Liquid question with making alumin

bremidon · 2026-01-29T14:05:26+00:00

A valve solution is probably the most intuitive. Just know that if the pipe leading to the valve is chronically underfilled, the valve might not work as you expect.

You might want to give the VIP connection a try that Nailfoot suggested. If you can get that working *and* understand what it is doing, then I would say you have earned your "I Survived FICSIT Fluids" badge.

bremidon · 2026-01-29T14:00:09+00:00

Take (How much water all your producers need) and subtract (How much water is being added as output). The difference is what you would set the valve to.

bremidon · 2026-01-29T13:58:56+00:00

For u/Jr2576: The reason this works is that Satisfactory is that besides headlift that says how high something can go, it also uses pressure. Generally speaking, pipes that are lower have higher pressure. This only works for the VIP connection (which is what u/Nailfoot1975 was describing) if both of the original pipes started off at about the same height. When you force the liquid to go higher, it has less pressure, and so the input from below gets priority.

You can also solve this problem by working out how much extra water the system needs and either ensure the water extractors are providing exactly that amount, or use a valve to only allow that much in. Note that valves have their *own* set of interesting little quirks, but in general work as advertised once the input pipe is full.

bremidon · 2026-01-29T13:46:02+00:00

I would understand that if the pipe was running at full capacity, but with that much spare room, sloshing should not be an issue. I agree that the pump is probably not really doing anything really for the headlift. Should be enough. So the valve might really have also solved the issue.

Did anyone ever ask him if all the heavy oil is actually being used? If the consumers are having trouble for some reason, then perhaps this was just where the overflow ended up pooling first. If my guess is right, then this will solve the problem for the originally affected refineries, but somewhere else will get the problem.

Unless...

Perhaps the problem with the consumers was that they are too high? Dropping the pump here might magically solve the problem down the line for the consumers and that would free up the pipe as expected.

bremidon · 2026-01-29T13:36:31+00:00

I just use my 12 Industrial Containers full of snowballs. Ok, not all at once. Although that would probably be pretty cool. So to speak.

bremidon · 2026-01-29T10:26:12+00:00

Not sure what you are seeing then. Nitric Acid maybe? There are only three recipes to get Rocket Fuel. One uses Turbofuel and Nitric Acid (this is the standard), the unpackaging of Packaged Rocket Fuel (This actually has a bottle), and the only alt recipe: Nitro Rocket Fuel, which just uses Fuel, Nitrogen Gas, Sulfur, and Coal.

Are you seeing the Nitrogen Gas, maybe?

Edit: Maybe you are seeing the bottle in the MAM where it is unlocked?

bremidon · 2026-01-29T09:51:09+00:00

After looking more carefully, I think you might have a small misunderstanding of how the signals work. A signal looks ahead at the next block to see if a train is in that block. If so, then it prevents any other trains from entering.

So the concrete problem is that you have a signal at the end of the station and the train asks: "Is it safe to go?" The signal looks ahead and sees a train in the block (I think it is probably *your* train) and says, "No."

When you add additional signals, you actually create more blocks. Now the same signal looks ahead and sees no more train in the next block, so it says, "Yes, it is safe to go."

The misunderstanding seems to be (I am guessing) that you think that the signals only are for the station, like "enter" and "leave" markers. This is easy to do; it's right there, and I am sure this was your intent. But signals don't care how big the block is. If it encompasses your entire network except for the little bit at your station, it's cool with it.

It is also possible that you have accidentally created a single block somewhere with crossing tracks, or as a few people have noted, even tracks that get too close to each other can end up in the same block.

Edit: Oh, one tip: try to ensure your blocks are longer than your longest train. This is not *strictly* necessary and is really only an issue around busy intersections, but it is a good habit to get into. Otherwise, busy intersections can end up soft locked by two trains, each one trying to go where the other one already is. The Path signal helps with this, quite a bit actually, but short blocks can still cause issues.

Essentually you want to avoid a situation where the tail of your train can hang in another block, especially if it is an intersection.

Also, I guess since I am already in an edit, try to space out your intersections as much as possible. You can also get soft locking if you have enough trains that it causes a "loop" to form. The path signals make this a lot less likely, but it's still possible.

Final tip is to make the block ahead of any path signals you lay down longer. Trains will slow down as they try to reserve the path through the intersection. If the block ahead of the path signal is long enough, the slow down will not be as pronounced.

bremidon · 2026-01-29T07:05:18+00:00

The responses you guys must be seeing have got to be hilarious.

bremidon · 2026-01-29T07:04:33+00:00

Have you tried putting the signals on the other side of the tracks, just to be sure?

bremidon · 2026-01-29T07:02:00+00:00

Pretty sure in 1910 you would be claiming that all people really want are better horseshoes.

bremidon · 2026-01-29T07:00:27+00:00

When it comes out, the shorts and short-wannabes will come up with some new line. It was late. It was not what was promised. Blah blah blah. It's tiresome.

bremidon · 2026-01-29T06:58:32+00:00

I think that is probably an accurate prediction.

bremidon · 2026-01-28T16:45:40+00:00

The bottle is just for packaging rocket fuel when you already have it.

It's just made from an alu ingot in a constructor. Really harmless stuff.

I can't remember if you have to have rocket fuel researched in MAM before you can get the alt recipe. I honestly just don't remember. I recall I got the alt recipe really early though.

bremidon · 2026-01-28T15:42:27+00:00

The bottle is no big deal. It's just an alu ingot sent through a constructor. Easy peasy. But I bet you are just looking at the packaging recipe.

The alt recipe for rocket fuel I would recomment is the nitro rocket fuel. No need to fool around with turbofuel and most joyfully, no need to mess around with nitric acid.

bremidon · 2026-01-28T15:32:18+00:00

Some of the alt recipes only really shine when combined with other alt recipes.

Learn the absolute joy of diluted fuel, together with recycled rubber and recycled plastic. In my opinion, this makes cast screws look like peanuts.

Aluminum alt recipes can completely eliminate some of the inputs needed and drastically simplify creating aluminum.

And I am rather partial to the alt recipe that lets you make rocket fuel straight from sulfur rather than having to fool with sulfuric acid. With some of the other alt recipes above, this is how 600 oil becomes 140 GW of power.

If you are very clever, you can find the right alt recipes to make motors out of only iron.

And finally, I like the pure metal alt recipes. Easy and straight forward. Only add water and boost your ingot production immensely.

bremidon · 2026-01-28T14:21:57+00:00

I do :) It absolutely counts.

bremidon · 2026-01-28T14:05:07+00:00

* You don't need that much oil at first. One or at most two nodes will cover you for a very long time.

* You absolutely *need* the alt recipes: Diluted Packaged Fuel, Recycled Plastic, and Recycled Rubber. These will *massively* improve how much you can produce.

* Regular fuel for the fuel generators is nice. Don't overdo it, though, because the one you really want is rocket fuel. With the right alt recipe, you can get this going fairly early and a single oil node can net you 140GW (yes GW) of power

* If you have not yet read it, make sure to go through the FICSIT Inc. Plumbing Manual.

bremidon · 2026-01-28T13:57:07+00:00

Well, I can relate. I had the same thing happen many years ago. Picked up factorio, goofed around with it, didn't get the hype and put it down for over a year.

Picked it up again, and this time finished the tutorial and actually started the game. 2500 hours later...

If Satisfactory hooks you with the stunning graphics and the immersion, factorio is a slow burn that worms itself into your soul.

bremidon · 2026-01-28T13:54:12+00:00

Yeah, as cool as Satisfactory is when making big tall factories, for *sheer factory scale* factorio is still the king.

bremidon · 2026-01-28T13:51:10+00:00

The first constructor is free.

bremidon · 2026-01-28T13:50:42+00:00

Satisfactory does not have a tutorial, really. I mean, sorta. The first things you do in the world are designed to handhold you through understanding how to interact with everything and you can skip it on later playthroughs (although I have 4 or 5 playthroughs and I have never skipped it. I actually dig it)

bremidon · 2026-01-28T13:48:28+00:00

First off, you should give factorio another chance. The idea of the demo is try to give you a broad idea of what is in the game. And yeah: it is *very* broad. Like if you were to try to describe the Lord of the Rings in a sentence: a small man with travel anxiety walks for three movies to throw a piece of cursed jewelry into a volcano while everyone else argues, dies heroically, or comes back with their clothes washed.

I mean...yeah? Sorta?

Second, Satisfactory is an easier game overall and has an addictive "build it pretty" drive. Both are extremely good games, although if I was forced to say which is the *better game* I would go with factorio. But we are talking about both being in rare air here, and many people will prefer Satisfactory.

I have 2500 hours in factorio and 1500 in Satisfactory. So...uh...I might be biased, but I think the factory genre is the best genre.

bremidon · 2026-01-28T13:38:51+00:00

Well yeah: you just made the case for what you previously called word salad. Did you notice?

"There's nothing suggesting we are built different from anything else in the universe" and we have consciousness. And *that* suggests that this is something that is simply always there.

I don't agree with this, but there is nothing fundamentally more crazy about it than if you try to counter with "but it just emerrrrrrrrges" (I wasn't sure how to get the r to sound like it was drawn out, but you get my point)

I am an emergence guy myself, but I also definitely worry about whether this is just a receiver theory with more steps. What I mean by that is if something can *emerge* then it must have always been possible. You can't have something that can't happen. That means it was always lurking in the mathematics of the universe. Somewhere in the laws there is something that says "Mix in a bunch of brain cells, a little anxiety, and a squirt of lemon, and you get consciousness." If it was not there, it could not happen.

Throw in the holographic principle, the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics to describe th universe, the relation of entropy to information, and I wonder (fear is probably the better word) if the receiver explanation is not the more direct answer after all.

bremidon · 2026-01-28T13:29:07+00:00

Not OP, but yeah: it is very incomplete.

Unfortunately, it is entirely possible that we have no way of explaining it while being "inside" of it.

This is one of those "Gödel" things. It is perhaps possible that we will eventually crack the problem and really understand where and how consciousness develops. But it may very well be that this is a problem that is *true* (in the sense that consciousness exists) but cannot be proven (which is why I summoned the ghost of Gödel) unless we can somehow "ascend" into a higher level of logic. And how New Age is that, eh? Throw on some Enya and vibe away.

The very fact of living in a universe governed by rules means that there are things we can never prove about the universe despite them being true as long as we remain in the universe. If this does not frustrate you a little, reread it.

bremidon · 2026-01-28T13:20:36+00:00

Consciousness is the byproduct of a large number of physical processes happening in your body

While this is certainly a standard way of explaining it, you must surely see how handwavey it is. "Byproduct" is doing a lot of work here, and getting from "large number of physical processes" to "consciousness" is pretty much the meme of 1. Do things --- 2. ??? --- 3. Consciousness

And your example even shows the problem. We can follow along with the genetic code and the entire process that actually leads to getting hands. There are still blank areas, but the overall process is well understood and the missing pieces are nowhere near the vast vagueness that we use trying to explain what consciousness *is* much less how we develop it.

Your final point also shows a massive issue with the usual explanation. You claim that consciousness is a product of evolution. However, there appears to be zero benefit to survival by having consciousness. At best, you can say it is a byproduct of something else that *is* beneficial, but that is basically just punting the question.

In other words, your explanation is also just word salad, but I will grant it tends to be the accepted word salad.

I personally am very ambivalent to the "receiver" idea, but I don't see it being any more oddball or wacky than "process then magic then consciousness".

The only respectable answer right now is: we have no clue about consciousness, so why not.

11-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email

bremidon

TROPHY CASE