It’s actually only 4 or 5 meters in the logistics space, it just looks bigger because the factory floor is 1 foundation shorter in length than the logistics floor. I.E. the front foundation on the logistics floor will not have a ceiling, just the hanging catwalk above it.

I try to, when I have the time, but I don’t sweat it if I don’t, I just try to avoid forming too many opinions about the topic.

Also, a good chunk of the time I try, I get paywalled. Which I can usually bypass if I’m on PC, but that’s not really feasible on mobile.

Props to all the heroes copying the article into the post, or pointing out when the headline is misleading.

TL;DR, I would do the following:

• Build a a 3->2 balancer across those 3 belts on the left. These 2 outputs, together, will be your feed of 2000.
• Split a belt off of each of the other 4, and merge them together.
• Split that into 2, and merge each of those into one of the 2 belts of the 2000 line.

The long version:

In my experience (and this may well be a product of my build style, and may bot quite be applicable to you) belt balancing is not an issue that needs to be addressed. Belt capacity and throttling leads naturally to self-balancing.

Example: in the Steelworks build I did recently, I had two different sets of machines needing to consume Steel Ingot: Constructors for Steel Pipe and Constructors for Steel Beam. Currently, the factory is clocked for a max belt of Mk1, since I can’t really afford the power for more, right now. My foundries produce 90 Steel Ingot/min, so that means I need 2 belts worth of Steel Ingot transport. I ended up building 12 Foundries, in 2 groups of 6, each outputting to a separate Mk1 manifold, so I’ve got 2 belts of 45/min each.

On the consumption side, I need 21.068/min to make Steel Pipe and 68.932/min to make Steel Beam. So, I still need 2 belts of bandwidth for Steel Beam, but only 1 for Steel Pipe. To make this happen, I split each of the Steel Ingot lines into 2, let 1 from each split go onward to Steel Beam, and took the other from each split and merged them, for Steel Pipe. All dumb splitters.

Now, you might say "well, that just gives you 45/min going to both Steel Pipe and Steel Beam, you just made it that the two separate Foundry lines can now mix. But this doesn’t account for (what I call) “back-pressure”.

The magic of back-pressure is that it makes dumb splitting (splitting evenly, instead of with ratios) irrelevant. With my setup, the Steel Pipe constructors only need 21.068/min but are getting 45/min. However, as long as the clock rates are set correctly on those machines, they will only consume 21.068/min, and the extra 23.932/min will eventually back up, and flow over to Steel Beam anyway.

Essentially, it’s the balancer vs manifold debate. Upside is, you don’t have to deal with crazy balancing calculations, when you’ve got odd ratios like you have. Downside is, the system doesn’t reach full efficiency until it “primes” up all the back-pressure.

The one caveat to back-pressure is if you have “re-combination” farther down the line. In my example, if I were going to take those Steel Beams and Steel Pipes and combine them together in some other recipe, then it might be impossible to build up enough back-pressure to balance everything out. Sort of like having an air-bubble in the system. You can solve this by either manually priming the back-pressure, or just swapping to a Smart Splitter with an Overflow output, in the right spot, to allow the “bubble” to bleed out.

Nope, no trains in this playthrough. Everything forbthis facility is mined one-site.

It does indeed do something! ;)

What graphics API are you using? DX11? DX12? Vulcan? I suspect maybe this affects which file is applicable? I’m actually running DX11asba workaround to a crashing issue that came up in 1.0, and doesn’t seem to be fixed yet.

If there’s no Engine.ini file in /Windows, I’d say you’re safe to just create one, and see if that works. If the file’s there, but empty, that really shouldn’t matter, just drop the settings in there.

If only it were that easy to snap your fingers and magically transform your code base from C to Rust. Spoiler alert: It’s not.

How utterly disingenuous. That’s not what the CISA recommendation says, at all.

That’s the first blocky build I caught you doing, ha!

Hey, now, it’s still a work-in-progress. ;)

Sooooo, you can “fix” this, you just have to get into the weeds of Unreal Engine a bit.

Firstly, of course, you have to have Lumen enabled, which is a normal setting in the Graphics section (or whatever it’s called) of the game menu.

However, to get the illumination to be actually meaningful, like it used to be, you need to change an engine setting to increase the illumination radius. THEN you need to adjust a bunch of other engine settings to get rid of the terrible graininess that generates. Or, more accurately, tone it way down.

Gimme a minute to go look up the settings I’m running with…

EDIT:

So, here’s the settings I’m running with. I got this set in particular out of a reddit thread. Out of a handful of different sets I tried, this is the one that worked the best, for me.

r.Lumen.Reflections.Allow=1
r.Lumen.Reflections.SmoothBias=0.8
r.Lumen.ScreenProbeGather.TracingOctahedronResolution=10
r.AOGlobalDistanceField.MinMeshSDFRadius=10
r.LumenScene.SurfaceCache.CardTexelDensityScale=2500
r.SupportReversedIndexBuffers=1
FX.BatchAsync=1
r.OneFrameThreadLag=0
r.Lumen.TraceMeshSDFs=1
r.LumenScene.SurfaceCache.CardMaxTexelDensity=0.5
r.Lumen.DiffuseIndirect.SSAO=1

The important one is r.AOGlobalDistanceField.MinMeshSDFRadius that’s what drives the brightness. The rest, feel free to play with, until you find a combination that works.

To apply these settings, you can do one of two things.

A) use the in-game console, triggered with the "" (back-tick) key. In the console, you change one of these settings by typing the name, a space, and then the desired value, I.E. r.AOGlobalDistanceField.MinMeshSDFRadius 10`. These changes aren’t saved, so you’ll lose them when restarting the game, but it does enable quicker testing. Although, they ALSO don’t take effect right away. Only “new” renders will use the settings, stuff that’s already rendered will stay the same. I.E. you have to walk a decent bit away from the thing you’re wanting to look at, then back.

B) Head to %localappdata%/FactoryGame/Saved/Config/WindowsNoEditor/Editor.ini and paste the settings in at the end of the file, after adding the line “[SystemSettings]”. Within the .ini file, the format for a setting is different, instead of a space between the name and value, you use an =, like I have above. There’s also an Engine.ini file within a Windows folder, instead of WindowsNoEditor and I honestly have no idea which one serves which purpose, so I just made the edits in both.

As if the new notepad wasn’t already enough of a downgrade.

It actually took me multiple trues to get into Stardew. The whole “track down everyone” quest is intimidating for a lot of people.

Up to you if you think it’s worth keeping at it, for the possibility of getting hooked later.

10/min is pretty freakin’ impressive, as far as HMFs go. The one I have planned won’t be hitting that mark until I get Mk5 belts.

The biggest hole in WASM right now is being able to DO anything really useful in it, natively. The only thing you can do natively right now is use the CPU. Can’t manipulate the DOM. Can’t access local storage or cookies or networking APIs, etc. You can call out to arbitrary JS code, but that’s it.

This is great for some of the big JS libraries that have very CPU-heavy workloads they can optimize in WASM and call to from JS. Like frequently parsing and re-parsing HTML. Or doing game physics calculations.

I haven’t heard word one about WHEN any of this will be available. Which is particularly troubling, given how long people have been begging for it.

Of course, none of this stops you from using WASM in the real world, to do quite a lot of things. You’re just gonna have to deal with JS interop, still, do do anything really useful.

I saw the plastic, yeah. Couldn’t tell if the other was caterium or copper. That definitely will give a higher yield.

Nice!

Is that running on just plastic and copper? Intuitively, I would’ve expected you to need more machines than that for 9/min. Or are we heavily overclocking?

This really reads to me like the perspective of a business major whose only concept of productivity is about what looks good on paper. He seems to think it’s a desirable goal for EVERY project to be completed with 0 latency. That’s absurd. If every single incoming requirement is a “top priority, this needs to go out as soon as possible” that’s a management failure. They either need to ACTUALLY prioritize requirements properly, or they need to bring in more people.

For the Chuck and Patty example, he describes Chuck finishing a task and sending it to Patty for review, and Patty not picking it up because she’s “busy.” Busy with what? If this task is the higher priority, why is she not switching to it as soon as it’s ready? Do either Chuck or Patty not know that this task is the current highest priority? Sounds like management failure. Is there not a system in place (whether automatic or not) for notifying people when high priority tasks are assigned? Also sounds like management failure. Is Patty just incapable of switching tasks within 30-60 minutes? She needs to work on her organization skills, or that management isn’t providing sufficient tooling for multitasking.

When a top-priority “this needs to go out ASAP” task is in play on my team, I’m either working on it, or I know it’s coming my way soon, and who it’s coming from, because my Project Lead has already coordinated that among all of us. Because that’s her job.

From the article…

Project A should take around 2 weeks

Project B should take around 2 weeks

That’s 4 weeks to complete them both

But only if they’re done in sequence!

If you try to do them at the same time, with the same team, don’t be surprised if it ends up taking 6 weeks!

Nonsense. If these are both top priorities, and the team has proper leadership, (and the 2 week estimate is actually accurate) 4 weeks is entirely achievable. If these are not top priorities, and the team has other work as well, then yeah, no shit it might be 6 weeks. You can’t just ignore the 2 weeks from Project C if it’s prioritized similarly to A and B. If A and B NEED to go out in 4 weeks, then prioritize them higher, and coordinate your team to make that happen.

Did they, though? Do we know how Nevaeh Crain and Candace Fails voted? Would that somehow make it okay?

The fact thay people who have done nothing to support these policies can still be killed by them is PRECISELY the problem.

Saving.

One of these days, I’ll actually play with trains.

How DARE you! :P

Heh, I didn’t even consider that. It doesn’t feel missing, to me. Also, not sure how you’d make a proper one anyway, unless you’re really good at beam sculpting.