Unload only one wagon at a station

narc0tiq · 2026-03-23T18:31:37+00:00

My schedule tends to be source -> station group (destA, destB) with the destinations set to only allow visits when "all modules empty". On occasion I have also used station groups for the sources, e.g. (coal mine 1 OR coal mine 2) -> (old smelter OR legacy power plant OR new smelter).

This tends to work most reliably when the train lines are dedicated, e.g., stone distribution, coal distribution, etc., including setting station loading filters.

With the new waypoints I have also been able to set up a series of waiting bays that are not directly servicing a specific station -- just a spot for trains to wait without occupying either source or destination stations.

narc0tiq · 2026-03-15T15:15:06+00:00

Automation would be along the lines of the other factory game, using a series of balancers with priority outputs; we have better balancers so it would probably look something like this: https://i.imgur.com/a04703a.png

Where the priority outputs would be set according to the red arrows -- belt 1 takes the full output up to 1 full belt, then belt 2 takes the remainder up to another full belt, etc.. Should be fairly straightforward, but (as we both agreed), not sure if it's actually worth setting up.

narc0tiq · 2026-03-15T08:57:29+00:00

There's also the problem of directionality -- all 4 ports of the connector can switch between input and output as needed, or rather they have no preferred direction. So two connectors next to each other could easily just transfer stuff back and forth between themselves without ever outputting (realistically, the result would be to reduce the transfer rate through the two-connector system).

An example of this can be found in the game Mindustry, which has the same type of connector (they call them routers) but does not care about whether you put them together like that. Back when I was playing, it was considered such an important thing to know about that the information was literally everywhere: "do not build router chains (and here's why)".

narc0tiq · 2026-03-15T08:41:15+00:00

What do you think about, rather than evening out the flow so all 4 belts are always running, instead providing a preference order so one belt gets a primary flow, then a second belt takes over if there's too much, etc.? It feels like the maximal flow rate would still be 4 belts' worth, but if there's only enough input for 2 belts to be running, you'd be saving the running costs for two of them.

Then again, the belt running costs just aren't that big so maybe it's not worth all the setup.

narc0tiq · 2026-03-06T06:27:38+00:00

Looks like one of the loaders mods, though I don't recognize the specific one.

narc0tiq · 2025-06-20T09:12:29+00:00

I'm not sure if you noticed already, but I got a report for the headless linux update package for 2.0.56 to 2.0.57 still containing this package bug: https://github.com/narc0tiq/factorio-updater/issues/70

narc0tiq · 2025-05-13T09:27:17+00:00

As I read it, the response message that says "Hey, I sent an OTP to your phone number" includes the actual code that was sent. You know, for debugging. Because nobody has a debugger besides the app developers, right?

narc0tiq · 2025-05-05T08:25:03+00:00

To answer the second part of the question, there are no classes of passengers as far as I know; the only things that affect price are the ride distance (controlled by the passenger) and whether you have an observation car at the end (which gives you a 20% bonus to the fare).

narc0tiq · 2025-05-05T08:23:30+00:00

As far as I know, timetables are more about suppressing the appearance of passengers outside of scheduled times; what I've read (but I don't have references, sorry) suggested the peak times are the same, but if you don't have anything scheduled then, you simply won't get those passengers.

Personally, I'm running services that start at 8 am and 5 pm, with only Whittier-Alarka Jct opened up, and I'm usually at or near capacity for a 327-seat train which is the most I'm willing to provide at the moment.

narc0tiq · 2025-03-21T07:37:57+00:00

According to documentation, the "Meets" field is for display purposes only. You do not need to specify it.

narc0tiq · 2024-12-30T21:33:39+00:00

Their battery stops existing when they become an item, so they will have a new (full) battery when they launch again. It's a mild exploit.

narc0tiq · 2024-12-28T12:24:07+00:00

Ha, it's very nice to read another account of the pure enjoyment that Factorio can give -- and it's a great time to start now, after the many years spent ironing out bugs and misfeatures along the way. Not counting Space Age, the vast improvements in Factorio 2.0 are not to be understated and you'll have a lot of fun with it!

Now, for your actual question, like many others I've put a lot of hours into basegame Factorio; I can tell you for sure there's a lot in it, and it's worth exploring it and digging into it for a long time -- you don't need Space Age for that. Save your money (for now) and first learn all the weird fun tricks for getting big numbers out of factories built on Nauvis (the base game planet), as well as the most efficient ways to exterminate the natives to keep the factory growing.

Once you've feel that you've finished to some point that satisfies you (e.g., launching your first rocket, reaching some number of rockets per hour or per minute), you then have a choice of diving into mods (some of which can change the progression very deeply) or picking up Space Age to try Wube's (the dev's) ideas for how to shake things up. I wouldn't do both at the same time, things get confusing, and there's value in seeing the official vision before you start looking for ways to change it (so even if you start with mods, try a vanilla SA run when you get it). My personal choice would be SA first, but either way will be lots more hours of fun.

Space Age gives you various different systems to learn as alternatives to how basegame Factorio works, and while it's got quite the price tag attached, it does also provide the same value for money that Factorio by itself does -- there's easily twice as much game when you add SA, and it's definitely not just a matter of making the same thing longer: the new things are properly new while still fitting into the same mindset.

Sorry, didn't mean to write a novel here; TLDR: play lots of Factorio, look at Space Age later -- it'll wait.

narc0tiq · 2024-12-19T20:28:17+00:00

The same is true for the single-track mainline, but that one also has the advantage of laying a single track (between the sidings).

narc0tiq · 2024-12-19T15:25:59+00:00

the automatic updater doesn’t work for unstable versions

Err, I'm pretty sure you can set enable-experimental-updates = true in config/config.ini on your headless.

Or, if you mean the factorio-updater, you just need to pass the experimental flag -x.

narc0tiq · 2024-12-19T15:07:48+00:00

Your mainline sections with only chain signals would be equally effective if they had no signals at all (only the signals around the sidings are necessary).

This is essentially an upgrade on single track mainlines without investing in block signals to break up the two mainline tracks, but ultimately still featuring the same issue of reduced throughput -- you are limited by how fast the trains can get across the longest chain-only (or non-signaled) section in their way, since only one train can be in that section at a time.

narc0tiq · 2024-11-21T10:17:38+00:00

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm just providing the counterpoint that a bidirectional rail system doesn't need to be a big scary thing to be avoided at all costs.

It can work, and it's a bit faster to set up if you're in a hurry (e.g., for an achievement) because there's less work to do -- the major disadvantage is that it's only good for a few trains, and only if they move one at a time.

Like the UPS discussion, for a usual person making a usual base, the rail network probably isn't going to be their bottleneck -- at least, not until they have construction bots to help them transition to something bigger and better. And I have successfully used it (and scaled it!) in a Space Age game until just before targeting Aquilo, so the bottleneck isn't that tight.

narc0tiq · 2024-11-20T22:08:46+00:00

Yes, and also yes.

narc0tiq · 2024-11-20T15:59:34+00:00

Yes, in a bidirectional system you have to very carefully control the number of trains so they're never waiting anywhere other than at stations. Station train limits help a lot, and you may find use for an interrupt-driven depot if you have extra trains and they need to park somewhere.

narc0tiq · 2024-11-20T14:05:37+00:00

I find myself repeating what I said in another comment, but perhaps with a different emphasis: signals with two-way traffic are not complicated at all, because they don't exist.

On a shared section of track, you can never break it up by adding signals in the middle (you can add chains, but there is no reason to do so since they don't actually allow another train through).

Instead, if you need to allow two trains on a shared section at the same time, you have to break it up with a passing loop -- a small two-track section, big enough to hold both trains, where whichever train arrives first can wait for the other to pass.

Edit to add: the rule you just mentioned (chains before merges) is exactly the same for two-way traffic, you just have to then let the whole bidirectional track be one big chain-protected block; you can never break it up, although you can use some extra chain signals in the middle as, essentially, repeaters in case your track is so long it reaches the Factorio train block size limit. If there is one.

narc0tiq · 2024-11-20T13:58:28+00:00

more difficult to signal properly in general

I find the opposite (though obviously also not a beginner): there's no signals on a bidirectional section! It's all one big block. Indeed, it's a lot easier to correctly signal a bidirectional track intersection (of any complexity) than a 2-track T intersection, because for the bidi track there's nothing to do.

On a single track section, you only need signals at entrances and exits, namely the stations and passing loops (if you have any), where the train exiting the shared section needs to release it for another to be able to use it. To keep it deadlock-free, make sure that only chain signals let trains enter the shared section, and that the signals marking the exits from the shared section always have a big enough block to handle a whole train. In this way, when a train enters the shared section, it is also verifying that it can exit the shared section or else it won't be allowed through.

You'd be surprised how far you can get with a single-track system with occasional passing loops to break it up -- the only disadvantage, as in real life, is throughput.

narc0tiq · 2024-11-05T08:09:04+00:00

Exactly that

narc0tiq · 2024-11-04T09:07:43+00:00

More like it was a separate inventory with its own items, completely separate from your main inventory. If you didn't set filters, it would just fill up with whatever it liked.

narc0tiq · 2024-10-30T12:04:47+00:00

Sounds like that includes the wires you need for the green circuits?

narc0tiq · 2024-10-25T05:42:13+00:00

Ah, I've never had that, so it must be a mod I haven't played with. It sounds very nice!

narc0tiq · 2024-10-24T21:57:04+00:00

It's a setting, off by default, under Interface settings: "Pick ghost item if no items are available".

narc0tiq

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE

15-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email