Proliferators have really changed the way I construct things. The compounding effect has made me use modular ILS designs that are more focused on the construction of singular intermediate products to ship around rather than whole end products.
Great vid, and yeah the compounding benefit is huge, it's not so noticable on short chains, but once you're up to 3-4 links it really starts to mount up. Green cubes for example, 5 per second requires 115 iron ore per second, fully proliferated with Mk2 proliferator drops this to 38 iron ore a second a 70%+ reduction. I can't wait to fully proliferate rockets and all sorts of long chains!
I was about to completely fail my math and ask 'doesn't the speedup have the same kind of compounding effect?' when I realized that you need the proliferation at each step to reduce the required buildings at each step. Some positives for the speedup are that the throughput is insane and it makes full use of the pilers, and it requires much less energy than the extra products. For my challenge run with 0.5x resources, the extra products has been a lifesaver, even if it drains my energy reserves dry. Essentially you are creating things out of nothing, for the low low price of the spray fluid.
@@TheDutchActuary I stand corrected. The longer the production chain, the more effect the compounding has. In fiddling about with FactorioLab's calculator, I tested 1 belt of Quantum Chips. Fully proliferated, speed requires 20k MW, products requires 17k MW. This difference is even more pronounced the longer the production line is. Of course it is likely easier to proliferate for speed because the calculations are easier and the space requirements are less, but overall extra products are better.
Great vid, I've taken different options depending on production. Mostly I will only proflorite end or high value products in the chain and the final product that comes out.
Best explanation I've seen, and I really like the visual aids. 👍 +Products is my go-to -- almost always smaller, faster, cheaper. I've tried speedup in a couple places but the extra power and supply demands are pretty real. Might not be worth it depending on your situation. Also -- the DPS calculator on factoriolab has been updated for proliferators. Choose a proliferator for the steps where you want them and it automatically adjusts the building numbers to maintain the same output. It's wonderful for those of us who aren't professional mathematicians. Or just lazy. 😉
Yeah the production speedup really only has a couple uses. The most relevant one would be if you're trying to save space on a specific step, since it does the most for that step in terms of space savings (half the machines for the same output); but you have to keep in mind that you're missing out on space savings in earlier steps in the chain. The other use is if you have a mall, where you only want one assembler of each building (assuming you have the resources to support doing this). Extra products is much better in most other cases. For the cost of a tiny amount of coal/diamonds/nanotubes, you can produce significantly more end products, assuming you proliferate the whole chain. My goal with the cluster I'm working on now is to get it cleaned up from all the early game mess (though I tend to make less mess than most, I think), replace all the regular miners with advanced miners (working on this now), then try to put proliferation on any builds I can squeeze it into (I tend to build things as compact as possible). Also, I'm not sure what I'm going to do about stacking just yet. You can do some crazy things with it, but my builds are already pretty big, so I'm not sure how I'd fit in the extra machines to make use of the extra belt capacity.
I always use extra products for my factory, it reduce the total raw ore you have to find across the map. Extra Products is like free items, and of course more compatible/useful in low resources multiplier seeds. But Production Speedup can also be used to improve game performance and save data, since the required amount of machines/facilities is only at half
In terms of the amount of machines: Check the count in the example, it's not that far off from eachother! This only gets better as you get into longer production chains!
Saving warpers… power for those ships… etc. Not to mention that rare resources are rare and should be sprayed^2 from step one. Products are the only option.
This is really well demonstrated, but I'm thinking for a long-term game (and they all are) the concern is getting the most out of your raw resources as possible unless they are actually infinite. Most resources are finite, so Extra Products is going to be the best choice. Harvesting gas giants is effectively an infinite resource, so wouldn't Speedup be more useful when using those resources? Crude oil is sort of infinite, starting at a certain rate and dropping off over time (not production amount), so wouldn't that be even more useful to Speedup?
Endgame no resource is finite, as the vein efficiency takes care of that. From that angle, you could argue that speed therefore is always better.... but that only holds if you don't care about how many miners you have to place, don't care about the amount of buildings, and don't care about energy efficiency. But yea, there's a solid case for speed, so it does actually comes down to preference!
ok, so i did come in with the opinion that 100% production is better and now I see why 25% products can be better and how in all technicality that little small button actually has nothing to do with production (inputs/outputs with #'s) but is purely about 3 different play styles/ways to go about building in the late gate, NOT which produces more. This is actually very clever now that I understand it. The way he set the factories up in the video where he had every step to make that item from raw ore in 1 setup is 100% a different play style than than a forge world type play style where you make massive blueprints for just Iron ingot or copper ingot and have those feed my massive magnetic coil blueprints which feed my electrical motor blueprint and every blueprint has it's own logistics tower etc. It's seems that there are 3 ways to play: 1. New/average player - No prolif/using prolif only to compensate for an exact reason creating no waste/idle time because your just trying to beat the game by building a dyson's sphere. Long-term players: 2. The forge world people who build massive factory setups for individual Items that all have their own logistics tower(many towers per item sometimes like Iron ingots) heavily heavily rely on logistics vessels to be the glue that bonds everything together. These kinds of setups is why I thought was 100% better and IMO is when you want to always use 100% production because you made sure power is not an issue since the vessels use power, your 100% production on everything uses more power. It's kind of a quicker but lazier way to play. This setup allows for a lot of factories to have a lot of idle time until they are needed to fill the tower of the next component really fast then 50% of everything goes idle once the next tower is full. This is when you want to build the big awesome spheres but in a wild and chaotic way, some people have no chill and this play style suits those people, that's me :) 3. The methodical player which is what I would say this video shows, where you build what you need for that item all in 1 blueprint, which is interesting now that I'm writing about it. There are tiers to the items/components - tier 1 is ores - tier 2 is the ingots (refined) made from ores - tier 3 are components made from manipulation or combination of ingots smelted from raw ore. - tier 4 is finally the "actually useable" item which you can use to craft different items which could be tier 5 but they are both just items/an addition step The point is while the methodical player will also rely on vessels to transport the items, they will have way less vessels being used because no teir 1, 2 or 3 will ever be transported so less power demand. With this setup I think people should always use the 25% more products because of the tier type setups which means they take up a little less room and and use less power so this build is perfect for people who don't have massive power grids but want to expand. My guess is tier builds have a lot more math involved and this would be the more tedious play style, whereas forge world is just more vessels, more planets more power. I started this on phone and started commenting my bias opinion before watching. Comment got big and I got on PC to finish it and at that point I'm like hour and a half into writing but realized that I see zero value in 25% products and there must be some value so I watched the video and that's when I finally seen it, erased everything and then wrote this. It's hard to write when your learning new info at the same time, I'm like 3 hours into this. :)
@@TheDutchActuary "25% extra content!" Now I'm not saving resources (time) now I'm going to go for 100% production 😄 I write comments bigger than this every 3 days on youtube, for like 15yrs so it is nothing to write this. Don't feel like I spent a lot of time writing this and I'm doing too much, it's normal for me. I've done 30hrs in creative since that message and I think I have the info, I just need to write so my brain can put it all together, it's a thing I do. I don't believe 1 is better than the other but that they both have a certain purpose and there is not a clear indication of when you should use 25% or 100%. I can't tell where that line is exactly so I've been trying to find it and this is the best I have so far. If you have revisited this issue in a new video plz let me know because this is 2 years old and you may already know the things i'm just figuring out. I still stand by the, "if it's a rare resource, you need to use 25% for every step of the process". if you need more of the item faster than your 25% setup can do then do alt recipe also, all rare veins should be 25% all the way, all day. You proved that if you want to make turbines @5/s that 25% is better and I have no arguments with that because your biggest claim for using 25% is you need less and less factories needing less power over all. In my mind, when your always fighting for more power, 25% would just simply be the answer because you get the most out of everything and use less power doing it, like a "duh" situation. Lets say you want to make gears at 20/s: --25% would be 16F(factories) to make 20/s. those 16F need 12.8/s ingots, so you need 10.24 iron ingot smelters to be able to make 12.8/s ingots. To make 12.8/s ingot the 10.24 smelter will need 8.192 Iron Ore per sec ------To make 20/s you need 26 factories with the 25% --100% would need 10 factories to make 20/s. those 10F will need 20/s iron ingot so you need 10 Iron ingot smelters to make 20/s iron ingot. To make 20/s you need 20 factories with 100% when you are making turbines it's better to do 25% for power AND use less resources when you make gears it's better to do 100% for power BUT use same resources. so the difference between these 2 things (except for resources used) is how many steps that use assemblers. When making gears the process stops at the first use of assemblers versus making turbines there are 4 steps that use assemblers and why everything benefits so much from 25% So then I think, does that mean the line for 25% vs. 100% is when the process goes from smelter to assemblers. I haven't made this the answer but I'm leaning towards it. I think making a turbine setup like you did and putting the smelting in the same setup can be counter productive depending on the situation "low on power", "low on resource veins" or "low on buildable space" those are the 3 things ratio'ed together are going to make you decide between 25% or 100% If you are making: turbines that need 30/s iron ingot total, in separate build you need 15/s iron ingot for motors, separate build you need 10/s iron ingot for circuit boards, and 5/s because you are making belts, that is a total of 60/s iron ingot needed if all assemblers are working. -60/s iron ingot at 25% needs 48 smelters and uses 38.4 iron ore per sec -60/s iron ingot at 100% needs 30 smelters and use 60 iron ore per sec this is why I write, I didn't even put this together till now. Because of this, that means the power you are saving by needing less assemblers is causing you to need more smelters per setup than you would if you did a setup with just iron ingot smelters at 100%, which would save even more power. The setup being from ore to item causes you to use more smelters, you just can't see it because they are spread out between the setups for each item. You don't save resources (ore) by using 100% on the smelters but it's iron ingot, that only needs iron ore and is the most abundant resources in system. Are you making green or pink containers that require unipolar, POWER IS NOT THE PROBLEM, everything smelted and assembled should be at 25% extra. This means you could have made 2000 items total but because you used 25% every step you can end up making like 12,000, it has crazy exponential. Are you making turbines that require multiple resources that are made by assemblers, that require items smelted from the most common resources but don't have the power, then you should 100% for your smelters and 25% your assemblers together or in separate builds. It gets tricky though, because if I need the 60/s iron ingot but i want to make gears also, I would make a separate setup for the gears that is ore to item because the item I want ends at the first use of assemblers. I could just make my 100% iron ingot setup bigger and then make a gear setup without smelters and it would save power. Instead I would rather the setups that use a lot of assemblers per setup, use the ingots from my 100%. Even though you are not getting everything you can from the ores out of the ground with 100% on smelters, if every step after the smelters is 25% then at least you make the most from the smelted items. The other use for 100% is fine-tuning your 25% assembler setup. The numbers are arbitrary, im going off memory but the point is there. With whole numbers being multiplied by .5 in the 100% setups all answers will be whole numbers (easier math) With 25% you will get where you need 12.8 motor assemblers requiring 10.24/s ingot, 5.12/s coils, and 5.12/s gears (annoying math) which means you need 13 assemblers at 25% to get what you want, BUT what if you remove the 13th assembler and because you need .8 more, make assembler 12 and 11 100%, this allows you to have even less assemblers than what the 25% requires needing even less power, but you do have to chase the problem you created. 9F @25% and 2F @100% means you will not need as much power because you removed F13 but you do need more resources as a result. with the 11th and 12th assemblers at 100% the whole setup needs 11.08/s ingots, 5.90/s coils and 5.90/s gears. Your gears and coil factories can handle the increase in demand but the iron ingots now require another smelter to get the 11.08/s OR you can only change 1 smelter to 100% and keep the same amount of smelters, you just use a little bit more resources so you don't have to add a smelter needing more power. yea, ok that was fun, thanks for reading and if you can see any issues with what I said plz tell me.
Mixing 25% with 100% actually makes the math easier -To make 50/s turbines you need 80F for turbines. -80F require 128 motors and to get that you need 204.8F for motors. -204.8 assemblers needed for motors .8 > .5 so I uses 2 assemblers from the 204 to make 100%. 202F @ 25% 2F @ 100% From what I can tell you should never make more than 2 assemblers in any setup 100%. By the time you are making a 3rd assembler 100% then your math was wrong from the start.
Said that last part wrong, you should never make more than 2 assemblers ""per step in the setup"" 100%. Turbines have 4 steps that use assemblers so you should never go over 8 factories @ 100% in the whole setup. 204.(a) factories--- If (a) < .5 then you should only use 1 assembler at 100% when doing the math on paper. (a) < .5 use 1 assembler @ 100% (a) > .5 use 2 assemblers @ 100% You can really fine-tune like this easy once you have the whole setup complete and you watch the belts and make adjustments.
@@shawnbybee85 You can mix & match to make the math easier, but honestly if you're doing proliferated builds using extra products I would recommend using a calculator (or DIY spreadsheet ofc!) and just make the calculation a non-issue. Using speed options just means you're leaving some (exponential) resource savings and power savings on the table. This is of course purely from an optimizing perspective - There's nothing wrong with using whatever option for proliferation you prefer (including not using proliferation at all!)
Would their be any benefit to mixing types throughout the chain, for example: Spray "Extra Product" onto anything inputting into a smelter & switching to spraying "Speed" onto anything inputting into an assembler?
Not really, although you could use it to min/max your production chain. You get into plenty of places where you need something like '4,5 smelter of X' . So you could mix&match to get to round numbers, but that's just overdesigning things imho.
Has it ever occured to you that in your turbine example, you could be proliferating the smelters with speed instead of extra product and actually save more space and reduce the number of buildings?
Of course, but building space is never really an issue (I've personally never been able to fill 64 systems worth of planets with buildings anyway, nor come close to that). The extra production scales down the number of buildings exponentially rather than linearly, so does a pretty good job at catching up in the longer production chain as well - with the added benefit of requiring less resources as inputs.
that's really not the case, they are superior almost in every situation but when you do planetary scale build the space is a big factor, and able to cut down the machine needed for the build is sometime very beneficial
Depends on what you're doing on that planet, but generally speaking you will actually save more space by using the extra items, because that ends up working exponentially throughout the entire production chain. Exponential savings are better than linear savings :) If you dedicate entire planets to a single item however, the above does not apply and the speed increase will save you the most space. But have you really ever run out of planets? :O
Not allways.its OPOSITIVE most of time. and i explain. what difference between prolifiration Mk1 and base MK3 assembler do every notice this or not? Mk1 x1.5 production speed, Energy cost 675kW Mk3 x1.5 production speed, Energy cost 1080 kW Thats mean this way DECREASE energy consumption on 405kw with same production speed economy is 38,5% of ENERGY. its choose between 38,5% energy consuption or 25% of bonus production. You can say pal....its 25% production. I can answer. i BUILD more a 38,5% MORE Assemblers and they be doing this 25% production, but i prolifirate and for them, and they have less consumption, and for this part can build even MORE assemblers and in the end its be a lot more that this actual 38,5%. in comparing its be near 35% more production,cuz i just BUild more for cheaper cost of energy. What stop player from scaling at most? 2 problems always? place to build and Energy. You can MINE every single planet in galaxy with Speed prolifiration on some buildings. But Need thinking little more. And i late game when you start Building actual Dyson sphere or sail, you have a tons of energy and you can use Mk2. its be x2 production and 1500kw. math to match MK3 numbers. 3 mk2 vs 4 mk3 .6 product Vs 6 product . 4500kw VS 4320. were i win? in amount and placement. Cuz mk3 need 25% more place with same speed and energy. and becaus i have many energy fro Dyson Sphere and just simply build on 25 MORE MK2 to have more production and proliferate them. so YES.its OPOSITIVE most of time. DO NOT USE production proliferating cuz you can benefit more from SPEED most of the time. Only use production on materials what RARE to you in this current moment to make first science or nenesary first buildings.
Proliferators have really changed the way I construct things. The compounding effect has made me use modular ILS designs that are more focused on the construction of singular intermediate products to ship around rather than whole end products.
Great vid, and yeah the compounding benefit is huge, it's not so noticable on short chains, but once you're up to 3-4 links it really starts to mount up. Green cubes for example, 5 per second requires 115 iron ore per second, fully proliferated with Mk2 proliferator drops this to 38 iron ore a second a 70%+ reduction.
I can't wait to fully proliferate rockets and all sorts of long chains!
I was about to completely fail my math and ask 'doesn't the speedup have the same kind of compounding effect?' when I realized that you need the proliferation at each step to reduce the required buildings at each step. Some positives for the speedup are that the throughput is insane and it makes full use of the pilers, and it requires much less energy than the extra products. For my challenge run with 0.5x resources, the extra products has been a lifesaver, even if it drains my energy reserves dry. Essentially you are creating things out of nothing, for the low low price of the spray fluid.
The ' needs much less energy ' is debatable. For early production, sure, but the compounding effect becomes more noticable in late(r) game.
@@TheDutchActuary I stand corrected. The longer the production chain, the more effect the compounding has. In fiddling about with FactorioLab's calculator, I tested 1 belt of Quantum Chips. Fully proliferated, speed requires 20k MW, products requires 17k MW. This difference is even more pronounced the longer the production line is. Of course it is likely easier to proliferate for speed because the calculations are easier and the space requirements are less, but overall extra products are better.
Great vid, I've taken different options depending on production. Mostly I will only proflorite end or high value products in the chain and the final product that comes out.
Best explanation I've seen, and I really like the visual aids. 👍 +Products is my go-to -- almost always smaller, faster, cheaper. I've tried speedup in a couple places but the extra power and supply demands are pretty real. Might not be worth it depending on your situation.
Also -- the DPS calculator on factoriolab has been updated for proliferators. Choose a proliferator for the steps where you want them and it automatically adjusts the building numbers to maintain the same output. It's wonderful for those of us who aren't professional mathematicians. Or just lazy. 😉
It's smart how they've implemented proliferation. There's more visual feedback than with Factorio's modules.
Yeah the production speedup really only has a couple uses. The most relevant one would be if you're trying to save space on a specific step, since it does the most for that step in terms of space savings (half the machines for the same output); but you have to keep in mind that you're missing out on space savings in earlier steps in the chain. The other use is if you have a mall, where you only want one assembler of each building (assuming you have the resources to support doing this).
Extra products is much better in most other cases. For the cost of a tiny amount of coal/diamonds/nanotubes, you can produce significantly more end products, assuming you proliferate the whole chain.
My goal with the cluster I'm working on now is to get it cleaned up from all the early game mess (though I tend to make less mess than most, I think), replace all the regular miners with advanced miners (working on this now), then try to put proliferation on any builds I can squeeze it into (I tend to build things as compact as possible). Also, I'm not sure what I'm going to do about stacking just yet. You can do some crazy things with it, but my builds are already pretty big, so I'm not sure how I'd fit in the extra machines to make use of the extra belt capacity.
Great video. I like your approach. I'll have to start spraying!
I always use extra products for my factory, it reduce the total raw ore you have to find across the map. Extra Products is like free items, and of course more compatible/useful in low resources multiplier seeds. But Production Speedup can also be used to improve game performance and save data, since the required amount of machines/facilities is only at half
Good point about machine count. Good late game optimization.
In terms of the amount of machines: Check the count in the example, it's not that far off from eachother! This only gets better as you get into longer production chains!
Saving warpers… power for those ships… etc. Not to mention that rare resources are rare and should be sprayed^2 from step one. Products are the only option.
This is really well demonstrated, but I'm thinking for a long-term game (and they all are) the concern is getting the most out of your raw resources as possible unless they are actually infinite. Most resources are finite, so Extra Products is going to be the best choice. Harvesting gas giants is effectively an infinite resource, so wouldn't Speedup be more useful when using those resources? Crude oil is sort of infinite, starting at a certain rate and dropping off over time (not production amount), so wouldn't that be even more useful to Speedup?
Endgame no resource is finite, as the vein efficiency takes care of that. From that angle, you could argue that speed therefore is always better.... but that only holds if you don't care about how many miners you have to place, don't care about the amount of buildings, and don't care about energy efficiency.
But yea, there's a solid case for speed, so it does actually comes down to preference!
I like it for basic oil. Can saturate a blue belt+stacked with less than the full circumference of a planet with refineries.
ok, so i did come in with the opinion that 100% production is better and now I see why 25% products can be better and how in all technicality that little small button actually has nothing to do with production (inputs/outputs with #'s) but is purely about 3 different play styles/ways to go about building in the late gate, NOT which produces more. This is actually very clever now that I understand it.
The way he set the factories up in the video where he had every step to make that item from raw ore in 1 setup is 100% a different play style than than a forge world type play style where you make massive blueprints for just Iron ingot or copper ingot and have those feed my massive magnetic coil blueprints which feed my electrical motor blueprint and every blueprint has it's own logistics tower etc.
It's seems that there are 3 ways to play:
1. New/average player - No prolif/using prolif only to compensate for an exact reason creating no waste/idle time because your just trying to beat the game by building a dyson's sphere.
Long-term players:
2. The forge world people who build massive factory setups for individual Items that all have their own logistics tower(many towers per item sometimes like Iron ingots) heavily heavily rely on logistics vessels to be the glue that bonds everything together. These kinds of setups is why I thought was 100% better and IMO is when you want to always use 100% production because you made sure power is not an issue since the vessels use power, your 100% production on everything uses more power. It's kind of a quicker but lazier way to play. This setup allows for a lot of factories to have a lot of idle time until they are needed to fill the tower of the next component really fast then 50% of everything goes idle once the next tower is full. This is when you want to build the big awesome spheres but in a wild and chaotic way, some people have no chill and this play style suits those people, that's me :)
3. The methodical player which is what I would say this video shows, where you build what you need for that item all in 1 blueprint, which is interesting now that I'm writing about it.
There are tiers to the items/components
- tier 1 is ores
- tier 2 is the ingots (refined) made from ores
- tier 3 are components made from manipulation or combination of ingots smelted from raw ore.
- tier 4 is finally the "actually useable" item which you can use to craft different items which could be tier 5 but they are both just items/an addition step
The point is while the methodical player will also rely on vessels to transport the items, they will have way less vessels being used because no teir 1, 2 or 3 will ever be transported so less power demand. With this setup I think people should always use the 25% more products because of the tier type setups which means they take up a little less room and and use less power so this build is perfect for people who don't have massive power grids but want to expand. My guess is tier builds have a lot more math involved and this would be the more tedious play style, whereas forge world is just more vessels, more planets more power.
I started this on phone and started commenting my bias opinion before watching. Comment got big and I got on PC to finish it and at that point I'm like hour and a half into writing but realized that I see zero value in 25% products and there must be some value so I watched the video and that's when I finally seen it, erased everything and then wrote this. It's hard to write when your learning new info at the same time, I'm like 3 hours into this. :)
This comment got serious proliferation buff as well, way more than 25% extra content! :D
@@TheDutchActuary "25% extra content!" Now I'm not saving resources (time) now I'm going to go for 100% production 😄 I write comments bigger than this every 3 days on youtube, for like 15yrs so it is nothing to write this. Don't feel like I spent a lot of time writing this and I'm doing too much, it's normal for me.
I've done 30hrs in creative since that message and I think I have the info, I just need to write so my brain can put it all together, it's a thing I do.
I don't believe 1 is better than the other but that they both have a certain purpose and there is not a clear indication of when you should use 25% or 100%. I can't tell where that line is exactly so I've been trying to find it and this is the best I have so far. If you have revisited this issue in a new video plz let me know because this is 2 years old and you may already know the things i'm just figuring out.
I still stand by the, "if it's a rare resource, you need to use 25% for every step of the process". if you need more of the item faster than your 25% setup can do then do alt recipe also, all rare veins should be 25% all the way, all day.
You proved that if you want to make turbines @5/s that 25% is better and I have no arguments with that because your biggest claim for using 25% is you need less and less factories needing less power over all. In my mind, when your always fighting for more power, 25% would just simply be the answer because you get the most out of everything and use less power doing it, like a "duh" situation.
Lets say you want to make gears at 20/s:
--25% would be 16F(factories) to make 20/s. those 16F need 12.8/s ingots, so you need 10.24 iron ingot smelters to be able to make 12.8/s ingots. To make 12.8/s ingot the 10.24 smelter will need 8.192 Iron Ore per sec ------To make 20/s you need 26 factories with the 25%
--100% would need 10 factories to make 20/s. those 10F will need 20/s iron ingot so you need 10 Iron ingot smelters to make 20/s iron ingot. To make 20/s you need 20 factories with 100%
when you are making turbines it's better to do 25% for power AND use less resources
when you make gears it's better to do 100% for power BUT use same resources.
so the difference between these 2 things (except for resources used) is how many steps that use assemblers. When making gears the process stops at the first use of assemblers versus making turbines there are 4 steps that use assemblers and why everything benefits so much from 25%
So then I think, does that mean the line for 25% vs. 100% is when the process goes from smelter to assemblers. I haven't made this the answer but I'm leaning towards it. I think making a turbine setup like you did and putting the smelting in the same setup can be counter productive depending on the situation "low on power", "low on resource veins" or "low on buildable space" those are the 3 things ratio'ed together are going to make you decide between 25% or 100%
If you are making: turbines that need 30/s iron ingot total, in separate build you need 15/s iron ingot for motors, separate build you need 10/s iron ingot for circuit boards, and 5/s because you are making belts, that is a total of 60/s iron ingot needed if all assemblers are working.
-60/s iron ingot at 25% needs 48 smelters and uses 38.4 iron ore per sec
-60/s iron ingot at 100% needs 30 smelters and use 60 iron ore per sec
this is why I write, I didn't even put this together till now.
Because of this, that means the power you are saving by needing less assemblers is causing you to need more smelters per setup than you would if you did a setup with just iron ingot smelters at 100%, which would save even more power. The setup being from ore to item causes you to use more smelters, you just can't see it because they are spread out between the setups for each item. You don't save resources (ore) by using 100% on the smelters but it's iron ingot, that only needs iron ore and is the most abundant resources in system.
Are you making green or pink containers that require unipolar, POWER IS NOT THE PROBLEM, everything smelted and assembled should be at 25% extra. This means you could have made 2000 items total but because you used 25% every step you can end up making like 12,000, it has crazy exponential. Are you making turbines that require multiple resources that are made by assemblers, that require items smelted from the most common resources but don't have the power, then you should 100% for your smelters and 25% your assemblers together or in separate builds.
It gets tricky though, because if I need the 60/s iron ingot but i want to make gears also, I would make a separate setup for the gears that is ore to item because the item I want ends at the first use of assemblers. I could just make my 100% iron ingot setup bigger and then make a gear setup without smelters and it would save power. Instead I would rather the setups that use a lot of assemblers per setup, use the ingots from my 100%. Even though you are not getting everything you can from the ores out of the ground with 100% on smelters, if every step after the smelters is 25% then at least you make the most from the smelted items.
The other use for 100% is fine-tuning your 25% assembler setup. The numbers are arbitrary, im going off memory but the point is there.
With whole numbers being multiplied by .5 in the 100% setups all answers will be whole numbers (easier math)
With 25% you will get where you need 12.8 motor assemblers requiring 10.24/s ingot, 5.12/s coils, and 5.12/s gears (annoying math) which means you need 13 assemblers at 25% to get what you want, BUT what if you remove the 13th assembler and because you need .8 more, make assembler 12 and 11 100%, this allows you to have even less assemblers than what the 25% requires needing even less power, but you do have to chase the problem you created.
9F @25% and 2F @100% means you will not need as much power because you removed F13 but you do need more resources as a result. with the 11th and 12th assemblers at 100% the whole setup needs 11.08/s ingots, 5.90/s coils and 5.90/s gears. Your gears and coil factories can handle the increase in demand but the iron ingots now require another smelter to get the 11.08/s OR you can only change 1 smelter to 100% and keep the same amount of smelters, you just use a little bit more resources so you don't have to add a smelter needing more power.
yea, ok that was fun, thanks for reading and if you can see any issues with what I said plz tell me.
Mixing 25% with 100% actually makes the math easier
-To make 50/s turbines you need 80F for turbines.
-80F require 128 motors and to get that you need 204.8F for motors.
-204.8 assemblers needed for motors
.8 > .5 so I uses 2 assemblers from the 204 to make 100%.
202F @ 25%
2F @ 100%
From what I can tell you should never make more than 2 assemblers in any setup 100%. By the time you are making a 3rd assembler 100% then your math was wrong from the start.
Said that last part wrong, you should never make more than 2 assemblers ""per step in the setup"" 100%.
Turbines have 4 steps that use assemblers so you should never go over 8 factories @ 100% in the whole setup.
204.(a) factories--- If (a) < .5 then you should only use 1 assembler at 100% when doing the math on paper.
(a) < .5 use 1 assembler @ 100%
(a) > .5 use 2 assemblers @ 100%
You can really fine-tune like this easy once you have the whole setup complete and you watch the belts and make adjustments.
@@shawnbybee85 You can mix & match to make the math easier, but honestly if you're doing proliferated builds using extra products I would recommend using a calculator (or DIY spreadsheet ofc!) and just make the calculation a non-issue. Using speed options just means you're leaving some (exponential) resource savings and power savings on the table.
This is of course purely from an optimizing perspective - There's nothing wrong with using whatever option for proliferation you prefer (including not using proliferation at all!)
Would their be any benefit to mixing types throughout the chain, for example: Spray "Extra Product" onto anything inputting into a smelter & switching to spraying "Speed" onto anything inputting into an assembler?
Not really, although you could use it to min/max your production chain. You get into plenty of places where you need something like '4,5 smelter of X' . So you could mix&match to get to round numbers, but that's just overdesigning things imho.
Has it ever occured to you that in your turbine example, you could be proliferating the smelters with speed instead of extra product and actually save more space and reduce the number of buildings?
Of course, but building space is never really an issue (I've personally never been able to fill 64 systems worth of planets with buildings anyway, nor come close to that). The extra production scales down the number of buildings exponentially rather than linearly, so does a pretty good job at catching up in the longer production chain as well - with the added benefit of requiring less resources as inputs.
@@TheDutchActuary I meant to say that you could be using the speed proliferation for smelters on your example and extra product on assemblers.
that's really not the case, they are superior almost in every situation but when you do planetary scale build the space is a big factor, and able to cut down the machine needed for the build is sometime very beneficial
Depends on what you're doing on that planet, but generally speaking you will actually save more space by using the extra items, because that ends up working exponentially throughout the entire production chain. Exponential savings are better than linear savings :)
If you dedicate entire planets to a single item however, the above does not apply and the speed increase will save you the most space. But have you really ever run out of planets? :O
What about spraying stacked goods?
It uses one spray per item, regardless of how high they are stacked.
Doesn't work (at least, if the goal was to save on ' sprays '): 4 in a stack = 4 sprays, just like normal.
@@TheDutchActuary You expressed that better than I did. 4 in a stack = 4 sprays, yep.
Not allways.its OPOSITIVE most of time. and i explain.
what difference between prolifiration Mk1 and base MK3 assembler do every notice this or not?
Mk1 x1.5 production speed, Energy cost 675kW
Mk3 x1.5 production speed, Energy cost 1080 kW
Thats mean this way DECREASE energy consumption on 405kw with same production speed economy is 38,5% of ENERGY.
its choose between 38,5% energy consuption or 25% of bonus production.
You can say pal....its 25% production.
I can answer. i BUILD more a 38,5% MORE Assemblers and they be doing this 25% production, but i prolifirate and for them, and they have less consumption, and for this part can build even MORE assemblers and in the end its be a lot more that this actual 38,5%.
in comparing its be near 35% more production,cuz i just BUild more for cheaper cost of energy.
What stop player from scaling at most? 2 problems always?
place to build and Energy.
You can MINE every single planet in galaxy with Speed prolifiration on some buildings. But Need thinking little more.
And i late game when you start Building actual Dyson sphere or sail, you have a tons of energy and you can use Mk2.
its be x2 production and 1500kw. math to match MK3 numbers.
3 mk2 vs 4 mk3
.6 product Vs 6 product
. 4500kw VS 4320.
were i win?
in amount and placement. Cuz mk3 need 25% more place with same speed and energy. and becaus i have many energy fro Dyson Sphere and just simply build on 25 MORE MK2 to have more production and proliferate them.
so YES.its OPOSITIVE most of time. DO NOT USE production proliferating cuz you can benefit more from SPEED most of the time.
Only use production on materials what RARE to you in this current moment to make first science or nenesary first buildings.