100% efficient does not look efficient to me

[kLuns]

I don't mean to crush the freedom of playstyle, do whatever you like.

I see lot's of guides and videos where people say stuff is 100% efficiently made.
The only right efficiency is that the output of the first production matches the input of the second production and this for the entire production line.

Most of the time the clock speed is not altered to make manifolds more compact or allign less machines for the same production row. No power saved either.
There is not much or no information in these guides at all about underclocking calculations to save power and making layers to make a production tower with x items per floor. I don't mean a compact chalenge, just layer building.
You can use clockspeed to prevent the need of splitters/merges in a production line

Most of the time there is a lot of space wasted, on unnecessary kilometers of conveyor belt or detours which you don't need. This can often be build more directly without making it ugly or more difficult to overlook.

I am just wondering how you can call this efficient. It is often a working factory on a grid which will work, but it's way too raw and way too much spread out for my
personal definition of efficient.

Underclocking a production machine to 42% makes it use less than 25% of it's original power. If you usualy go from 2 to 3 or 3 to 2 or something like that, you might use 42 as main number, 28% as 2/3 and 63% as 1,5.

In this way you can change clockspeed, and with these numbers mentioned above I think it's easy calculating because you never get long decimal numbers. Clockspeed can always stay under 100% and you still produce alot of items per megawatt.
The only disadvantage is the raw material needs to be spread over much more machines

I understand a space to walk and overlook your production is a benefit to your factory but a pioneer is not that big in my opinion.

Of course it is nice to have a long glass wall watching the materials passing by, but when it comes to efficieny, why should you? Not my definition of efficient.

Load balancers are nice but because manifolds need less material for the same job I always consider manifolds more efficient.

I would rather call these videos "startup factory" or "basic factory, to be updated" because it can be done much better, more compact, less energy, shorter belts, less power used etc.

I used to play Transport Tycoon over 20 years before I discovered this game and I'am a perfectionist builder and never satisfied.

MUST BE DONE BETTER!! :)

I always want to make more efficient, more lean factories, more compact, minimum items used per job, less costs etc.
This perfectionism also delayed me to tier 6 and I am not higher in the game yet :)

It's a perfectionist disease I have, don't get too disturbed because I don't like these starter factories called efficient ;)
Like whatever you do and the other way around :)

[Maehlice]

I think all they mean by "100% efficient" is simply that all the machines run without ceasing. Their input hoppers never empty, and their output hoppers never fill.

What I think you're calling "efficient" is something I'm more inclined to call "minimalist".

I'm not saying you're wrong per se, but I think you're conflating aesthetics.

[Taco Cat]

100% efficiency = machine a produces the exact amount of product needed for machine b in the time machine b needs to produce its item --> result is 100% working time with constant flow on belts.
Play as you want. But your concept of efficient sounds like it describes something else. Generally if people talk about 100% efficient say simply mean they use all the resouce of a node in a production line that works non stop without "wasting" resources that sit on belts and wait for machines to be ready

[The Big Brzezinski]

I figured the limiting factor is always going to be my personal time, energy, and frustration tolerance. Whatever method uses the least of that is the most efficient for me.

So when I built my factories, I designed them to make and collect all the parts I would need without any trouble. I planned out all the machinery in spreadsheets to balance production and eliminate guesswork. I used an easily expandable railroad protocol to transport materials with a minimum of new track (TTD was my teacher as well). I even setup production for all the explosives, ammunition, filters, and beacons I'd need so I wouldn't have to stop and make them myself.

I didn't have to regularly stop and hand craft a bunch of computers or motors. I didn't have to stand behind a constructor grabbing parts right off the belt. When I needed something, I went to the designated box for them and took as many as I needed. It all worked as I had planned it. It all produced as much as I needed, and no more. When time came to produce project parts, it wasn't a final sprint. It was a victory lap.

So sure, I strung spaghetti all over and built production lines on ungreebled slabs and stacks. I had no regard for clean angles and perfect alignment. I used building cheese to bypass crash sites guardians rather than fight them. None of that matters. What does matter is that I got job done on time, under budget, and without burning out my workforce.

[Aven]

I define 100% efficient as a completely flat power usage line. No spikes or fluctuations. Every machine operates 100% of the time.

[kLuns]

Originally posted by Aven:

I define 100% efficient as a completely flat power usage line. No spikes or fluctuations. Every machine operates 100% of the time.

Originally posted by Mr Treffnix:

100% efficiency = machine a produces the exact amount of product needed for machine b in the time machine b needs to produce its item --> result is 100% working time with constant flow on belts.
Play as you want. But your concept of efficient sounds like it describes something else. Generally if people talk about 100% efficient say simply mean they use all the resouce of a node in a production line that works non stop without "wasting" resources that sit on belts and wait for machines to be ready

I think this is not 100% yet. Maybe I'm not the most general person.
Without this optimizing and updating your factory stands still in development before you reached 100%.
What's not broken doesn't need to be fixed, then again what is the right definition of broken?
Keep an open mind for updating and optimilisation.

I once saw a video called tier 1 iron factory with an input with a mk2 belt. That was allready ironic enough. All the squares and floors it took, could all be built on ground level with even less squares, making you save at least 20 stacks of concrete.
This meaning you get 100% alligned production without ceasing, clogging or blocking with half the material costs and the goods traveling less distance over shorter belts. Needing also less meters of cable. So something can be added/ removed in order to make the factory more efficient..
That means the 100% is not reached yet :)

[Maehlice]

Sounds like quibbling to me.

"I could build that with 100 less concrete and 26 fewer iron plates, so it's not 100%."

[Aven]

It's all about perspective.

Since resources are unlimited, material costs are largely irrelevant. So, considering them as a point of efficiency seems detrimental, particularly when power is a limited resource. The most efficient way to produce something power wise is to underclock the producer. 10 constructors underclocked to 10% will collectively produce an iron rod at a quarter of the power usage as a single constructor producing at 100%. Given that perspective, it seems the best way to be efficient is to overbuild.

This, however, runs into another limited resource: time. We generally don't have the time, or the patience, needed to lay out and belt 10 producers for every individual producer we need. A simple starter iron factory alone would require 60 or more buildings. So, you need to limit your underclocking to where it will not require significant additional effort, i.e. feeding underclocked smelters directly into constructors rather than balancing 100% output smelters. This reduces your power usage and eliminates the need for space and materials of balancers at the cost of additional smelters.

In the end, though, what is 100% efficient to one person will not be 100% efficient to another person. There is no right definition. You choose the combination of material, power, time, and space that is efficient to you.

[JakeURb8ty]

Also the game mechanics are not 100% fleshed out or balanced completely so finding this particular efficiency will almost be an exercise in futility(for now).

...and as always, i enjoyed the spaghetti

[Dix Dark]

5000 pieces of iron ore comes in, 5000 pieces of iron ore worth crap goes out, and no machine is stalling. What else is there to be?
This game, and at this point no other game, doesn't have the internal inefficiency and other production related problems, so essentially no resources are wasted into nothingness, if only by you and your choices...

[Rymorea]

Originally posted by Aven:

It's all about perspective.

Since resources are unlimited, material costs are largely irrelevant. So, considering them as a point of efficiency seems detrimental, particularly when power is a limited resource. The most efficient way to produce something power wise is to underclock the producer. 10 constructors underclocked to 10% will collectively produce an iron rod at a quarter of the power usage as a single constructor producing at 100%. Given that perspective, it seems the best way to be efficient is to overbuild.

This, however, runs into another limited resource: time. We generally don't have the time, or the patience, needed to lay out and belt 10 producers for every individual producer we need. A simple starter iron factory alone would require 60 or more buildings. So, you need to limit your underclocking to where it will not require significant additional effort, i.e. feeding underclocked smelters directly into constructors rather than balancing 100% output smelters. This reduces your power usage and eliminates the need for space and materials of balancers at the cost of additional smelters.

In the end, though, what is 100% efficient to one person will not be 100% efficient to another person. There is no right definition. You choose the combination of material, power, time, and space that is efficient to you.

Like this aproach. I have a lot of time cause I am retired man :) No rush, a lot of patience. Only overclock pure nods especialy coal and oil, There is a lot of space if you use multi floors. I think Power efficiency more important for this game.

[Twelvefield]

OP, I cannot recommend this book enough for you to read:

http://lawsofsimplicity.com/

John Maeda's "Laws Of Simplicity". It's a little dated because he discusses Apple's old technology, and it turns out he his the much-reviled designer of the Internet pop-up ad (for which he apologizes profusely, not that it does any good).

However, he discusses the relationship between operational complexity and functional simplicty which you are trying to grasp. The laws he provides are easily applied to Satisfactory. Or rather, they are if you have the will and the drive, which I lack. I like these factory games, but I try to achieve the minimum outcome with the maximum use of computer processing resources. If my computer has idle processes, then I am not getting my money's worth.

[Verios44]

I use efficiency in Satisfactory to gague if a given setup is working like it should. Did I do the math right in designing the logistics? Did I medd up a overclock/underclock?