Accumulator priority based on charge level

[Holy-Fire]

tl;dr: If accumulator charge level is above 50%, prefer to use accumulators. Otherwise, prefer to use steam engines.

Currently, the electric network gets power from its sources in the following priority:

1. Solar panels.
2. Steam engines.
3. Accumulators.

Solar > Steam makes sure no coal is wasted when sustainable solar power is sufficiently available.

Steam > Accumulator makes sure the accumulators are always charged if possible, making them available for a rainy day. However, it also means that coal is wasted when you have enough solar panels and accumulators to last you through the night.

This problem has been raised before, and complicated setups to work around it have been described, and there was a proposal to configure this priority.

Ideally, you'll be able to specify a "critical" accumulator charge level X%. As long as it is above X%, power is taken from accumulators, saving coal. However, once it goes below it, power will be taken from steam engines first, preserving power for when it's needed.

However, adding new GUI elements complicates things, therefore I suggest to simply fix the critical level at 50%. This will mean that in normal conditions you'll always have some spare capacity in the accumulators, and you can make sure no coal is ever spent needlessly by setting up twice as many accumulators as needed for the night.

[Coolthulhu]

I support this, except for the hardcoded 50%.
If it gets in, it should be configurable; either per network or per accumulator, preferably both (accu settings first, defaults to network settings if none).

[ataaron]

1. Solar panels.
2. Accumulators.50-100%
3. Steam engines.
4. Accumulators.0-50%

But this would only make sense if there are any Solar panels. connected to the system

[ssilk]

Makes only sense, if this could be set per electric network.

Not a friend of that, the right way to regulate that, is the circuit network.

[BurnHard]

Ideal position for such a switch, lever or drop down menu would be the energy-statistics when right clicking an energy-pole. Because that way you could set different settings to different electric networks.

[ssilk]

I split the network, change it in one and replug it.

And now?

[BurnHard]

Already thought of that Merged network gets the settings of the previously bigger network. When splitting, the setting of the merged network stays the same for now both parts (Said that you could split the network at any given place) and you can again set up the two seperately.

[ssilk]

Hm. The biggest could be the wrongest. I see it every week: The players don't realize, that there could be plenty of electric networks. I mean it's logical not to think about that. But for beginner-players this is sometimes a big step. I'm sure, there are as many questions about that, as now about be able to change the priority. There is no easy way around that! And if I need to choose I think the beginners are more important.

I see a way. If it would be coupled with an entity (a device), which controls that: Ok, that makes this network-splitting logical and makes it understandable even for beginners and would make sense, but it is also untypical for factorio to make a device for one use only.

So I keep thinking, that the changing of priority is not a good game element, because it is an - for Factorio - untypical element, which cannot be seen, but has a great influence.

I think the ability to change the priorities for every part of my factory myself is a much better element (easier to understand, more usages, much more game) and that needs just more circuit network.

[BurnHard]

In all the games I played, I never had more than one electrical network. The bigger, the more it equals out energy spikes of production and demand in the whole network, and I never had problems with it.

Of course I don't know how the majority of the other players design their electric networks

[ssilk]

Well, the most players of course play with one. But big networks tend to fail completely when something happens. And this "something" is in my eyes a very good game element, because this brings you out of the comfort-zone off "well, I have my big network, nothing can fail and nothing can bring me down".


Ok, now it becomes a little bit off-topic:
- I think energy is much too cheap compared to it's reliability now. So I'm for windmills, which bring in randomness. Random power means, that you need to shut off things, dependent to the power production. There is no usage for priorities in this state of the game, but need to regulate energy.
- the night is completely underestimated now. I think of more thrilling moments. Thrilling moments means for me: No power, no lights, no lasers. The factory is completely unprotected and you get the feeling of this really dangerous situation, because they eat up half of your factory and you survived just because you have placed some mines around you.
- The stuff itself can fail due to overloading or because it gets old. Just an idea.

I understand, that many think now, this is too complicated, so I think this is an option: You don't need to use windmills to have random power and you should be able to shut off the thrilling moments (see other thread) or turn off aging. But as said, now we go to off-topic.

But the point for me is: Making it automatic won't enable those stuff in any way again. There is no way back. But going in my direction opens a vast number of possibilities and it doesn't cut-off yours or any others suggestion. But first I would like to check the possibilities to solve those problems within the game engine and if that doesn't work I'm really the last, that say we need to have electric network configuration switches.

[BurnHard]

I see what you mean, but all of this random factors are outruled by just one simple installation:

For the whole big network a big and cheap (because it doesnt work or uses no coal at normal energy levels when configurable that way) reserve power plant with boilers and steam engines which just could provide power for the whole factory when everything other fails.

[ssilk]

Yes, but in the start-phase you cannot backup. And then this is really important and brings you much faster forward, then any other strategy I tried.

Later is for me really not interesting; if we talk about later in the game this is not worth this discussion. Just build enough energy, make something which turns off steam engine when not needed. Finish. The current natives are not able to disturb you then in any way into that. And if, we are again in this off-topic area.

[BurnHard]

Well, at the time you have these huge energy-consumers like lasertowers and machines with productivity-modules etc, you are at least able to build a ton of steam engines before

In early game energy demands are very constant and low.. As I said, I see the whole energy system rebalancing some time in the future.

[Holy-Fire]

I support this, except for the hardcoded 50%.
If it gets in, it should be configurable; either per network or per accumulator, preferably both (accu settings first, defaults to network settings if none).

I want it to be configurable as much as the next guy, but adding a new interface element is complicated and I'd rather see it done crudely than not at all. Pareto principle.

Makes only sense, if this could be set per electric network.
Not a friend of that, the right way to regulate that, is the circuit network.

I agree that it would better conform to the spirit of the game if we had the tools to build our solution without "magic interfaces". Zener diodes and such to control current flow based on voltages.

But we'd need more building blocks for that, your design here with the current tools leaves much to be desired.

[ssilk]

But we'd need more building blocks for that, your design here with the current tools leaves much to be desired.

I think I need to explain something.

This game is developed by agile principles.
This means, that the software is developed in a way, that it is always useable.

Individuals and interactions is exactly that. Instead of a perfect solution we make a working solution. That means, we are part of the development!! With our usage of the software we are directly influencing he further development.

And this trick you mentioned is exactly such a thing. How could I use a software, which lacks an important piece. If I use a trick and communicate it. Such "tricks" make software useful, more worth, because it does more, than the developers ever imagined.

In other words: this "trick" (works btw. also for other stuff, I turned for example a whole smelting complex off with that) is just a provisory. It works. It's a bit cumbersome. But it will be replaced, when it is the right time.

[Pandamonium]

New building: Power Control Center / Power Control Panel

Works like smart crates/inserters; When linked to a power network, it allows the "resorting" of power consumption priorities.

Multiple control centers linked to the same network share the same setting, when joining two networks together, the one with largest power generation takes precedence

[ssilk]

Remembers me, that I suggested that half a year ago. https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... f=6&t=1261

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_(film)

[Pandamonium]

Remembers me, that I suggested that half a year ago. https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... f=6&t=1261

Wow.. way before my time. (just joined haha)

I only chimed in as in my eyes the solution seem simple, however it still escapes me why we would want more than a single large network for power. Then again I've only been playing a few days.

[SilverWarior]

however it still escapes me why we would want more than a single large network for power.

I usually have one power network for powering coal mines which feed coal to boilers. This power network is initialy powered by a single standalone steam engine but later when I research solar power I just add few solar panels to this network. These boilers then heat water for rest of my steam engines with who I power rest of my base.
So why I have seperate power network for coal production. If you have one big network it means that if you have power consumption greater than your power production every machine which is powered by this network slows its production down. And if your coal production slows down to much you might end up without enough coal for your boilers which would in the end result in even lower power production. So basically you could end up without any power at all.

I also tend to have seperate power networks for my offbase mining sites usually powered just by solar panels.

[rk84]

Strike up the music the band has begun, the pennsylvania polka... er sorry.

I usually have 2 or 3 networks. Machines inside factory network and lasers in defensive or in offensive networks. Just to prevent unpleasant surprises when you increase your factory or attack.
In past, I have also had seperated network for small power plant that runs bigger power plant.