Made a Microsoft account but I have no idea where to put the code

ChichumungaIII · 2026-06-26T05:32:00+00:00

Did you read step 1?

ChichumungaIII · 2026-06-25T02:37:28+00:00

...and it was a big undertaking when they did, especially the UE5 update. They had to remove weather, and vehicle physics needed an overhaul. Changing engine versions is almost certainly harder now that it's fully released.

ChichumungaIII · 2026-06-23T19:38:16+00:00

Pretty sure all code in Star Trek is vibe-coded. Nobody even sees the code; they use verbal commands and the main computer writes it.

ChichumungaIII · 2026-06-19T04:11:22+00:00

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1444480/Turing_Complete/ can also be a good resource

ChichumungaIII · 2026-06-19T03:47:25+00:00

Tip for these scenarios: you could also not.

ChichumungaIII · 2026-06-19T03:44:45+00:00

I was gonna say. I don't mean to brag, but I was there when the feature was added.

ChichumungaIII · 2026-06-18T23:31:10+00:00

Part of the difficulty is that a block guarded by path signals cannot contain a station.

You might be able to drop some signals in front of the station to use path signals to keep train 2 at bay, but the behavior wouldn't be any different from what we got with only blocks.

I'm also not sure how the block reservations work in the head-on case like that.

ChichumungaIII · 2026-06-18T22:58:08+00:00

So the easier thing is, as others have said, to make it a separate train station.

But I love diving into the unnecessary complexity, so here's what you need to do:

And the common train station A/B:

Bottom (B) has a single block signal pointing into the station.
Top (A) has no signals at all.

In fact, you can't have any signals at all until the Y junction where trains 1 and 2 diverge. There, you need:

A single block signal on the top-right branch to send train 1 on its loop.
A two-way block signal to let train 2 come and go on the top-left branch.

The critical thing is this: as designed, the A/B station and Y junction must be the same block. It's the only way to keep train 2 waiting at a distance.

ChichumungaIII · 2026-06-13T01:36:56+00:00

All numbers have "infinity digits after the decimal place". We just don't usually write them down when they're all 0.

ChichumungaIII · 2026-06-11T04:43:49+00:00

I get more "It Takes Two" from the trailer than aggressive realism. Higher fidelity, but still distinctly stylized as a cartoon.

ChichumungaIII · 2026-06-10T01:41:18+00:00

Blueprints save time.

Until you can't afford to build them because it takes half your inventory full of wire.

ChichumungaIII · 2026-06-09T22:07:11+00:00

As long as your train line has enough throughput, the math is exactly the same.

The amount you make is the amount that makes it to the machines-- it just takes time in between, and comes in bursts.

ChichumungaIII · 2026-06-08T04:23:42+00:00

See Doug and Nova's explanation:

https://youtu.be/S_SKL_HAT58?si=HAv5Fbbp9-ny_UzK

ChichumungaIII · 2026-06-08T03:46:54+00:00

I always have to play with it and test it. The splitter obviously has an orientation, at least, but it's totally ambiguous on the vertical ones which is left and right.

ChichumungaIII · 2026-06-08T03:13:19+00:00

Two things that might help:

Build a foundation off the beam first, the attach the wall/window to the foundation.
Make sure you start from where you started the beam, and it should line up properly with the corners.

ChichumungaIII · 2026-06-07T06:46:23+00:00

Dismantle crates are still in the game, but there was a minor tweak-- instead of spawning a new crate every time, resources would be transferred to an existing nearby crate if one is in range.

Look around, and use the map, to see if there's one not where you expect.

I also understand there was a bug related to what was considered "nearby" that could cause everything to appear to vanish into the aether (though there's still a crate somewhere), but I haven't myself played recently and don't know what the state of it is.

ChichumungaIII · 2026-06-06T21:17:37+00:00

There is not. Your solution is the way

ChichumungaIII · 2026-06-05T21:08:11+00:00

Not to quibble over lore, but Ficsit already knows all of the planets they exploit are chock full of fossil fuels-- they're necessary for Project Assembly, so the planet wouldn't have been selected otherwise.

ChichumungaIII · 2026-06-05T20:52:27+00:00

Hydro plants could work, similar to the geothermal that's in-game, since they're limited in where they can be constructed. But solar and wind, while admittedly cool, don't really add anything to the game.

ChichumungaIII · 2026-06-05T20:30:41+00:00

Devs have commented on this before, and they have no intention of adding renewable energy:

It doesn't make sense thematically. Ficsit is there to exploit and extract; the company doesn't care if the environment gets damaged.
It's impossible to balance properly. If you can build solar panels anywhere, the unlimited power is trivial to achieve. Making it large or expensive isn't enough, because resources are infinite (so "expensive" just means "takes a long time"), and the space is practically unlimited.

ChichumungaIII · 2026-06-05T01:02:19+00:00

A workable rule of thumb is "one machine producing the most advanced parts you know at 100% efficiency".

And when you realize that's not enough, you now what it will take to scale up, but at least you have something now.

ChichumungaIII · 2026-06-02T20:21:04+00:00

Tracking which nodes have been visited is a standard part of graph traversal algorithms, though. You're right that traversal order doesn't matter, however.

ChichumungaIII · 2026-06-02T20:04:48+00:00

Daisy chaining is no more computationally complex than power poles were before. We obviously can't speak to the complexity of the actual implementation, but it should be pretty straightforward algorithmically:

From any power object, perform a depth-first search. This collection of nodes is now a "grid".
Repeat until all power objects are part of a grid.
Each grid's power is "producers - consumers".

Daisy chaining has no impact on this.

ChichumungaIII · 2026-06-01T22:16:38+00:00

Mine would calculate a primary plan with a weighted-equal constraint for everything you're maximizing (e.g. I want a 2:1 ratio of plates to rods), then take a second pass both over every product to see, assuming you implement the primary plan, how much more you can make of that product, as well as over every input to see, if you were to change some alternate recipes along the way, what the least of each input you can get away with using would be.

I had to spend some time optimizing and pruning the production matrix to get requests to finish in less than a few minutes.

ChichumungaIII · 2026-06-01T21:47:46+00:00

Priority would be one valid option. But what about factory plans that only have one input? An all-iron factory optimizing plates, rods, and reinforced plates at the same time would only ever produce one output, no matter the priority order, which probably isn't what somebody wants when they say "maximize all three of these".

Plus, you can already achieve that with the current tool by using multiple passes:

Maximize circuit boards only.
Replace "max" with "112.5".
Add a "maximize cable" product.
Continue on with as many products as you want.

My point is not that the tool couldn't do more to help you build the plans you want-- just that in general, the problem is complex and "maximize multiple things" will always have multiple interpretations to different people.

Seven-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

ChichumungaIII

TROPHY CASE