12:20 "It's better, but it's still not fixed" I think the problem lies with what you want. That setup is actually the best because it's the most efficient! the trains always travel the shortest path possible as long as the station has enough material in the chest to fill it as fast as possible. That's actually the most efficient you can get! That fact that the furthest one has so little visitors is an indicator that you could add more trains to the mix! Having an even distribution is actually LESS efficient than having a distribution like you have with that setup.
I agree, whether the problem is fixed is based on your definition. It's very efficient this way I agree, the problem could be those empty belts which can either be fixed with more trains as you say, or something like a 6 to 4 balancer (depending on the actual consumption needs down line). More trains for more throughput, balancer if you have sparotic consumption. I suppose the other way you could try and address things is to have additional conditions on the stations to close ones with high ammounts if there's one station with very low ammounts available, but I think this impacts the efficiency as well. I think Kitch is trying to use the train network as a balancer, but there's other ways to balance belts. Edit: will be interesting to see what comes out of the changes in 0.17, with temporary and drive-through stations.
The reason for the "confused train syndrome" is because you are messing with the train stations instead of messing with the train signals that are right before the train station. If you move the logic to the train signals instead of the train stations you will solve the empty trains problem, meaning that you won't have any. To make it crystal clear, you should change the train signal for the train station, you should not mess with enabling or disabling a station (in this particular scenario).
I'm not sure how you've set everything up... but you can always add another path after the last station that has no station so the trains can get away if everything is cancelled. And it sounds as if you have too many trains in your network if you encounter that problem.
I second this. I discovered this when I tried to make stations for top and tail trains. If they get confused in this case they don't harmlessly skip a stop but rather get a pathing error and get stuck.
I have had similiar problems as you have discoussed and i find a simple system consisting of: a mass stacker for all trains somewhere on the map and a circuit system telling a signal when to be active or not leading to the station fixes it fast and efficently. Robots also solve the problem with much less hassle! ;)
I haven't played with the logic in this game yet. But this would do it. If train stop1 counter value > lowest trainstop counter value + a constant of 5 then train stop1 off
You may use max-set circuitry for any number of inputs: N inputs N decider combinators. each takes all N inputs and has condition (Ni >= everything) with output Ni=1 sum of outputs of N such combinators = set of inputs which are >= everything so it is set of max values In your case you could compare not pairs of station items but compare all 6 station fullness properties and get max/min for all of them, not pairwise Also this scheme may be developed into single-max/min output by using priorities. That increases ping from 1 tick to 3 ticks because its decider (Ni >= everything) + mult priority + decider (Ni >= everything) for each input.
I know you said you didn't read FFF yet, maybe you did now, but solution G looks even more promising with new drive-thru stations. I personaly either enable/disable stations based on their content (or rather entry signals, as mentioned in another comment) or don't worry about it at all and when I have a problem then throw more trains or outposts at it. But I didn't build big enough base yet to actually need much input/throughput. BTW, try disabling the signals, it might help a bit with the confused trains as mentioned. One warning tho - you have to have a fake station with same name after stacker with an always red signal before it. I think you can figure out how and why. ;)
Also heavy-modded (BA) non-LTN servers use wait-until-requested waiting spots with circuitry which allows departion of trains from waiting spot only when station needs a train with resource. the case where it was useful is BA market with 20+ input item types and only 1-2 arrival stations. all the trains with cargo waited in the waiting spots until market needs item => less arrival stations in the market + trains "sleep" until they are needed. it may be used for vanilla train-based market as well
I really enjoy your videos! They are very informative. I was wondering if you would be willing to share your creative world save. I would lobe to archive your world for future needs. The curcuit logic is especially somerhing i enjoy leqrning from. 😊
possibly you need to put hysteresis logic. If ore 4000 simultaneously stopping loaders. Then trains will fill station up to 4000 and go to refill after 1s inactivity. while this station will be emptied down to 1000, other stations will be heavily filled.
Would putting a waypoint station just past your stackers help? You could also try the A > B scenario, but compare the furthest two trains, then the next 2 so you're working from the outside in. It may help to put the combinator's output all on one line, and label them a-f, then compare a:f, b:e, c:d.
What about if the first station is greater than the last station, then work you through the station so the middle are connected. That may balance better.
12:20
"It's better, but it's still not fixed"
I think the problem lies with what you want.
That setup is actually the best because it's the most efficient!
the trains always travel the shortest path possible as long as the station has enough material in the chest to fill it as fast as possible.
That's actually the most efficient you can get!
That fact that the furthest one has so little visitors is an indicator that you could add more trains to the mix!
Having an even distribution is actually LESS efficient than having a distribution like you have with that setup.
I agree, whether the problem is fixed is based on your definition. It's very efficient this way I agree, the problem could be those empty belts which can either be fixed with more trains as you say, or something like a 6 to 4 balancer (depending on the actual consumption needs down line). More trains for more throughput, balancer if you have sparotic consumption.
I suppose the other way you could try and address things is to have additional conditions on the stations to close ones with high ammounts if there's one station with very low ammounts available, but I think this impacts the efficiency as well. I think Kitch is trying to use the train network as a balancer, but there's other ways to balance belts.
Edit: will be interesting to see what comes out of the changes in 0.17, with temporary and drive-through stations.
The reason for the "confused train syndrome" is because you are messing with the train stations instead of messing with the train signals that are right before the train station. If you move the logic to the train signals instead of the train stations you will solve the empty trains problem, meaning that you won't have any.
To make it crystal clear, you should change the train signal for the train station, you should not mess with enabling or disabling a station (in this particular scenario).
I'm not sure how you've set everything up... but you can always add another path after the last station that has no station so the trains can get away if everything is cancelled.
And it sounds as if you have too many trains in your network if you encounter that problem.
I second this. I discovered this when I tried to make stations for top and tail trains. If they get confused in this case they don't harmlessly skip a stop but rather get a pathing error and get stuck.
I have had similiar problems as you have discoussed and i find a simple system consisting of: a mass stacker for all trains somewhere on the map and a circuit system telling a signal when to be active or not leading to the station fixes it fast and efficently. Robots also solve the problem with much less hassle! ;)
Yay! Another Factorio video!!! I love your videos. (Ps: I play Factorio too, and I dont understand this at all)
Well composed, sir. Thanks for the video.
I haven't played with the logic in this game yet. But this would do it.
If train stop1 counter value > lowest trainstop counter value + a constant of 5 then train stop1 off
You may use max-set circuitry for any number of inputs:
N inputs
N decider combinators. each takes all N inputs and has condition (Ni >= everything) with output Ni=1
sum of outputs of N such combinators = set of inputs which are >= everything so it is set of max values
In your case you could compare not pairs of station items but compare all 6 station fullness properties and get max/min for all of them, not pairwise
Also this scheme may be developed into single-max/min output by using priorities. That increases ping from 1 tick to 3 ticks because its decider (Ni >= everything) + mult priority + decider (Ni >= everything) for each input.
I know you said you didn't read FFF yet, maybe you did now, but solution G looks even more promising with new drive-thru stations. I personaly either enable/disable stations based on their content (or rather entry signals, as mentioned in another comment) or don't worry about it at all and when I have a problem then throw more trains or outposts at it. But I didn't build big enough base yet to actually need much input/throughput.
BTW, try disabling the signals, it might help a bit with the confused trains as mentioned. One warning tho - you have to have a fake station with same name after stacker with an always red signal before it. I think you can figure out how and why. ;)
Also heavy-modded (BA) non-LTN servers use wait-until-requested waiting spots with circuitry which allows departion of trains from waiting spot only when station needs a train with resource. the case where it was useful is BA market with 20+ input item types and only 1-2 arrival stations. all the trains with cargo waited in the waiting spots until market needs item => less arrival stations in the market + trains "sleep" until they are needed. it may be used for vanilla train-based market as well
What's BA?
@@mementomori5580 Bob+Angel set of mods
Bob mods.factorio.com/user/Bobingabout
Angel mods.factorio.com/user/Arch666Angel
@@Murder-less Ah ok, thanks :)
I really enjoy your videos! They are very informative. I was wondering if you would be willing to share your creative world save. I would lobe to archive your world for future needs. The curcuit logic is especially somerhing i enjoy leqrning from. 😊
possibly you need to put hysteresis logic. If ore 4000 simultaneously stopping loaders. Then trains will fill station up to 4000 and go to refill after 1s inactivity. while this station will be emptied down to 1000, other stations will be heavily filled.
Would putting a waypoint station just past your stackers help?
You could also try the A > B scenario, but compare the furthest two trains, then the next 2 so you're working from the outside in. It may help to put the combinator's output all on one line, and label them a-f, then compare a:f, b:e, c:d.
I remember when you had 400 subs
:D
I remember when I had 4 :P
What about if the first station is greater than the last station, then work you through the station so the middle are connected. That may balance better.
but a circuit can be blueprinted and single stations not ;)
Very interesting video
Try not to disable the stations, instead disable the signal leading into that station
If you ever do another episodes on Trains, please disable the F*CKING SOUNDS!!! Or I won't watch.