Can Someone Explain The Advantages of Fluid Wagons over regular barrels? [SOLVED]

[Hexafish]

One cargo wagon loaded with oil barrels can hold 100,000 oil while a fluid wagon can only hold 75,000; 12 barrels X 250 oil is 3000 oil for every stack inserter swing, which is theoretically 3000 X 12 stack inserters which means 36,000 oil per second while pumps insert nowhere near this amount (correct me if I'm wrong). Also, fluid wagons create 3x more drag on trains than regular cargo wagons meaning more fuel and a longer time to reach max speed. Is there something I'm missing?

[scrungo beepis, lizard supreme]

Mostly fluid wagons are for convenience so you don't need barrelling stations at each end. Otherwise I suppose barrels are the way to go.

[impetus_maximus]

many people struggle with handling barrels because empties have to be shipped back and managed.

[Nellvan]

As they said, it's convenience vs throughput.

The issue with drag just got fixed as well.
0.15.20 "Reduced fluid wagon air resistance from 0.05 to 0.01"

[Hexafish]

Originally posted by Nellvan:

As they said, it's convenience vs throughput.

The issue with drag just got fixed as well.
0.15.20 "Reduced fluid wagon air resistance from 0.05 to 0.01"

Yeah, I saw the 0.15.20 notes but I didn't know if the wiki had been updated or not

[Teh Freek]

Originally posted by Darkslayer85:

... 36,000 oil per second ...

It's about the same if you have 3 pumps connected directly to a storage tank each (for a certain definition of "about the same").

[Steelflame]

It heavily depends on how you manage your setup.

If you manage your setup via logistics bots, barreling wins out because it can instantly be picked up by the bots to transfer to around the base, if you pipe stuff around your base, tanks win out because convinience, lower maintnence cost (Cost power to barrel it, and makes you need to carry them back vs just sending the train the moment it's empty, both of which end up increasing the total power cost of the proceedure).

[Nailfoot]

I would recomend the fluid wagon for transporting fluids (including steam) over any real distance, and barrels within the main parts of your factory (Aside from wherever you are using a main fluid buss).

I wouldn't use barrels on a train simply because when we had NO CHOICE but to do so, it quickly became a PITA once you had a dozen or two oil fields tapped out. Without careful planning, you would end up with too many fulls or not enough empties where you needed them.

The best solution I found was to have one dedicated train for every single oil field that I tapped. And each oil field would only supply oil to one system that would not mingle with any other (A system for only lube, one (or 10!!) for plastic, etc).

[Hexafish]

Originally posted by slindenau:

Originally posted by Darkslayer85:

...12 barrels X 250 oil is 3000 oil for every stack inserter swing, which is theoretically 3000 X 12 stack inserters which means 36,000 oil per second...

Yes, but that is just unloading. You can't consume barreled oil, so you'll still need another (much slower) step in this process!

You can however directly consume oil pumped out of a liquid wagon. There (+ not having to barrel stuff) is your advantage :).

400 barrels X 4 cargo wagons = 1600 / 1 second / 20 Assembly Machine 3 = 64 seconds. I guess you could speed module though for around 20 seconds.

[Lothos]

distance is a huge factor too. I use fluid wagons atm for crude and sulphuric acid. My uranium train has 1 wago to take acid out to the mining outposts. You're not going to be as fast as fluid wagon with direct pumps loading/unloading. As long as right there is where you need it.

Quantity is your second factor. Do you really want 10k bots flying barrels from one point to another or would trains/pipes be better?

[Hexafish]

Originally posted by slindenau:

Originally posted by Darkslayer85:

400 barrels X 4 cargo wagons = 1600 / 1 second / 20 Assembly Machine 3 = 64 seconds. I guess you could speed module though for around 20 seconds.

Yep, and just directly pumping from a wagon with 3 pumps is much better.

Well since three pumps transfer 36,000 liquid per second I guess it is really just a matter of whether you want to unbarrel or not.

I've come to the conclusion that it'd be best to barrel crude oil, but when using sulfuric acid for uranium it'd be better to use fluid wagons.

[Lothos]

I question the actual accuracy of that unbarreling speed. I mean, you're talking about 80 barrels needing to be moved/inserted/removed all while the assemblers unbarrel/barrel the fluid.

[Hexafish]

Originally posted by lothos:

I question the actual accuracy of that unbarreling speed. I mean, you're talking about 80 barrels needing to be moved/inserted/removed all while the assemblers unbarrel/barrel the fluid.

It's actually 400 barrels :)

[Lothos]

1600 barrels across 20 assemblers from above :D =80

[Hexafish]

Originally posted by lothos:

1600 barrels across 20 assemblers from above :D =80

Well actually with assembly machine 3s you'd get 64. :)

They craft 0.25x faster than you.

And so I suppose since oil processing takes 5 seconds and uses 100 oil you could theoretically have just 2 assemblers for every 25 refineries, so the "unbarreling time" people are claiming is a bottleneck really isn't much of one.

One refinery: -20 per second
Unbarreling: +250 per second

Edit, Assembly Machines 3 are 1.25 crafting speed, not 1, so 312.5 oil per second.

[Lothos]

assuming they dont beacon their refineries though.