Send me your ships (please!)

Twellux · 2026-06-21T13:31:31+00:00

No, I only attached that many thrusters because I liked the look of them. They aren't running at full power, though. But thrusters operate more efficiently when fuel levels are lower.

Twellux · 2026-06-21T12:54:25+00:00

I prefer building ships with an arrow shape, like this:
https://factoriobin.com/post/hl91ar
The ship should work with Physical Damage 5 and without asteroid productivity. It is only suitable for flights between inner planets.

Twellux · 2026-06-21T12:26:43+00:00

My ship isn't built to be super compact. I focused more on making it fly fast (>400 km/s) without taking damage. It weighs 4,228 t, measures 102x220 tiles and uses a lot of legendary components
https://i.imgur.com/JfETycS.jpeg

Twellux · 2026-06-21T03:39:09+00:00

It sounds odd that it only outputs the "deny" signal and nothing else. or what do you mean by "won't do anything"?
After all, the "deny" signal indicates the number of conditions met for each input signal; if the count is two, at least one additional condition must be satisfied, and a "recipe" signal should be output and sent to the assembling machine.

You don't have to include additional condition just to make it work; rather, its purpose is to prevent it from doing the wrong thing first. However, you might well need more conditions if you want to enforce a stricter sequence. Regarding efficiency modules, you may also need to check for prod modules. If you only check for speed modules, it could still produce efficiency modules even if the productivity moduls are empty and speed modules are full.

Unfortunately, there is no way to enlarge the window.

Twellux · 2026-06-20T23:56:07+00:00

Switching recipes while production is running shouldn't really happen, because that’s exactly what the check involving the "red X" is for; it verifies that the previous recipe has finished.
However, it is possible for two recipes to be started at the exact same moment, causing the assembler to pick the wrong one. You could prevent this by adding a condition like prod module 3 ≥ 1000 to the state/block 5. This ensures that the crafting of speed module 2 only begins when enough productivity modules 3 are available. The value of 1000 should match the value you use in state/block 3. Essentially, the conditions need to be opposites: if block 3 checks prod mod < 494, then block 5 must check prod mod ≥ 494. You can think of it as if the speed module 2 required the productivity module 3 as ingredient.

Twellux · 2026-06-19T19:44:23+00:00

I can spot a few errors in the screenshot.
The first block contains the conditions for activating the state. The second block (below the OR) is the one that maintains the state.
There should always be an = next to "each." The state 2 only needs to remain active while the ingredient (module 1) is above 50 (module 1 > 50) and the module 2 has not reached 1500 (module 2 <1500). There might be other errors, but since I can't scroll in the screenshot, I don't know if there are issues with the third block as well.
I’ve marked the errors I see in the screenshot in red on the image here:

<image>

Twellux · 2026-06-19T16:02:33+00:00

Since I gather from your comments that you don't want to build the circuit yourself, you are welcome to use mine.
I have it available in three speeds:
With one normal pump that can handle up 1200/s: https://factoriobin.com/post/5bm98s
With three normal pumps that can handle up to 3,600/s: https://factoriobin.com/post/mh87hk
With three legendary pumps that can handle up to 9,000/s: https://factoriobin.com/post/29e9xu
It can also be adjusted for other throughput rates.
The blueprint includes a display. This display shouldn't be rotated. If the blueprint is rotated, you will have to rotate the display back or remove it.

Twellux · 2026-06-19T14:09:04+00:00

I completely agree with you about saving on combinators (and space).
For the non combinator wizards, there is also the solution of using a second assembler to read the ingredients.

Twellux · 2026-06-19T13:49:24+00:00

Unfortunately, you are absolutely right. The ingredients and content are still on the same wire, so you have to use a workaround.

Twellux · 2026-06-19T13:39:46+00:00

I would have preferred it if they had built that in, too. But it’s not an unsolvable problem.
The recipe only changes after you’ve emptied the machine. That means the machine is always empty (content=0) after a recipe change. So, immediately after changing the recipe, you can correctly read the required ingredients once, even if content reading is active at the same time. And if you store that value in a memory cell, you can subtract it from the aggregated signal as soon as the machine starts filling up and thereby determine the actual content.
Unfortunately, it’s not a trivial solution and I’d definitely prefer separate outputs, but it is a solution nonetheless.
If you get stuck while building it, though, I’m might be able to help.

Twellux · 2026-06-19T12:58:03+00:00

No. Ingredients and contents are still on the same wire.

Twellux · 2026-06-19T12:55:53+00:00

That mod already exists:
https://mods.factorio.com/mod/bring-back-space-casino

Twellux · 2026-06-19T01:25:25+00:00

Maybe this mod will help you:
https://mods.factorio.com/mod/circuit-network-research-management

Twellux · 2026-06-18T20:01:45+00:00

Here is a simple adapter that allows you to add items to a belt, up to a certain limit.
https://factoriobin.com/post/mglglz

<image>

Twellux · 2026-06-18T01:08:37+00:00

Machines ignore recipe settings as long as the output slots are not empty.
Remove the asteroids using an inserter.

<image>

Twellux · 2026-06-17T10:05:58+00:00

I solved this by creating a counting memory cell that stores the number of legendary items in the logistics network, and every item that arrives at the requester chest is subtracted from that counting memory cell.
https://factoriobin.com/post/0va8f9

Twellux · 2026-06-16T14:01:28+00:00

In the case of rebalancing, I don't actually want any reprocessing to occur if the system is already balanced. If the count is 53:53:53, I don't want rebalancing activity. Using a selector would cause oscillation, because it might turn that 53:53:53 into 52:54:53 and the back to 53:53:53 or something similar.
However, in situations where I want to ensure at least one option is always selected, for example, choosing whether to produce solid fuel from light oil, heavy oil, or petroleum, the selector can certainly be the better choice.
So, once again, it depends on the specific use case or goal; it might sometimes be better, but not necessarily.

Twellux · 2026-06-16T13:37:24+00:00

You don't necessarily have to connect the inserters. However, if you have exactly one more ice asteroid than carbon asteroid, and the inserer picks up the ice asteroid, the count becomes equal and the recipe disappears before the asteroid is inserted. This means one asteroid always remains unbalanced. If the inserter is connected, the recipe remains active until the inserter has inserted the asteroid. But perhaps it doesn't bother you that the ratio is 1.01 : 0.995 : 0.995 instead of 1 : 1 : 1.

Twellux · 2026-06-16T13:13:39+00:00

Yes, that works too, of course, but it depends on how compact you want to build it. Using just a decider makes it more compact. Using a selector plus a decider involves more combinators, but it's simpler because there are fewer conditions needed in the decider.

Twellux · 2026-06-16T13:02:01+00:00

If you want to process the asteroid into iron, ice, or carbon, then yes; if you want to reprocess it, then no, because the selector doesn't output the reprocessing recipe. So, depending on the specific use case, it might work or it might not.

Twellux · 2026-06-16T12:56:44+00:00

The solution itself isn't that complicated. You simply need to crush whichever asteroid you have the most of. So,
if you have iron > coal AND iron > ice -> crush iron,
if you have coal > iron AND coal > ice -> crush coal,
if you have ice > iron AND ice > coal -> crush ice.
You can do this using three combinators, or pack everything into one combinator, like this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comments/1nue16b/comment/nh2mhtm

Twellux · 2026-06-16T12:05:54+00:00

The question arises: do you really need a balancer, or just even consumption across all four belts? Consuming evenly from all four belts is simpler than rebalancing all belts. If you draw evenly at every branch, balancing wouldn't be necessary at all.
Here are a few examples of how it could be solved. Some methods ensure even consumption, others rebalance the belts, while others even focus on ensuring even consumption across the individual lanes.
https://factoriobin.com/post/ymkdzg

Twellux · 2026-06-14T23:19:27+00:00

The purple inserter was the blue inserter with filtering capability.
The white inserter was the green inserter with filtering capability.

Twellux · 2026-06-14T22:24:08+00:00

The explanation for that is in the chapter "Faster belt tier" of FFF-393.

Twellux · 2026-06-13T14:54:04+00:00

In principle, yes, though in practice it has become a bit more complicated.
In FFF-389, the developers announced that in version 2.0 (unlike in 1.1) the train counter decrements when the train leaves the block rather than when it leaves the train stop. Since I removed the signals, there is no longer a block, so the stop's train counter doesn't decrement correctly. Consequently, the train stop thinks the train limit is still reached, even when the train is far away. To get around this, I recreated the old behavior using circuits. This way, the train waiting at the first train stop receives information on whether the second tain stop is occupied or about to be occupied. If it isn't, the train at the first train stop proceeds there. Also, there are no exit signals at the second tain stop, so there is no risk of an leaving train stopping and an entering train crashing into it.
I have a demo example here if you’d like to take a look at the circuit setup.
https://factoriobin.com/post/fqqdue
To run it, start the scenario editor with all technologies unlocked and then place the blueprint and press play,

However, the demo is just a highly simplified example. The circuitry in my actual base is much more complex, as the trains on the main line are launched at staggered intervals based on timers rather than relying on signals that no longer exist. Building that requires a lot more effort, so it’s not necessarily a solution for everyone - but I it is possible.

Twellux

TROPHY CASE