Platform height/width

[pat]

In my first 2.0 game, I got a little frustrated with platform design and just grabbed someone's working one so I could get on to the planets. I'd prefer not to use others' designs, so this time around, I'm designing my own from scratch and have a couple questions.

I understand that wider platforms travel more slowly. But is it just a matter of the widest point along the entire height? i.e., if I have a platform that is 30 wide for the entire height but have one small thing jutting out 3 segments, is that as bad as having the entire thing 33 wide?

Does height affect speed? My current design has some waste (empty areas in the middle) that I *could* redesign to make the whole thing shorter, but do I gain anything from that?

[PunCrathod]

Every tile you have affects weight. And weight affects acceleration. And the width(furthest point on the right - furthest point on the left and they do not have to be at the same height) determines the drag coefficient. And drag is speed^2*drag coefficient. And the top speed of a platform is when drag equals thrust.

So width limits top speed and weight limits acceleration.

[🆄🅽🅲🅻🅴 🅹🅾]

PunCrtdod nailed it regarding the dimensions, (Width and Length to be more correct) but I question the Dev's interpretation of the "implied drag effect on speed/velocity" from a wider ship in a near vacuum. Technically, our ship in Factorio should keep accelerating for as long as the engine burns. But it's what we have and it's actually fine.

Also, since weight in micro gravity is almost nothing, acceleration will be impacted by inert mass, not weight, but that's me being nit picky.

[Mansen]

Not sure I'd appreciate trying to go for proper newtonian approach. That'd mean the ship would need thrusters on the side to turn around and thrust in reverse to slow down, meaning you'd need turrets on the back as well.

[🆄🅽🅲🅻🅴 🅹🅾]

Originally posted by Mansen:

Not sure I'd appreciate trying to go for proper newtonian approach. That'd mean the ship would need thrusters on the side to turn around and thrust in reverse to slow down, meaning you'd need turrets on the back as well.

Lol, yes, as I posted my thing I thought about that.
Would complicate things terribly.

[PunCrathod]

Drag in space even tough it's unrealistic is a common solution to the problem of things can accelerate indefinitely and at some point start going so fast the simulation breaks apart. It also solves the problem of thing going too fast to react to anything in visual range.

There are other solutions but they have their own problems.

Also yes the terms I used aren't the correct ones when it would come to the real world physics. I just used the same terms the game uses so it would be easier to figure out how the things in the game work.

[Universalgenie]

If you don't want to build a spaghetti, a wider platform can be faster simply because there can be more thrusters in a row. you can build several thrusters behind each other, but in my opinion it's not that practical in a 'real' game.

[knighttemplar1960]

Originally posted by 🆄🅽🅲🅻🅴 🅹🅾:

PunCrtdod nailed it regarding the dimensions, (Width and Length to be more correct) but I question the Dev's interpretation of the "implied drag effect on speed/velocity" from a wider ship in a near vacuum. Technically, our ship in Factorio should keep accelerating for as long as the engine burns. But it's what we have and it's actually fine.

Also, since weight in micro gravity is almost nothing, acceleration will be impacted by inert mass, not weight, but that's me being nit picky.

The planetary system in Factorio "could" be an atmospheric and asteroidal torus ala Larry Niven's integral trees and it could be the debris from the shattered planet.

Knowing how much the engineer engineer's things for convenience, that may have been what caused the initial crash. The mission was to shatter the planet to get a bunch of promethium all in one go and take it back to the home planet but the main mission went wrong, marooning the engineer with only an indestructible pick and a few bits of low tech left over junk from the shuttle crash.

[zombiemickey]

so is there some kind of “sweet point" for the width&length ratio or size? just asking, me engineer no math every time i design platform, i always try to use as few as possible tiles, but always end up with something like a "T"or upside down "T"shape

[Chindraba]

The 'sweet spot' is relative. Same as the sweet spot for size and power for a motor vehicle. Sports cars and lorries have different requirements. So too do platforms. The balance between width, mass, and power vary between a science transport from Vulcanas and an harvester headed to the Shattered Planet. Even within those ranges, one player's 'perfect' is going to be another's overkill, and a third's slug.

[zombiemickey]

make sense，i just constantly drown in a mentality of “try to achieve space/resource efficiency as best as i can” that i kind of fear to expend the platform to get more smooth design，and after wasting too much time banging my head over it，the grind just kind of ruin the fun of game

[GreenBeanN1]

Luckily for those that mod their game it is fixed that shape has an effect on drag.
https://mods.factorio.com/mod/Rocs-Improved-Platform-Drag?from=search

[PunCrathod]

Originally posted by GreenBeanN1:

Luckily for those that mod their game it is fixed that shape has an effect on drag.
https://mods.factorio.com/mod/Rocs-Improved-Platform-Drag?from=search

That is even more unrealistic. With that mod the shape has no impact at all. Only weight matters. Which is completely wrong.

[GreenBeanN1]

I prefer unrealistic in a game where I can carry countless nuclear reactors in my pocket.

A circle, a cross, a line, an arc I build my platform as I seem fit and fun. Don't bother me wirh shape affecting any movement in space.
Gravity and weight for the winner.

[PunCrathod]

Originally posted by GreenBeanN1:

I prefer unrealistic in a game where I can carry countless nuclear reactors in my pocket.

A circle, a cross, a line, an arc I build my platform as I seem fit and fun. Don't bother me wirh shape affecting any movement in space.
Gravity and weight for the winner.

Vanilla optimal builds are narrow and long. With that mod the optimal build is wide and short. You are just trading one boring build with another boring build.

[GreenBeanN1]

Have I ever mentioned optimal? No one needs to be a rocket scientist to know that when building wider has lower penalties a shape can become less long and thus wider.

In vanilla I can build a T shape platform. If I decide to fill up the inside a little more not much is happening. With this mod it is less static than vanilla.

I am not going to defend the used formula. It is not mine but it is great the dev's took the effort to support modding this and allow people to come up with interesting alternatives.
If someone likes vanilla, use vanilla. I am having fun with the mod and mentioned it here (tho it has quite some downloads so I am not the only one it seems).