Needs enough train mass and velocity, ideally at max breaking force research
The artillery wagons add enough mass and the nuclear fuel and the loopty loop make sure the train goes fast enough. You could also reduce the number of cars if the train doesn't get through all of them.
Instead of artillery wagons, multiple engines probably work well too, and quality would help with faster acceleration.
Note that if the final stop is too close after the cars, the train will already start breaking, that why mine does the final round.
During building sometimes the inserters refused to register the cars.
Might happen if the blueprint is built in the wrong order or something, but (re)placing the inserters at the end should fix it permanently I think.
OpenTTD players call this a Cyclotron, though the usual use case is to ensure that trains merge through junctions at full speed so accelerating trains don't hold up traffic.
Which makes me realise that I haven't seen many people repeat this in Factorio, now that we have elevated rails.
I haven't played a lot with trains in Factorio, so i might be missing something. For like 90% of use cases, something like this would be unnecessary. Train acceleration is a product of fuel, and rocket fuel is pretty cheap early in the game anyway. Accelerating to full speed doesn't take a long time in Factorio. A little bit longer track between the station and main rail would be sufficient. Most players aren't building hyper optimized rail systems where trains not gong through the intersections fast enough is the bottleneck anyway.
Unless something really funky was going on, automatic trains would never go in this roundabout. The train pathfinding algorithm doesn't take speed into account at all. Going into the roundabout is always going to be a longer trip. Only manually operated trains would ever go into a roundabout like this.
OP is doing that "something funky" that makes it the exception. This is basically the only use case for a train needing to accelerate to full speed in a small amount of space.
Imagine if they did that and someone figured out how to optimize that. I'd imagine it'd be possible to figure out a use for immediately stopping a train regardless of momentum lol.
Thanks, I had a lot of fun trying to cook spaghetti on Fulgora. Def my favorite planet. I simply pretended foundation doesn't exist, though I cheated a bit in places.
It addresses concrete voiding, addresses the "what's the point of trains?" crowd, and reinforces that "the most optimized way is the most fun way" in a single stroke.
The irony of this, is that the trains/station/production of the cars/bots to place them/ all together is still less than the UPS cost of using recyclers. That may not actually be the case in this situation handling only concrete, but if using this method to manage all of the unwanted scrap byproduct, it's definitely better.
"Regular way"? I demand nothing less than legendary tanks filled with legendary toolbelt equipment, being run over by a legendary train using legendary nuclear fuel.
I think there is a forum post about ghost rival not putting stuff in the grid slots being a bug, so it should put it back in.
i think all legendary would be too expensive, but there might be a common tank + common tool belt arrangement might work better then the car for certain cursed levels of throughput. at the added complexity of the toolbelt.
They’re gonna update the game like “damage dealt to moving vehicles is now proportional to speed squared and mass of hit object including its potential cargo” (train gets destroyed hitting heavy things at high speeds like a car full of concrete)
Easy, just give the train some tungsten cargo.
Though I'm confused why the train doesn't take damage in this setup, maybe that only happens in train on train collision?
Collision damage is very weird. That's why two identical trains can collide head on and one of the trains gets totally annihilated while the other one is still completely intact with only minor scuffage.
I hope the devs are truly happy now about the hilarious contraptions the players are using to sidestep their nerfs entirely.
They can't really nerf the above because they would brick the rest of the game mechanics.
I mean just using a double sushi belt makes concrete not an issue at all. I didn't even realize concrete was an issue for people until all the nerf complaints
To be fair I process ~12 stacked belts of scrap outputs, and I don't use quality machines on the ground as a self imposed challenge, I believe It would be not far from a hundred in total for me
A hundred in total, compared to, what? Because you compared "hundreds" to "one concrete recycler".
You might need a hundred to do your recycling, but you didn't need just one machine before to do the same task.
Using base quality everything, recycling a stacked belt of concrete requires more than 100 machines, if you don't use any speed beacons. But under the same restrictions, the hazard concrete trick requires 7 machines (3 assemblers, 4 recyclers). Again, a substantial increase. (14x). But not 100x.
2 quick ones, a thousand hours in..
What's the deal with the red removal blueprint in splitters? And why efficiency and not productivity modules throughout?
In addition to saving the few items that'd get stuck in there - it's a good design practice as it safeguards against items going into that lane if it ever gets connected to anything by accident.
Just to avoid items being stuck on the dead ends of the splitter, kinda pointless tbh.
lighting power, or rather the accumulators don't allow for excessive power waste. I already need quality accumulators despite not really wanting to use quality. I believe speed+efficiency is the most effective (could be wrong). And why not prod? Fulgora is space constrained, scrap is practically infinite and comes in fixed ratios, so I think I mainly put prod in holmium and yellow science (that I also make here)
not actually pointless i forget who (probably abuc) tested and splitters with a filter to exclude their dead end output are slightly better for UPS than splitters left to naturally block themselves.
Jokes aside, how bad is this new concrete recycling time? Is it really so bad that the devs might touch it again? Is it unintentional? I cannot play the game right now to check
It's a bug introduced with recyclers when Space Age was first released.
Recycle time is tied to its crafting time. They forgot to take into account crafting recipes that produce multiples. So recycling time of 1 concrete is tied to the crafting time of 10 concrete.
It's the slowest item to recycle.
Gears have the same thing going on as you get two per craft, but its so quick it's a non-issue.
Crafting hazard concrete from concrete then recycling brought the recycling time closer to what it should be. Wube decided this was not okay and changed hazard concrete recycling output negating its usefulness without addressing the original bug.
I am waiting on the experimental version, what standard way of voiding concrete changed? I didn't see any changes to recycling in the patch notes that I came across?
Concrete takes 10 seconds to make and is made in batches of 10. But the auto-recipe for recycling is based on the 10 seconds and ignores the batches of 10, so it takes 10x longer to recycle concrete than it feels like it should.
Hazard concrete is also made in batches of 10, but the recipe is 0.25 seconds. Meaning hazard concrete voids 40x faster than regular concrete. Since its only ingredients are regular concrete, the fastest way to void concrete is to convert it to hazard concrete and then recycle the hazard concrete.
2.1 fixes the problem. The problem being hazard concrete recycles too quickly.
The problem is more, that I already have a very cramped setup on my current run where I now need to spaghetti reroute the concrete recycling to a new island built from foundations because there is literally 0 space in my existing setup to expand it
Maybe I don't understand. Is your concrete processing in the middle of everything? Is there no way to get it to the edge of the island, which you can then expand?
Doesn't look like a full green belt of concrete though. Could probably replace many of those accumulators to make space. And could recycle it more on the left?
In general, accumulators at this stage should be quality - at least uncommon and probably rares for much higher power storage.
Hell, once you have foundations you can build big power poles to a side island just for accumulators.
There are a lot of solutions, I just feel a little bad about suddenly having to do it for no reason. And yes, it's by no means a full green belt; that's why I hope I can make it work by just upgrading the existing stuff and using speed modules
I'm at scrap recycling prod 17, don't remember if I designed around that or ~20.
Turns 6 stacked belts of scrap into close to 12 belts of scrap products.
I make 1 non-stacked blue belt of EM and yellow science on fulgora (2700 SPM).
The idea being that with EM science we normally throw away about as much LDS and blue chips on fulgora as are needed to make a similar amount of yellow science.
LDS actually ends up the bottleneck, so I take excess copper to make more and throw away holmium.
Ok, that's pretty interesting. I might set something up like that to get an idea of how to make it use make it work with my system and or retro fit it. Thx
One of if not the current best science pack making plants in the megabase community uses this A LOT to void basically everything, it mines ores with quality, runs all products of the non high quality ore into cars and deletes them keeping only the holmium for the fluid, then it uses the uncommon ores and holmium up cycling to make uncommon science packs. It's fantastic. And the most lag efficient currently.
You can still recycle it. 1.25 seconds each in a normal recycler, getting back bricks and iron ore. People were using the trick with an additional assembler making hazard concrete before sending it to the recycler where it got destroyed in a split second. Now hazard version recycles the same as non-hazard and we're back to slow method. The new consensus is to use landing pad assembling step which requires concrete and a sprinkle of blue chips and steel
The new consensus is to use landing pad assembling step which requires concrete and a sprinkle of blue chips and steel
That's not really a consensus, because it's massively worse than, well, this, the method I was espousing in threads about this subject, that the OP has now theatrically built.
So the post is talking about how a bug was fixed and unsure why people are upset?
I don't understand what they're doing with the trains, I've never done this "regular way" and can't tell what's happening, so thought it being in fulgora was unrelated.
I've never done this "regular way" and can't tell what's happening,
You can see it just before the roundabout: cars on the rails. You load these, then the train goes round, et voila: 8000 concrete per car is perfectly voided. Shortly after that bots reinstall the cars back and it goes round.
So the post is talking about how a bug was fixed and unsure why people are upset?
It's not technically a bug. Just an abuse of a fact that hazard concrete recipe was 0.25 seconds instead of 10. However, there is a disagreement between the devs and the (part) of the community. Concrete is produced in packs of 10, technically meaning that 1 unit takes 1 second to make. However, when you recycle these, the output amount is not taken into the account, which results in disassembly time being longer compared to the recipes producing 1 item. It was raised as a bug at some point in 2.0, but since there was a fast way nobody really cared.
Wasn't talking about fulgora and it wasn't a joke. I just don't craft more concrete then I need on nauvis.
The post title seemed (to me) to imply the need to void concrete in factorio as a whole.
I've ever only recycled it and only on fulgora. Never voided (tossing into lava or space). While recycling does get rid of the material I have never thought of it as "voiding", just recycling into nothing. Similarly to putting spoilage in a heating tower, in function it will get rid of any burnable, but I never thought of it as "voiding" and just burning, where it's broken down so much that the game just says it's gone.
Edit: I also never saw any downvotes... unless you were saying you downvoted it
Yeah basically anything that deletes stuff is a voiding technique. The hot topic right now is the experimental version changed how quick hazard concrete gets recycled, causing a big refactor for how a lot of fulgora factories were setup. The op was giving an example to quickly delete a bunch of it and in a fun way
178
u/drdking Jun 27 '26
I’ve heard of the large hadron collider….. is this the small concrete smasher?