bro this looks fricked up why would you ever EVER EVER EVER EVER want a piece of rail having trains going in both directions
FRICKING RRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
there's a difference between a double headed trains, and having singleheaded trains going over a single track in both directions
that being said i don't think double headed trains are worth it. can you explain a usecase where you prefer it (in large projects, not for small shit, i have used double headed to get oil over in the early game for example
the use case is small shit
half the rail per distance with no need for terminating junctions
once you get large-scale production and landclaiming functional, those stop being as important
this is a proper intersection, never had a deadlock even with trains coming in from every side simultaneously
i'm sure some homosexual autist has copied a better less complex blueprint off the internet and is eager to tell me how that one is better, but i made this one myself and i'm happy with it
maybe not for you but every intersection i designed without being able to turn around i have cursed eventually
i just incorporate it into the design now, as long as it's deadlock proof it's good
i want 4 lanes, and my requirements were:
-every lane must be able to go to every other valid lane (because i don't make trains switch lanes outside these intersections)
-every lane must be able to return back from whence they came without making use of a central roundabout (this is just generally useful to have when riding trains manually like big berthas)
Why would you ever need this?
You want your resources to go to your megafactory, or at most from settlement to settlement in a sequential order and then to your last factory.
Not any direction. They can't go back. It just splits each lane into 3 one going each way. I don't know if it is efficient, but it isn't elegant design.
i don't think it's about performance but about deadlocks especially with longer trains
or have you managed to design a deadlock proof roundabout? (genuine question)
Just let in one train at a time. I don't know what kind of traffic you people have where this would cause any noticeable delays. But if you're allergic to the idea of stopping for 2 seconds to yield, by all means build one more lane.
I've never tried roundabouts, but I wouldn't find it surprising if trains would find a way to all get stuck in the same roundabout in a neverending cycle of inefficiency. The game has a way of making the worst case scenario become the most likely scenario thanks to harmonics and shit.
Just let in one train at a time. I don't know what kind of traffic you people have where this would cause any noticeable delays. But if you're allergic to the idea of stopping for 2 seconds to yield, by all means build one more lane.
>>not making everything in their own miniature defended production site then connecting them all with a massive railway network
The point of a cloverfield intersection is that you never have an actual crossing, all paths remain one-way with only mergers, no crosses.
You can't do that in Factorio, as there are no bridges or tunnels for trains (or roads for that matter).
Meaning that this whole design is completely pointless. You are just blindly copying something that only really works for cars, and without having the different vertical levels that would justify thing whole thing.
There's no scenario where a 4 way intersection is more practical or performs better than much simpler 3-ways. You're solving a problem caused by your own autistic love for symmetry.
uh I have a massive train track which brances off
sometimes i want to branch to one side
other times i want to brach out to both sides
like wtf would you do, place 2 3-way branches one after the other, one for each direction?
now that sounds dumb. and not to mention, ugly
if the added functionality doesn't impede on the rest of the performance then there's no reason not to include it. it gives you more options. for example if you want to quickly build a quick makeshift station for something that exits only 1 way then you don't need to worry about if the train gets to its destination efficiently because it can turn at will everywhere
if you skip adding u-turns, you limit your options
so tbh no-u-turn-gays are kinda autistic homosexuals, i bet real engineers like the redundancy
2 years ago
Anonymous
>if you want to quickly build a quick makeshift station for something that exits only 1 way then you don't need to worry about
skill issue
so you gays just trying to flex being shit at logistics as if it's some kind of accomplishment
it solves problems that shouldn't exist in a first place
2 years ago
Anonymous
the needs of your factory change over time
programmers will also tell you that there is a time for proper planning, and there is a time for quickly getting something up and running just to see if it works and get the ball rolling
i play with krastorio 2 + space exploration + extra ores so planning out everything in advance is not feasible in the first place
tbh you sound like someone who hasn't had any kind of real life logistics/engineering/programming experience. factorio is fun but the only way to never reiterate on a design is when you blindly copy blueprints off the internet
which you do of course, so no surprise there
2 years ago
Anonymous
that's a lot of projection for one post
hit a sore spot probably >programmers will also tell you
lmao actually made me laugh irl well done
stay shit and for the love of god stay the frick away from real life logistics
2 years ago
Anonymous
copy some more blueprints and then larp about knowing what you're talking about
btw post factory
you're too pussy
A few bits of steel can save it from having to do the WHOLE loop, wasting fuel and delaying production. Why would you not want to your trains to be able to make U turns?
just go backwards bro
like, press S instead of W bro
it's literally, UNironically, that fricking easy
A few bits of steel can save it from having to do the WHOLE loop, wasting fuel and delaying production. Why would you not want to your trains to be able to make U turns?
why do you need to have trains revert to the opposite track?
isnt it better to have them be one way?
Only homosexuals use left-handed traffic
It's generally easier to just avoid four-way intersections entirely. Just use three ways.
bro you need to put chain signals BEFORE every split
fricking moron
bro this looks fricked up why would you ever EVER EVER EVER EVER want a piece of rail having trains going in both directions
FRICKING RRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
double headed trains are okay actually
that intersection sure as shit isn't
there's a difference between a double headed trains, and having singleheaded trains going over a single track in both directions
that being said i don't think double headed trains are worth it. can you explain a usecase where you prefer it (in large projects, not for small shit, i have used double headed to get oil over in the early game for example
the use case is small shit
half the rail per distance with no need for terminating junctions
once you get large-scale production and landclaiming functional, those stop being as important
deadlock
this is a proper intersection, never had a deadlock even with trains coming in from every side simultaneously
i'm sure some homosexual autist has copied a better less complex blueprint off the internet and is eager to tell me how that one is better, but i made this one myself and i'm happy with it
Looks nice, at least. Why can't you just
>can't turn around
Never needed. Any point of interest should have exits in both directions. It's not the intersection's job to turn around.
maybe not for you but every intersection i designed without being able to turn around i have cursed eventually
i just incorporate it into the design now, as long as it's deadlock proof it's good
i want 4 lanes, and my requirements were:
-every lane must be able to go to every other valid lane (because i don't make trains switch lanes outside these intersections)
-every lane must be able to return back from whence they came without making use of a central roundabout (this is just generally useful to have when riding trains manually like big berthas)
trains coming from the left can't go up and the ones from the right can't go down
Noticed, just add two more lanes.
Why would you ever need this?
You want your resources to go to your megafactory, or at most from settlement to settlement in a sequential order and then to your last factory.
>not making everything in their own miniature defended production site then connecting them all with a massive railway network
for me, it's celtic knot
>another turnlet
every lane can turn in any direction bro wym
Not any direction. They can't go back. It just splits each lane into 3 one going each way. I don't know if it is efficient, but it isn't elegant design.
>They can't go back
why would you need to
sounds like logistics issue not intersection issue
bro just press S instead of W and your train goes the other direction
>trains from the ongoing tracks can go to the incoming tracks
for what reason?
throughput
Just one more lane bro
Just use a fricking roundabout.
>buh buh factorio engine pathfinding
You will never notice a performance difference even if you build 1000 of them.
i don't think it's about performance but about deadlocks especially with longer trains
or have you managed to design a deadlock proof roundabout? (genuine question)
>not using logic signals to synchronize your trains
Wouldn't it just work like in real life roundabouts? Except only allow 1 train inside at a time to prevent two long trains blocking each other.
yeah i suppose 1 train at a time works but...
I've never tried roundabouts, but I wouldn't find it surprising if trains would find a way to all get stuck in the same roundabout in a neverending cycle of inefficiency. The game has a way of making the worst case scenario become the most likely scenario thanks to harmonics and shit.
Just let in one train at a time. I don't know what kind of traffic you people have where this would cause any noticeable delays. But if you're allergic to the idea of stopping for 2 seconds to yield, by all means build one more lane.
>>not making everything in their own miniature defended production site then connecting them all with a massive railway network
The point of a cloverfield intersection is that you never have an actual crossing, all paths remain one-way with only mergers, no crosses.
You can't do that in Factorio, as there are no bridges or tunnels for trains (or roads for that matter).
Meaning that this whole design is completely pointless. You are just blindly copying something that only really works for cars, and without having the different vertical levels that would justify thing whole thing.
>something that only really works for cars
And it's also one of the worst ones at that too
There's no scenario where a 4 way intersection is more practical or performs better than much simpler 3-ways. You're solving a problem caused by your own autistic love for symmetry.
uh I have a massive train track which brances off
sometimes i want to branch to one side
other times i want to brach out to both sides
like wtf would you do, place 2 3-way branches one after the other, one for each direction?
now that sounds dumb. and not to mention, ugly
genuine question why would a train would EVER need to make a U turn
It's for you when you're driving manually.
fricking lol
lmao even
>brainlet has never built a big bertha
let me guess you copy a megabase off the internet and then claim you beat the game
I use artillery outposts what include U turns
I don't need it on every intersection and never felt a need for it pretty much ever
if the added functionality doesn't impede on the rest of the performance then there's no reason not to include it. it gives you more options. for example if you want to quickly build a quick makeshift station for something that exits only 1 way then you don't need to worry about if the train gets to its destination efficiently because it can turn at will everywhere
if you skip adding u-turns, you limit your options
so tbh no-u-turn-gays are kinda autistic homosexuals, i bet real engineers like the redundancy
>if you want to quickly build a quick makeshift station for something that exits only 1 way then you don't need to worry about
skill issue
so you gays just trying to flex being shit at logistics as if it's some kind of accomplishment
it solves problems that shouldn't exist in a first place
the needs of your factory change over time
programmers will also tell you that there is a time for proper planning, and there is a time for quickly getting something up and running just to see if it works and get the ball rolling
i play with krastorio 2 + space exploration + extra ores so planning out everything in advance is not feasible in the first place
tbh you sound like someone who hasn't had any kind of real life logistics/engineering/programming experience. factorio is fun but the only way to never reiterate on a design is when you blindly copy blueprints off the internet
which you do of course, so no surprise there
that's a lot of projection for one post
hit a sore spot probably
>programmers will also tell you
lmao actually made me laugh irl well done
stay shit and for the love of god stay the frick away from real life logistics
copy some more blueprints and then larp about knowing what you're talking about
btw post factory
you're too pussy
just go backwards bro
like, press S instead of W bro
it's literally, UNironically, that fricking easy
>going backwards on a track with hundreds of automatic trains
i'm pretty confident in my rail lighting game but that sounds fricking moronic still
A few bits of steel can save it from having to do the WHOLE loop, wasting fuel and delaying production. Why would you not want to your trains to be able to make U turns?
Play some real railway games sometimes, instead of pretending Factorio is one.
what are some good rail management games
Transport Fever 2, Railway Empire (you just missed a humblebundle containing it), OpenTTD, and probably a bunch of others.