need them, when I want lot of iron-gear-wheels I take them from the factory directly, when I have not enough of some of the basic ingredients, I just take one of those from the chest. Later on, the automated crafting dominates anyway.

I, personally, can instantly say how much 3 stacks of iron is now (3X100), but I can't tell it instantly for 128.

Practice Math-fu you must.

[Zimposity]

Love how the website visits pretty much peak just after Sips' Factorio video was released. The power of Yogscast advertising is unstoppable!

[Alphasoldier]

I agree with people here that the 2^x rule was better, the way it was before this update. I even think it would've been a better move if the Logistics would've gone to a 2^x rule instead of a 10^x system. Heck, why not be able to enter those numbers manually?
The way I had things now, is when I had.. let's say ammo? And I wanted a stack and a reserve stack, 200 in total, I would always get just a bit over 200, seeing the bots can't seem to take less than their carry limit? Very annoying to miss out on inventory space when you have a tiny stack occupying a single spot.
I'd even be willing to go as far as to say that I won't play Factorio again until this has either been reverted or turned into an option. Just because of having a severe OCD regarding numbers. I also noticed that if you want an entire belt full of melted items, you need 16 smelters, that also falls into the whole 2^x rule.

It's a real shame too, because I was actually not being attacked by biters at all anymore due to the pathfinding bug, which made me very happy to find that in the patch notes.

[Artman40]

I wonder if there should be a stack size/amount research to compensate for that.

[ssilk]

And I wanted a stack and a reserve stack, 200 in total, I would always get just a bit over 200, seeing the bots can't seem to take less than their carry limit?

Well, what all players said was: either we have binary numbers or decimals. The change comes from that direction!

So logically, if the devs changed the game to binary, the sliders would have been not longer 1, 2, ... 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 etc. but somehow "binary". Including 128, 256 etc. and then this "stacksize issue" of the bots would hit you equally.

Very annoying to miss out on inventory space when you have a tiny stack occupying a single spot.

Again: This is an known issue (not a bug, also annoying for me), and I'm sure, it will be fixed, but this is also an alpha and now we need to live with it.

I'd even be willing to go as far as to say that I won't play Factorio again until this has either been reverted or turned into an option. Just because of having a severe OCD regarding numbers.

My answer is - as before - try to understand, what the older players mean with "ain't gonna need it".

I also noticed that if you want an entire belt full of melted items, you need 16 smelters, that also falls into the whole 2^x rule.

Just not right.

It's a real shame too, because I was actually not being attacked by biters at all anymore due to the pathfinding bug, which made me very happy to find that in the patch notes.

Again: this is an unstable alpha. If you are unhappy, then make suggestion, write bug reports or ask for help. But unqualified flaming is not useful.

[kovarex]

The way I had things now, is when I had.. let's say ammo? And I wanted a stack and a reserve stack, 200 in total, I would always get just a bit over 200, seeing the bots can't seem to take less than their carry limit? Very annoying to miss out on inventory space when you have a tiny stack occupying a single spot.

This was just fixed for the 0.10.1, more here: https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... =30&t=4229

[Alphasoldier]

@ssilk
While I appreciate the elaborate response, I was in no way flaming. I showed my opinion, I gave a simple example as to why; which seemed to reference something unpolished, and was already going to be fixed, which is awesome. I would give other examples, but I'd rather not 'flame' again.

As for your response "ain't gonna need it", it's terribly confusing. What aren't we going to need? It's the one thing (10^x) or the other (2^x), or are we not going to need stacks at all anymore? That sounds rather silly.

Also, I was indeed wrong on the belt full of melted items, it was in fact 32 furnaces. Still follows the rule however.

I should point out that I am aware that this is an unstable alpha, I was in fact happy about the patch, save for that unnecessary stack amount modification.

[ssilk]

As for your response "ain't gonna need it", it's terribly confusing. What aren't we going to need? It's the one thing (10^x) or the other (2^x), or are we not going to need stacks at all anymore? That sounds rather silly.

No. I meant we don't need to split up stack very often. I see that, when I watch some let's plays of newbies: I think, "wtf, why doesn't he use a chest and some splitters for that job? He does the same thing now the fourth time, over and over."

For example: I have gun turrets and want to fill them. That is needed only for the very first time. I put five shells in or so. Not more, cause I need to save every piece of metal, for other stuff. Then I watch them, if the bullets get too low I go for the next turn and built a chest, an inserter and belts and for every turret an inserter, which takes from the belt, Better too less than too much. Then I put some number of shells in the chest and the rest is done automatic. From now on I need only to watch, if the chest gets too empty.

That kind of thinking takes some time and just can't be explained. But I think you should trust us, that we know what we are doing.

Also, I was indeed wrong on the belt full of melted items, it was in fact 32 furnaces. Still follows the rule however.

No it doesn't, cause that number depends on the throughput of your belts, which depends on how much items you mine. So, how I do this, is to built so much furnaces, that it fits the input belts and then built so much output belts, that it fits the furnaces. There is no need to split there, because that is dynamic and depends on a dozen of factors.

I should point out that I am aware that this is an unstable alpha, I was in fact happy about the patch, save for that unnecessary stack amount modification.

its quite normal! that there are always people, that don't like new stuff or which to keep old. But before release, there will be many more changes. This is a process and till now the devs made it very good.

[Alphasoldier]

Also, I was indeed wrong on the belt full of melted items, it was in fact 32 furnaces. Still follows the rule however.

No it doesn't, cause that number depends on the throughput of your belts, which depends on how much items you mine. So, how I do this, is to built so much furnaces, that it fits the input belts and then built so much output belts, that it fits the furnaces. There is no need to split there, because that is dynamic and depends on a dozen of factors.

Actually, I should once again correct myself, I had not played in a while, seeing I might or might not have been waiting for the patch. It WAS 32 furnaces when I had the green belts. If the flow in of ore and the flow out of metals, and you would be using fast inserters, you would need an exact amount of 32 to fill up a continuous belt. Currently however I have blue belts and there are indeed open spots, I reckon that it'll take 48 furnaces to fill that up entirely. I might be mistaken on that though. But I quite positive that it would take 32 furnaces to fill up a green belt. Again, I might be mistaken, but I'm quite sure my OCD would've remembered open spots here and there.

Regardless, my point is, 2^x makes more sense, it will always make more sense because it's logical and natural. Buildings rotate clockwise. Why? Because it feels natural. Belts transport 2 items next to each other. Not 1.25 items. Chests have 16, 32 and 48 spots respectively, even when the hud is 10 wide.
I suppose it's all just getting used to. I'm just more inclined towards logic, transistors and hexadecimal numbers than I am towards my 10 fingers and the decimal system.

I should point out that I am aware that this is an unstable alpha, I was in fact happy about the patch, save for that unnecessary stack amount modification.

its quite normal! that there are always people, that don't like new stuff or which to keep old. But before release, there will be many more changes. This is a process and till now the devs made it very good.

I must admit that I heard, or read somewhere that even though this is an alpha, there won't be many more changes. I also stumbled upon the Indiegogo, where things like railroads, blueprints and modifiers are touched, which are already in there (assuming modules are modifiers?), whereas multiplayer (be still my heart), alternative energy and hidden ores aren't yet implemented. I'm quite sure these questions have been asked a dozen times, but seeing I'm new here and you've been more than helpful I'll ask it again. Are all these still coming? Are there even more plans that wasn't pointed out on the Indiegogo?

[Ohlmann]

Regardless, my point is, 2^x makes more sense, it will always make more sense because it's logical and natural. Buildings rotate clockwise. Why? Because it feels natural. Belts transport 2 items next to each other. Not 1.25 items. Chests have 16, 32 and 48 spots respectively, even when the hud is 10 wide.
I suppose it's all just getting used to. I'm just more inclined towards logic, transistors and hexadecimal numbers than I am towards my 10 fingers and the decimal system.

In all honesty, I don't see why you find 2^x to be more natural outside of personal taste. I welcome a lot that change because having the total of something is very easy with 10^x stack and not at all with 2^x, since the numeral used are 10-based.

[ssilk]

Also, I was indeed wrong on the belt full of melted items, it was in fact 32 furnaces. Still follows the rule however.

No it doesn't, cause that number depends on the throughput of your belts, which depends on how much items you mine. So, how I do this, is to built so much furnaces, that it fits the input belts and then built so much output belts, that it fits the furnaces. There is no need to split there, because that is dynamic and depends on a dozen of factors.

Actually, I should once again correct myself, I had not played in a while, seeing I might or might not have been waiting for the patch. It WAS 32 furnaces when I had the green belts. If the flow in of ore and the flow out of metals, and you would be using fast inserters, you would need an exact amount of 32 to fill up a continuous belt. Currently however I have blue belts and there are indeed open spots, I reckon that it'll take 48 furnaces to fill that up entirely. I might be mistaken on that though. But I quite positive that it would take 32 furnaces to fill up a green belt. Again, I might be mistaken, but I'm quite sure my OCD would've remembered open spots here and there.

It depends from the throughput. The throughput tends to be chaotic, because of some reasons.

Well, so that you understand and belive me: Look at this page https://forums.factorio.com/wiki/inde ... ts/Physics

The theoretical thruput of express belt (which is blue, not green) is 40.17375 items per second.

A stone furnace ( https://forums.factorio.com/wiki/inde ... ne_furnace ) has a speed of 1, so it can furnace one iron per second. In other words this would mean, you need about 41 furnaces to come along with an express belt.

Indeed it isn't so. The measured is indeed only about 1775 items/minute, with some measurement error. That's 29.58 items per second and this measurment is very old, I made that last summer.

This is cause not every item runs on the belts touching the other, there is a small gap between them, which reduces the maximum capacity. This effect is explained in the second part of the article.

So - well, 32 furnaces might be the right answer, but 33 is also ok and also 31 will work - I would use 30, cause that creates a small jam on the input belts and that enables me to see, if there is enough iron ore coming in. If the jam goes away, this is the alarm for me to find new iron-ore-mines.

So - what I want to say is: 32 is just a random number, which comes from chaotic effects, nobody sat down there and said: 32 furnaces is it. It's just an effect.

I must admit that I heard, or read somewhere that even though this is an alpha, there won't be many more changes. I also stumbled upon the Indiegogo, where things like railroads, blueprints and modifiers are touched, which are already in there (assuming modules are modifiers?), whereas multiplayer (be still my heart), alternative energy and hidden ores aren't yet implemented. I'm quite sure these questions have been asked a dozen times, but seeing I'm new here and you've been more than helpful I'll ask it again. Are all these still coming? Are there even more plans that wasn't pointed out on the Indiegogo?

Hm. this makes me feel a bit odd But, well, I like that you asked. The roadmap can be found over many links:

https://forums.factorio.com/forum/sea ... ds=roadmap
There you come to: https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... ?f=3&t=678
https://forums.factorio.com/wiki/inde ... le=Roadmap (this one is new and I hope the devs use that for the future)
And is linked in the FAQ: https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... =18&t=3272 - which I recommend to read.

[DaveMcW]

A stone furnace ( https://forums.factorio.com/wiki/inde ... ne_furnace ) has a speed of 1, so it can furnace one iron per second. In other words this would mean, you need about 41 furnaces to come along with an express belt.

Except iron has a smelting time of 3.5, so one stone furnace can only smelt 0.286 iron/sec.

[Maric]

- Backer names are used for Locomotives, Roboports and Radadars.

Radadaddadadadadadadada BATMAN dars

[drs9999]

Is there an ETA for the video-interview on games.cz? Or am I just too blind and it is already puplished?

[kovarex]

Is there an ETA for the video-interview on games.cz? Or am I just too blind and it is already puplished?

Not published yet, it will take week or two probably.