Wube is such a unique game studio. They do a lot of very solid technical work and look like they have fun doing it. I particularly appreciated their recent post about porting Factorio to ARM64. They had a business reason to do it but it's clear the team was mostly just curious about whether ARM64 was a viable gaming platform now. And then shared the results with us. They seem like fun hacker guys.
Factorio is in that top-tier. I just tried Core Keeper and had the same feeling, gushing with QoL and thoughtful design. Refreshing to play sandbox-y games where mods don't feel mandatory.
I'm surprised they didn't find a way to further improve the belt system. I thought they had it solved pretty well but e.g. Shapez is leagues better (talking about belt placement only here).
Is it possible Factorio is handicapped because of the perspective? I saw a post by the team that said the visual perspective was a mistake that caused endless headaches to accommodate. Things don’t perfectly align which bubbles up everywhere.
No, this is just about the UX of drawing a long belt in a 2D grid. I think part of the problem is that they can't easily change the existing UX without breaking muscle memory for all existing players, and maybe they might not want to make it "too easy" to avoid throwing off timing or encouraging certain mechanics like blueprints or trains?
Although now that I'm looking at some tutorials, it's also possible that I just missed that they introduced a very similar feature.
For “I want A connected to B and I don’t particularly care how” where A and B are long distances apart, Shapez belt mechanics are nicer than Factorio belt mechanics, but Factorio train mechanics are nicer than Shapez belt mechanics.
For “I want to lay down a lot of belt in this area and I want each piece placed in a certain way” I think Factorio belt mechanics are nicer.
I think the C (?) mechanic in Shapez to manually fix a corner is really neat. I haven't tried the Factorio R-while-dragging mechanic, it might be the same or close enough.
Yes but they have fallen into a success trap. I have seen the same trend with Mincraft, KSP and Subnautica. An indi developer starts with a great concept and a true open world game. The player can progress through the tech tree how they choose but doing so requires exploration. All is good. Then the developer starts to tighten the reigns. The tech tree become more rigid. Exploration must happen in a more specific order. And then the graphics department takes over, adding more and more objects until a previously huge and open world is a tightly cluttered mess.
Think of how subnautica moved. The second game was very literally denser to the point that they slowed down movement to preserve any sense of space. And each step inthe tech tree required specific tools from a specific place. No more free explorations. No more alternatives. The player lost control over the story. Subnautica 3 is now so dense and linear I gave up after a week. It is more a decorated fishtank than open world.
I still play factorio (1000x) but I do not play the new planets. That whole rocket process is so locked down that there is little for me to enjoy. I get bored whenever there is only one way to do a thing and no room for a player to invent alternatives.
This is a weird perspective. The middle planets can be approached in any order. And mods allow near-infinite variety - especially those that build on the platform of custom planets.
> there is only one way to do a thing and no room for a player to invent alternatives.
Sounds to me like you are caught up in trying to chase optimization and bemoaning the fact that there's only one optimal strategy. Do a no trains run! Or a no bots run. Or a 1000x science modifier run, or Lazy Bastard, or Death World, or... there are plenty of constraints, both programmed-in or self-imposed, that can push you out of the "standard" optimal strategy.
The system for moving between planets is locked down. It is rockets or nothing. And that system is deliberately designed to defeat scaling. What really killed me was the message saying I was only allowed one of a specific key building on each planet. That was very anti-factorio imho. As I said above, as an indi developer moves forwards they add constraints to focus and guide progression. I simply do not want that. So I disabled all the planet stuff and play like it never existed.
That restriction is needed in some way to prevent that building being a way of teleporting stuff across the planet. They did relax this in 2.1 and allow you to build extensions to that building where you can add inserters and use belts/trains.
I'm going to restrict my commentary to the base game, both because you're deliberately ignoring the stuff in the Space Age expansion, and because I've not yet gotten to the new stuff in the expansion. While the following might sound like a "gotcha!", it isn't:
> I get bored whenever there is only one way to do a thing and no room for a player to invent alternatives.
There is only one way to process iron ore: put it in a furnace. There is no way for the player to invent alternatives. There are only three ways to make electricity, and two of them require you to boil water. There's no way for the player to invent alternatives. There are so many examples of places where stock Factorio permits you only one way to do a thing and prevents you from inventing alternatives.
> The system for moving between planets is locked down. ... And that system is deliberately designed to defeat scaling.
All of the systems for transporting materials are locked down... it's hand-transport, belts, bots, trains, or nothing. Hand-transport's godawful scaling is why you build everything else. Bots are deliberately designed to scale incredibly poorly and belts to scale pretty badly, which is why you're -as it seems like you'd say- forced to use trains to transport materials over very long distances.
> The tech tree become more rigid. Exploration must happen in a more specific order. And then the graphics department takes over, adding more and more objects until a previously huge and open world is a tightly cluttered mess.
That hasn't happened to Factorio in the thirteen years that Wubi has been working on it.
yes, one landing pad per planet a really obnoxious restriction I really hoped they'd remove in 2.1, but they did a half-measure instead. their rationale is uncharacteristically misguided, intended to prevent using rockets for on-planet logistics. first of all, it would be a cool option. second of all, that option would be impractical and very expensive both in terms of resources and UPS, so people would only use it in very niche scenarios. it's an overwhelmingly unpopular design decision.
I also dislike that they moved some base game tech to space and other planets to discourage extended stay on Nauvis. which again makes no sense because an extended stay on Nauvis itself makes no sense when each inner planet offers overwhelmingly powerful tech that renders every single assembly line you can make without leaving Nauvis utterly obsolete. not having cliff explosives before Vulcanus, which may not be the first planet you visit, is a minor but obnoxious inconvenience even if you do decide, deliberately or due to inexperience, to stay on Nauvis for a while. artillery being moved there is equally pointless -- the best defense in the game are landmines, and they can be still unlocked in less than an hour. I don't remember what else had got moved, but I do know that if I wanted to build a 10K SPM kilobase without ever going to space, I still could. and even if there weren't these hamfisted disincentives, the #1 advice for noobs would still be "go to space ASAP", because the incentives alone are more than enough.
that all being said, these are my very only gripes with Wube and I played the game for >1000 hours, 200 or so after the DLC came out. except for maybe not being able to choose the output lane for inserters, but that limitation is as old as the game itself, and I don't know whether it's a misguided design decision or simply a limitation of their extremely optimized belt system.
I don't think there's ever been a game I've been more satisfied with. for every game I ever played that seriously, my list of complaints had much more entries than <10 with Factorio. it exceeds even the old Blizzard's level of polish.
oh, neither of those two complaints apply to the base game. vanilla gameplay is still largely what it's been since pre-1.0. 2.0 changes like the simplified fluid mechanics imo had only positive impact on it.
> except for maybe not being able to choose the output lane for inserters, but that limitation is as old as the game itself, and I don't know whether it's a misguided design decision or simply a limitation of their extremely optimized belt system.
I think I might have some good news for you, this was added this summer with the extension of the “flip” mechanic
sadly, that only applies if the belt is perpendicular to the inserter, not parallel (i.e. you can pick left-right, not near-far), so it's only half-great. it addresses the major inconsistency with non-trivial belt configurations breaking when flipped rather than rotated. the minor inconvenience of assembly lines requiring a small lane-switching segment on their output belts once one lane is full still remains.
Output lane switching is possible - some mods (e.g. [1]) add it, as well as even wilder options. Not offering it in the base game is a deliberate choice.
As far as belt lane management goes, another interesting option - which is also present in the engine, but not used by default! - is lane splitters [2].
It's a deeply philosophical question in many ways - if you don't enjoy the direction a studio takes its game, is that their problem? Earendel who designed Space Age has a rigid take on game design that was absent from the original Factorio. In the base game if there was some aspect that you didn't like it was totally fine to disengage with it. In Space Age there is a lot of mandatory requirements down to the bizarre approach to prescribing weapons for particular maps (in hindsight it is actually a bit weird that they didn't make the use of flamethrowers mandatory at some point; they may change that eventually).
Space Age doesn't respect the people who played Factorio as a light a-la-carte design sandbox experience. But it isn't obvious that is worse as opposed to just different. Wube doesn't have to build games for those people, they have many players who clearly wanted different things.
I agree. I played Space Age once, and don't plan to ever play it again. The devs approached things from the angle of wanting to generate new logistical puzzles, but that's not what I wanted. I wanted the expansion to play much like the base game, but with more stuff added. I did like Vulcanus (the most vanilla-like of the new planets), but otherwise the expansion was a big whiff for me.
Space Age is intentionally a different game. They did not discontinue the original game. Space Age is a mod. You can play it or not, just like you can play Bob's/Angel's or Pyanodon's or not.
I loved my first 100h (maybe 200h?) of Factorio and thought it was like crack, reached a point where I started designing city blocks as monads because I wanted to solve the game - or well, tried, because the blueprinting system becomes unwieldy once you try to do some advanced blueprinting and things that should have been easy to became just deep time sinks to iterate on.
One can't really point the finger at an hugely successful game - on the other hand I think it's another example of how bad architectural decisions in the underlying systems creep up and cripple future development.
The following is from the point of view of the "end-game" stage, of when you're doing things because you're trying the limits of the system - not your first runs, those were fun and I guess it's reasonable to expect a game to have a finite life.
With blue-prints you can't really customise them beyond parameters - which in turn are limited in the number of them that you can use, don't have any way of ordering, don't have any way of copying/applying them, don't have any way of relating them to other aspects of the blueprint itself (besides very basic stuff, that sometimes was broken too).
You can't apply "sub" blueprints inside a blue-print, making the whole idea of "blueprinting" quite limited. Like if you want to make a city block with train stations that can either take liquids or solids, you end up having to create 2 (almost identical blueprints), or 3 (a general layout city block and 2 "internal" for the stations).
To work around the parameters limitations you need to create monstrous circuitry abominations, that can be fun the first time you're implementing them, but are just horrendous in interface afterwards - doing a simple circuit change can take an hour and endless clicking, keeping memory of it all, double checking it and so on... The same to updating them if you have plastered N city blocks on your way to factorio greatness and realised later it needs a "slight" change in the circuitry control/flow.
The train system was also severely hampered by (although better in v2) their underlying choices - even the "wildcard" improvements of v2 still show those design issues popping up all over their interfaces and makes you reach for awful designs due to the way wildcards work with the stations naming, connections and many other details. Part of it is due to - from what I read - the way they implemented IDing the train/wagons - and other is just the inexistent connection between the seemingly connected aspects of trains, stops, and stations, resources, and units.
The network/automation (bots) was also pretty limited in functionality, yeah, it felt like a great advancement once you get to it, and then you have a learning curve until you master it but it just ends on a cliff - you can't really program the network in ways that seems obvious you should.
Some of this might be to keep the game "flow" mostly manual, but to me, that I don't like doing click & run endlessly and like games that progress further, it all got old at some point and reaching those hours of game-play others consistently talk about looked like subjecting yourself to endless punishment rather than enjoyment. I tried and in part succeeded to create city blocks that you just had to paste and pick your inputs, choose your outputs, place some trains and choose the type of input and output, and it all worked - no stuck trains, not the highest throughput by space area, but just endlessly expandable without bottlenecks - at that point I considered the game solved and moved on but would have spent (probably quite many) more hours on it optimising and testing designs if it didn't end on that functionality/UI/flow cliff once you reach a certain stage (and blueprint bugs too, like them disappearing after being saved and so on). And I had to use the map editor mods to be able to design the blueprints and iterate on them otherwise impossible...
In the end, I feel like the game provided me enjoyment worth its cost (and that's what matters) but at the same time, paradoxically, was a bit of a let down because the more "engineering", "architecture" like aspects of the game were not really fleshed out or deep at all. Like all the ingredients are there, but... It's mostly aimed at spreadsheet min-maxing and I prefer other sorts of puzzles.
It helps they don’t have a publisher to confuse them with quantitative and qualitative pattern matching. Just make the game you play and judge it honestly. Of course, the second part is a rare ability.
I still believe Factorio fundamentally rewired the way I think about software and engineering more broadly... prepared me better for my first software internship than any class I'd taken
The whole game really drills in what it means to "think like a computer scientist". Abstraction, encapsulation, modularity, etc
Not sure if this seems too random but I think that's what I like about OpenStreetMap editing: it's only a few clicks to improve the map and thousands or more people will come across it. You're changing the world in one of the literal senses of the phrase, and can do it from an armchair (doing quality assurance or using aerial imagery) or use it as motivation to seek out places near you that you've not visited yet. Maybe that's something you'd enjoy as well
As far as the game in concerned, the sprites are all just 2D assets. The fact that those assets came from a 3d model during development has no effect on performance. They also do manual post-processing on most of the 2D renders.
Your wording can easily be read as them shipping 3d models and rendering them as 2d at runtime. It's a weird way to say the game is made up of 2d assets.
The game doesn't consume that much VRAM. It plays on 4 GB GPUs just fine. The GPU only needs to keep resident what's currently on the screen. Even including every animation frame, that's 1 GB tops.
Hell, the minimum requirements are a GeForce 750 Ti, or Radeon r7 360. Those are 2 GB GPUs.
You can make it consume more VRAM if you want. There's a 13GB texture modpack that I use so it looks nice on my high DPI screen. Totally optional but it sure looks good.
I'm not certain but my guess is Factorio doesn't have the elaborate systems for streaming and unloading textures 3d games has.
That's the amount of VRAM that has shipped in budget to midtier gpu's since at least 2016 with the RX470/480 from AMD. You can find even older & slower examples from Nvidia and AMD (ex. Nvidia 740GT 4GB edition)
Gaming hardware reviewers have been complaining about 4GB of VRAM not being enough since probably 2018 onward.
I have a weird setup with two very old 5:4 1280x1024 monitors I like to use for fun, and even playing Subnautica (2018 Release date) I can use up 3.4GB of VRAM at that low of a resolution on High settings. (playing on a single monitor)
> That's the amount of VRAM that has shipped in budget to midtier gpu's since at least 2016
In desktops maybe, which will be somewhat popular still among people who play a lot of games but not a majority (IDC has laptop sales at a 3 to 1 ratio to desktops in 2022, but that's not specific to people who play games, much less (2d) Factorio players specifically). The system I bought before my current one was in 2018 and mid-tier then was 2GB. There was no craze for (V)RAM at the time, more a question of which setting you want to play games at (and with which render distance) than whether a given laptop works for games at all
> The system I bought before my current one was in 2018 and mid-tier then was 2GB.
Mid-tier laptop GPU in 2018 would have been a GeForce 1060, which came in either 3 or 6 GB variants. GeForce 1050 Ti came in a 2 GB variant, but I wouldn't classify that as mid-tier. The x050 variants (1050, 2050, etc) are budget tier.
Steam having a massive collection of users with older hardware doesn't really make 4GB of VRAM any larger. My current main machine reports less than 1GB since its an iGPU. (But I've seen it use over 8gb of system memory as VRAM)
>I'm not familiar with Subnautica, is that known for being particularly efficient?
Its a pretty well made unity engine game with a minimum requirement of Intel HD4000 integrated graphics. IDK if it would be consideredban efficient game vs other visually nice from this time frame like DOOM 2016 which runs really well on 4GB vram cards if you stick to 900p and below resoultions.
> As of last month, Steam reports that >15% of their customers still have 4GB VRAM or less...
Based on my testing (and the fact that Factorio officially runs on the OG Switch) Factorio fits comfortably in less than 4GB of VRAM. So, the relevant percentage is 9.6%... the slice of their customers that have 3GB of VRAM or less.
But, the slice is actually smaller than that! The minimum graphics requirement listed on the Steam Store page is
Given that Wubi actively tested on hardware with 1GB of VRAM [0] and that they've proven themselves to be highly-technical people that sweat the details and talk about it both publicly and in-depth, I believe that to be an accurate minimum system requirement. Requiring 1GB of VRAM excludes 2.7% of those who chose to do the Steam Hardware survey.
Given that very few OpenGL/D3D/Vulkan 3D games [1] released in the past like ten years will run with 512MB of VRAM, 1GB of VRAM seems to be a fine cutoff point to me.
[1] Yes, I'm aware that Factorio is a 2D game. The comment that started this discussion claimed that Factorio "uses so much VRAM" because it's a 2D game rather than a 3D one.
> As of last month, Steam reports that >15% of their customers still have 4GB VRAM or less
4 GB is the recommended size, which manes >90% of steam-user are already in the optimal area. The lower recommendation is even 1 GB, which means >97% of steam user. Maybe if you play on a $100 mini-toaster, or some budget-laptot, it will get critical, but the vast majority of steam users are fine with playing this game.
If you play video games, it's basically nothing. I bought a 6 GB VRAM card for ~$300 a decade ago. Many recent games require a minimum of 8 GB VRAM and can scale up to 16 GB VRAM on higher settings.
Sure I play video games, but not usually the ones from the current year. Besides the price of the game itself, it won't run well on laptop hardware anyway and there's such an enormous collection of great games from past years. Factorio is an exception for me, I've played it since not long after the initial release in 2016 and actually got entertainment for so many hours that I thought it fair to buy it a second time ^^'
> Sure I play video games, but not usually the ones from the current year.
So you're extrapolating "I bought a budget tier system in 2018 and it plays a 2016 game just fine" to "Nobody needs more than 4 GB of VRAM unless you're running an LLM"
Please point out where you took that quote from, or what statement I made that could even be remotely paraphrased to that, or stop accusing people of saying things that you've misunderstood
The 2D graphics are heavier than you might suspect. But Factorio is overall a very well optimized game, and it runs far better on my office notebook than any comparable game. This will work fine on any not ancient notebook with integrated graphics.
I first beat Factorio on a 2012 MacBook Pro with integrated graphics. It is not a hard game to run until you get into the mega-megabase size, and even then you are typically CPU-bound.
I have found that HN has this population of people that think a budget system bought in 2015 should last them forever and they should never need an upgrade.
You can play Factorio on laptops and other devices that don’t have dedicated GPUs. A mid-grade computer from 2013 would be a $599 laptop with a Core i3 integrated GPU that shared the 4 GB of system RAM.
the "minimum requirements" aren't even the actual minimum, the game can definitely play on worse machines than that (just inconsistently). I know from personal experience that you can play factorio (at least the base game) on a crappy old 2009 toshiba laptop. Pretty sure it doesn't even have a GPU, just integrated graphics. It doesn't run well but it's not an action game, a little stutter isn't the end of the world and anybody playing on a system like that should not be surprised by it.
The most potato i've run it on was a CB131 chromebook, (which was about a hundred bucks in 2017) and even then, even though video was chugging at 20fps, the main update loop was locked at 60TPS. very impressive. (and helpful for a 9 hour layover on christmas eve, anecdotally)
I don't have it installed now (lest I get tempted into a quick 2-hour session and end up being late for work 12 hours later), but IIRC it performed the same for me on iGPU and 4090, even on the big saves running below 60 FPS/UPS.
Purely from a vram perspective. A triangle is just 3 vertices and some edges. A few bytes of data.
A similar 2d image of a triangle would likely be thousands of bits of data.
The 2d probably uses a little less per pixel. Whereas the triangle has slightly more expensive compute per pixel cost. But modern gpu have dedicated hardware for that.
3d is probably more expensive compute but cheaper vram usage. At least to a point and a certain set of conditions. Barring things like textures and others.
As a graphics programmer, the most charitable interpretation I have here is that in 2D all the animations are baked into texture atlases. A 3D model would re-use its textures during animation, in 2D it’s a new one.
But I don’t see Factorio as being a VRAM pig, even with all their animations, which you could certainly improve on from the simplistic “every animation frame is a whole new texture” model.
you do not need a different texel for every rendered pixel in every animation frame, which is what you need, and factorio has, with the sprite approach.
There are assumptions being made about texture resolution.
The high quality sprites are 64 pixels across per tile. With each tile being 1 meter, 1 pixel is 1.56 cm (About 0.63 inches) across. By today's standards, that's a very low texture resolution, though they can get away with it when your camera is so far away.
But if the game was 3D, you could expect players to put the camera closer to your objects. You'd need significantly higher texture resolutions. And you'd need a texture for each part of the object.
Meanwhile, consider a 3x3 object. That's 192x192 = 36,864 pixels. Assume it has a 60 fps, 2-second animation loop. That's 4,423,680 pixels. With 8 bytes per channel and 4 channels (RGBA), that's about 17.7 MB, which allows you to store 56 objects per GB.
Which doesn't sound like a lot, but we're making some huge assumptions. Not all objects are 3x3 tiles. Most don't have 120 frames of animation.
And as I mentioned in another comment, you don't need to store ALL the game's art in VRAM at once. Only what's on the screen. And you can certainly fit an entire screen's worth of animations in a 2 GB GPU.
> Meanwhile, consider a 3x3 object. That's 192x192 = 36,864 pixels. Assume it has a 60 fps, 2-second animation loop. That's 4,423,680 pixels. With 8 bytes per channel and 4 channels (RGBA), that's about 17.7 MB, which allows you to store 56 objects per GB.
I am assuming that they are laveraging multiple compression technics like using texture specific compression on the gpu, or sub sampling the resolution directly.
8 bytes per channel seems rather large here as well.
Hmmm... The Factorio team is famously performance oriented, and more scenes are often far less so. Are you sure the problem wasn't the mods? I have good memories of sending my Kerbal frame rates to hell with generous modding, both for graphics and the physics engine.
I also struggled with performance in space age and mentioned it to a developer, but the solution was setting a setting which I had tested previously (no fog) and did nothing... on Nauvis. Turns out it's the difference between stuttering and smooth when in space platform view. They do still care but I guess there's only so much you can do if you also have other tasks to get to
Real-world Factorio, aka composable manufacturing, aka "factories building drones building factories", aka universal constructor, is the next trillion dollar company.
I'm (hopefully) getting a G1X soon, so I think I'm going to put it to work printing this stuff out. I'm now excited for this as a use case and I kind of hope someone builds something to convert an existing factorio world into a 3d model, though it might be to big to actually print so maybe a way to take a section would be even better.
A "screen" for blind people, where "pixels" would move up and down instead of changing colours would be so cool. Factorio would "display" the game world, something else would "display" text in Braille...
Based on the title I thought this would be about adapting Factorio for touch controls, but this is way more interesting. The folks at Wube have such a unique sense of technical curiosity.
This project looks simple until you realize how much engineering went into it.
The original assets were never meant to be physical, so they had to completely re-engineer isometric tricks and floating geometry for 3D printing. Releasing the files instead of an expensive collector's edition is a classic Factorio move, and I personally love it. Now the community can remix these and build some awesome stuff that the original devs could never imagine. Awesome stuff!
Fun thing about taking Factorio physical is that the game already has a real scale. A tile is a metre, that's what the km/h readouts for vehicles are based on. So a yellow belt moves at basically walking pace, and the engineer runs everywhere at about 30 km/h all day without getting tired. The mining drill that eats a whole ore patch is a 3x3m box.
Wube is such a unique game studio. They do a lot of very solid technical work and look like they have fun doing it. I particularly appreciated their recent post about porting Factorio to ARM64. They had a business reason to do it but it's clear the team was mostly just curious about whether ARM64 was a viable gaming platform now. And then shared the results with us. They seem like fun hacker guys.
https://www.factorio.com/blog/post/fff-446
I've never played a game where it was more obvious that the developers really played and enjoyed their game. It's just brimming with QoL features.
The modern doom saga gives me the same vibes. The team really poured their hearth in it!
Factorio is in that top-tier. I just tried Core Keeper and had the same feeling, gushing with QoL and thoughtful design. Refreshing to play sandbox-y games where mods don't feel mandatory.
> brimming with QoL features.
I'm surprised they didn't find a way to further improve the belt system. I thought they had it solved pretty well but e.g. Shapez is leagues better (talking about belt placement only here).
Is it possible Factorio is handicapped because of the perspective? I saw a post by the team that said the visual perspective was a mistake that caused endless headaches to accommodate. Things don’t perfectly align which bubbles up everywhere.
Have not played Shapez.
No, this is just about the UX of drawing a long belt in a 2D grid. I think part of the problem is that they can't easily change the existing UX without breaking muscle memory for all existing players, and maybe they might not want to make it "too easy" to avoid throwing off timing or encouraging certain mechanics like blueprints or trains?
Although now that I'm looking at some tutorials, it's also possible that I just missed that they introduced a very similar feature.
For “I want A connected to B and I don’t particularly care how” where A and B are long distances apart, Shapez belt mechanics are nicer than Factorio belt mechanics, but Factorio train mechanics are nicer than Shapez belt mechanics.
For “I want to lay down a lot of belt in this area and I want each piece placed in a certain way” I think Factorio belt mechanics are nicer.
I think the C (?) mechanic in Shapez to manually fix a corner is really neat. I haven't tried the Factorio R-while-dragging mechanic, it might be the same or close enough.
IIRC, a number of the team members started as players.
Or even better…modders!
[dead]
Yes but they have fallen into a success trap. I have seen the same trend with Mincraft, KSP and Subnautica. An indi developer starts with a great concept and a true open world game. The player can progress through the tech tree how they choose but doing so requires exploration. All is good. Then the developer starts to tighten the reigns. The tech tree become more rigid. Exploration must happen in a more specific order. And then the graphics department takes over, adding more and more objects until a previously huge and open world is a tightly cluttered mess.
Think of how subnautica moved. The second game was very literally denser to the point that they slowed down movement to preserve any sense of space. And each step inthe tech tree required specific tools from a specific place. No more free explorations. No more alternatives. The player lost control over the story. Subnautica 3 is now so dense and linear I gave up after a week. It is more a decorated fishtank than open world.
I still play factorio (1000x) but I do not play the new planets. That whole rocket process is so locked down that there is little for me to enjoy. I get bored whenever there is only one way to do a thing and no room for a player to invent alternatives.
This is a weird perspective. The middle planets can be approached in any order. And mods allow near-infinite variety - especially those that build on the platform of custom planets.
> there is only one way to do a thing and no room for a player to invent alternatives.
Sounds to me like you are caught up in trying to chase optimization and bemoaning the fact that there's only one optimal strategy. Do a no trains run! Or a no bots run. Or a 1000x science modifier run, or Lazy Bastard, or Death World, or... there are plenty of constraints, both programmed-in or self-imposed, that can push you out of the "standard" optimal strategy.
The system for moving between planets is locked down. It is rockets or nothing. And that system is deliberately designed to defeat scaling. What really killed me was the message saying I was only allowed one of a specific key building on each planet. That was very anti-factorio imho. As I said above, as an indi developer moves forwards they add constraints to focus and guide progression. I simply do not want that. So I disabled all the planet stuff and play like it never existed.
That restriction is needed in some way to prevent that building being a way of teleporting stuff across the planet. They did relax this in 2.1 and allow you to build extensions to that building where you can add inserters and use belts/trains.
you can't teleport things with it. the landing pad allows only withdrawals, not deposits.
I'm going to restrict my commentary to the base game, both because you're deliberately ignoring the stuff in the Space Age expansion, and because I've not yet gotten to the new stuff in the expansion. While the following might sound like a "gotcha!", it isn't:
> I get bored whenever there is only one way to do a thing and no room for a player to invent alternatives.
There is only one way to process iron ore: put it in a furnace. There is no way for the player to invent alternatives. There are only three ways to make electricity, and two of them require you to boil water. There's no way for the player to invent alternatives. There are so many examples of places where stock Factorio permits you only one way to do a thing and prevents you from inventing alternatives.
> The system for moving between planets is locked down. ... And that system is deliberately designed to defeat scaling.
All of the systems for transporting materials are locked down... it's hand-transport, belts, bots, trains, or nothing. Hand-transport's godawful scaling is why you build everything else. Bots are deliberately designed to scale incredibly poorly and belts to scale pretty badly, which is why you're -as it seems like you'd say- forced to use trains to transport materials over very long distances.
> The tech tree become more rigid. Exploration must happen in a more specific order. And then the graphics department takes over, adding more and more objects until a previously huge and open world is a tightly cluttered mess.
That hasn't happened to Factorio in the thirteen years that Wubi has been working on it.
yes, one landing pad per planet a really obnoxious restriction I really hoped they'd remove in 2.1, but they did a half-measure instead. their rationale is uncharacteristically misguided, intended to prevent using rockets for on-planet logistics. first of all, it would be a cool option. second of all, that option would be impractical and very expensive both in terms of resources and UPS, so people would only use it in very niche scenarios. it's an overwhelmingly unpopular design decision.
I also dislike that they moved some base game tech to space and other planets to discourage extended stay on Nauvis. which again makes no sense because an extended stay on Nauvis itself makes no sense when each inner planet offers overwhelmingly powerful tech that renders every single assembly line you can make without leaving Nauvis utterly obsolete. not having cliff explosives before Vulcanus, which may not be the first planet you visit, is a minor but obnoxious inconvenience even if you do decide, deliberately or due to inexperience, to stay on Nauvis for a while. artillery being moved there is equally pointless -- the best defense in the game are landmines, and they can be still unlocked in less than an hour. I don't remember what else had got moved, but I do know that if I wanted to build a 10K SPM kilobase without ever going to space, I still could. and even if there weren't these hamfisted disincentives, the #1 advice for noobs would still be "go to space ASAP", because the incentives alone are more than enough.
that all being said, these are my very only gripes with Wube and I played the game for >1000 hours, 200 or so after the DLC came out. except for maybe not being able to choose the output lane for inserters, but that limitation is as old as the game itself, and I don't know whether it's a misguided design decision or simply a limitation of their extremely optimized belt system.
I don't think there's ever been a game I've been more satisfied with. for every game I ever played that seriously, my list of complaints had much more entries than <10 with Factorio. it exceeds even the old Blizzard's level of polish.
> I do know that if I wanted to build a 10K SPM kilobase without ever going to space, I still could
Yeah, not everyone plays with the expansion.
oh, neither of those two complaints apply to the base game. vanilla gameplay is still largely what it's been since pre-1.0. 2.0 changes like the simplified fluid mechanics imo had only positive impact on it.
> except for maybe not being able to choose the output lane for inserters, but that limitation is as old as the game itself, and I don't know whether it's a misguided design decision or simply a limitation of their extremely optimized belt system.
I think I might have some good news for you, this was added this summer with the extension of the “flip” mechanic
https://www.factorio.com/blog/post/fff-442
sadly, that only applies if the belt is perpendicular to the inserter, not parallel (i.e. you can pick left-right, not near-far), so it's only half-great. it addresses the major inconsistency with non-trivial belt configurations breaking when flipped rather than rotated. the minor inconvenience of assembly lines requiring a small lane-switching segment on their output belts once one lane is full still remains.
Output lane switching is possible - some mods (e.g. [1]) add it, as well as even wilder options. Not offering it in the base game is a deliberate choice.
As far as belt lane management goes, another interesting option - which is also present in the engine, but not used by default! - is lane splitters [2].
[1]: https://mods.factorio.com/mod/quick-adjustable-inserters
[2]: https://mods.factorio.com/mod/lane-balancers
It's a deeply philosophical question in many ways - if you don't enjoy the direction a studio takes its game, is that their problem? Earendel who designed Space Age has a rigid take on game design that was absent from the original Factorio. In the base game if there was some aspect that you didn't like it was totally fine to disengage with it. In Space Age there is a lot of mandatory requirements down to the bizarre approach to prescribing weapons for particular maps (in hindsight it is actually a bit weird that they didn't make the use of flamethrowers mandatory at some point; they may change that eventually).
Space Age doesn't respect the people who played Factorio as a light a-la-carte design sandbox experience. But it isn't obvious that is worse as opposed to just different. Wube doesn't have to build games for those people, they have many players who clearly wanted different things.
I agree. I played Space Age once, and don't plan to ever play it again. The devs approached things from the angle of wanting to generate new logistical puzzles, but that's not what I wanted. I wanted the expansion to play much like the base game, but with more stuff added. I did like Vulcanus (the most vanilla-like of the new planets), but otherwise the expansion was a big whiff for me.
Space Age is intentionally a different game. They did not discontinue the original game. Space Age is a mod. You can play it or not, just like you can play Bob's/Angel's or Pyanodon's or not.
But space age is now the focus of development.
Do you play Space Age just on Nauvis or are you playing without Space Age entirely?
I loved my first 100h (maybe 200h?) of Factorio and thought it was like crack, reached a point where I started designing city blocks as monads because I wanted to solve the game - or well, tried, because the blueprinting system becomes unwieldy once you try to do some advanced blueprinting and things that should have been easy to became just deep time sinks to iterate on.
One can't really point the finger at an hugely successful game - on the other hand I think it's another example of how bad architectural decisions in the underlying systems creep up and cripple future development.
The following is from the point of view of the "end-game" stage, of when you're doing things because you're trying the limits of the system - not your first runs, those were fun and I guess it's reasonable to expect a game to have a finite life.
With blue-prints you can't really customise them beyond parameters - which in turn are limited in the number of them that you can use, don't have any way of ordering, don't have any way of copying/applying them, don't have any way of relating them to other aspects of the blueprint itself (besides very basic stuff, that sometimes was broken too).
You can't apply "sub" blueprints inside a blue-print, making the whole idea of "blueprinting" quite limited. Like if you want to make a city block with train stations that can either take liquids or solids, you end up having to create 2 (almost identical blueprints), or 3 (a general layout city block and 2 "internal" for the stations).
To work around the parameters limitations you need to create monstrous circuitry abominations, that can be fun the first time you're implementing them, but are just horrendous in interface afterwards - doing a simple circuit change can take an hour and endless clicking, keeping memory of it all, double checking it and so on... The same to updating them if you have plastered N city blocks on your way to factorio greatness and realised later it needs a "slight" change in the circuitry control/flow.
The train system was also severely hampered by (although better in v2) their underlying choices - even the "wildcard" improvements of v2 still show those design issues popping up all over their interfaces and makes you reach for awful designs due to the way wildcards work with the stations naming, connections and many other details. Part of it is due to - from what I read - the way they implemented IDing the train/wagons - and other is just the inexistent connection between the seemingly connected aspects of trains, stops, and stations, resources, and units.
The network/automation (bots) was also pretty limited in functionality, yeah, it felt like a great advancement once you get to it, and then you have a learning curve until you master it but it just ends on a cliff - you can't really program the network in ways that seems obvious you should.
Some of this might be to keep the game "flow" mostly manual, but to me, that I don't like doing click & run endlessly and like games that progress further, it all got old at some point and reaching those hours of game-play others consistently talk about looked like subjecting yourself to endless punishment rather than enjoyment. I tried and in part succeeded to create city blocks that you just had to paste and pick your inputs, choose your outputs, place some trains and choose the type of input and output, and it all worked - no stuck trains, not the highest throughput by space area, but just endlessly expandable without bottlenecks - at that point I considered the game solved and moved on but would have spent (probably quite many) more hours on it optimising and testing designs if it didn't end on that functionality/UI/flow cliff once you reach a certain stage (and blueprint bugs too, like them disappearing after being saved and so on). And I had to use the map editor mods to be able to design the blueprints and iterate on them otherwise impossible...
In the end, I feel like the game provided me enjoyment worth its cost (and that's what matters) but at the same time, paradoxically, was a bit of a let down because the more "engineering", "architecture" like aspects of the game were not really fleshed out or deep at all. Like all the ingredients are there, but... It's mostly aimed at spreadsheet min-maxing and I prefer other sorts of puzzles.
https://postimg.cc/gallery/C0Nfj2f
It helps they don’t have a publisher to confuse them with quantitative and qualitative pattern matching. Just make the game you play and judge it honestly. Of course, the second part is a rare ability.
It helps that Factorio has been such a massive success, and that they’ve stayed (to appearances anyway) relatively small.
This is what being very successful (but still focused) gets you.
Success is downstream to passion, not the other way around.
I love Factorio, but I can't play it - it's way too addictive. If I start on a Friday, I won't stop until Monday
I still believe Factorio fundamentally rewired the way I think about software and engineering more broadly... prepared me better for my first software internship than any class I'd taken
The whole game really drills in what it means to "think like a computer scientist". Abstraction, encapsulation, modularity, etc
You may love https://store.steampowered.com/app/2162800/shapez_2__Factory...
Have you played the Factorissimo mod yet? It's literally abstraction.
Agree - I see Kafka on it!
With actual (virtual) drills!
Which Monday?
I felt this
A bit like the old Bill Hicks joke: "I was a weekend drinker - I would start on Saturday, and then by Friday I..."
It's a great way to rebuild a sense of agency for me. I find the weekend binge a good way to feel like I can effect changes in the world.
Not sure if this seems too random but I think that's what I like about OpenStreetMap editing: it's only a few clicks to improve the map and thousands or more people will come across it. You're changing the world in one of the literal senses of the phrase, and can do it from an armchair (doing quality assurance or using aerial imagery) or use it as motivation to seek out places near you that you've not visited yet. Maybe that's something you'd enjoy as well
you can stop?
You think Factorio its self is bad? Try the Space Exploration mod! It expands the game with a ton of fun new problems.
Monday? Of which month?
Remember that Factorio does not release its 3D models. Everything in the game is a 2D render of a 3D model, which is why the game uses so much VRAM.
As far as the game in concerned, the sprites are all just 2D assets. The fact that those assets came from a 3d model during development has no effect on performance. They also do manual post-processing on most of the 2D renders.
https://factorio.com/blog/post/fff-146
Literally what I just said
Your wording can easily be read as them shipping 3d models and rendering them as 2d at runtime. It's a weird way to say the game is made up of 2d assets.
I wish that were the case, then they'd have released the (original) 3D models!
The post had me wondering if factorio had done like [1]Prodeus did where it's all 3D models, but by default is viewed as 2D sprite animations.
[1]https://www.prodeusgame.com/website/index.php
?
The game doesn't consume that much VRAM. It plays on 4 GB GPUs just fine. The GPU only needs to keep resident what's currently on the screen. Even including every animation frame, that's 1 GB tops.
Hell, the minimum requirements are a GeForce 750 Ti, or Radeon r7 360. Those are 2 GB GPUs.
You can make it consume more VRAM if you want. There's a 13GB texture modpack that I use so it looks nice on my high DPI screen. Totally optional but it sure looks good.
I'm not certain but my guess is Factorio doesn't have the elaborate systems for streaming and unloading textures 3d games has.
In fact, sometimes when your game lags too much you can speed it up by zooming in! (Only in some cases)
> The game doesn't consume that much VRAM. It plays on 4 GB GPUs just fine.
Not everyone bought a GPU to run LLMs on. That is quite a bit of VRAM, especially for non-desktops
That's the amount of VRAM that has shipped in budget to midtier gpu's since at least 2016 with the RX470/480 from AMD. You can find even older & slower examples from Nvidia and AMD (ex. Nvidia 740GT 4GB edition)
Gaming hardware reviewers have been complaining about 4GB of VRAM not being enough since probably 2018 onward.
I have a weird setup with two very old 5:4 1280x1024 monitors I like to use for fun, and even playing Subnautica (2018 Release date) I can use up 3.4GB of VRAM at that low of a resolution on High settings. (playing on a single monitor)
> That's the amount of VRAM that has shipped in budget to midtier gpu's since at least 2016
In desktops maybe, which will be somewhat popular still among people who play a lot of games but not a majority (IDC has laptop sales at a 3 to 1 ratio to desktops in 2022, but that's not specific to people who play games, much less (2d) Factorio players specifically). The system I bought before my current one was in 2018 and mid-tier then was 2GB. There was no craze for (V)RAM at the time, more a question of which setting you want to play games at (and with which render distance) than whether a given laptop works for games at all
As of last month, Steam reports that >15% of their customers still have 4GB VRAM or less: https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Softw...
I'm not familiar with Subnautica beyond the name, is that known for being particularly efficient?
edit: meant to say 4GB rather than 2GB in the Steam stats reference, fixed
> The system I bought before my current one was in 2018 and mid-tier then was 2GB.
Mid-tier laptop GPU in 2018 would have been a GeForce 1060, which came in either 3 or 6 GB variants. GeForce 1050 Ti came in a 2 GB variant, but I wouldn't classify that as mid-tier. The x050 variants (1050, 2050, etc) are budget tier.
>As of last month, Steam reports that >10% of their customers have 2GB VRAM or less: https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Softw...
Steam having a massive collection of users with older hardware doesn't really make 4GB of VRAM any larger. My current main machine reports less than 1GB since its an iGPU. (But I've seen it use over 8gb of system memory as VRAM)
>I'm not familiar with Subnautica, is that known for being particularly efficient?
Its a pretty well made unity engine game with a minimum requirement of Intel HD4000 integrated graphics. IDK if it would be consideredban efficient game vs other visually nice from this time frame like DOOM 2016 which runs really well on 4GB vram cards if you stick to 900p and below resoultions.
> As of last month, Steam reports that >15% of their customers still have 4GB VRAM or less...
Based on my testing (and the fact that Factorio officially runs on the OG Switch) Factorio fits comfortably in less than 4GB of VRAM. So, the relevant percentage is 9.6%... the slice of their customers that have 3GB of VRAM or less.
But, the slice is actually smaller than that! The minimum graphics requirement listed on the Steam Store page is
> DirectX 11 capable GPU with 1GB VRAM - GeForce GTX 750 Ti, Radeon R7 360 or Intel UHD Graphics 730
Given that Wubi actively tested on hardware with 1GB of VRAM [0] and that they've proven themselves to be highly-technical people that sweat the details and talk about it both publicly and in-depth, I believe that to be an accurate minimum system requirement. Requiring 1GB of VRAM excludes 2.7% of those who chose to do the Steam Hardware survey.
Given that very few OpenGL/D3D/Vulkan 3D games [1] released in the past like ten years will run with 512MB of VRAM, 1GB of VRAM seems to be a fine cutoff point to me.
[0] <https://factorio.com/blog/post/fff-281>
[1] Yes, I'm aware that Factorio is a 2D game. The comment that started this discussion claimed that Factorio "uses so much VRAM" because it's a 2D game rather than a 3D one.
> As of last month, Steam reports that >15% of their customers still have 4GB VRAM or less
4 GB is the recommended size, which manes >90% of steam-user are already in the optimal area. The lower recommendation is even 1 GB, which means >97% of steam user. Maybe if you play on a $100 mini-toaster, or some budget-laptot, it will get critical, but the vast majority of steam users are fine with playing this game.
at that point can't you just use the integrated gpu which definitely has access to more ram?
If you play video games, it's basically nothing. I bought a 6 GB VRAM card for ~$300 a decade ago. Many recent games require a minimum of 8 GB VRAM and can scale up to 16 GB VRAM on higher settings.
Sure I play video games, but not usually the ones from the current year. Besides the price of the game itself, it won't run well on laptop hardware anyway and there's such an enormous collection of great games from past years. Factorio is an exception for me, I've played it since not long after the initial release in 2016 and actually got entertainment for so many hours that I thought it fair to buy it a second time ^^'
> Sure I play video games, but not usually the ones from the current year.
So you're extrapolating "I bought a budget tier system in 2018 and it plays a 2016 game just fine" to "Nobody needs more than 4 GB of VRAM unless you're running an LLM"
Please point out where you took that quote from, or what statement I made that could even be remotely paraphrased to that, or stop accusing people of saying things that you've misunderstood
> > The game doesn't consume that much VRAM. It plays on 4 GB GPUs just fine.
> Not everyone bought a GPU to run LLMs on. That is quite a bit of VRAM, especially for non-desktops
It's not just the current year. More like the past three to five years.
If ONLY I had know to buy 16 GB of VRam on my cards. I have 12, but they struggle.
Hell if I had know that a 5090 would be worth 6000 USD I would have brought as many of them as I could for 2000 USD!
The 2D graphics are heavier than you might suspect. But Factorio is overall a very well optimized game, and it runs far better on my office notebook than any comparable game. This will work fine on any not ancient notebook with integrated graphics.
I first beat Factorio on a 2012 MacBook Pro with integrated graphics. It is not a hard game to run until you get into the mega-megabase size, and even then you are typically CPU-bound.
Nobody cares about how the game runs on <4GB vram in 2026, upgrade or play something else.
I have found that HN has this population of people that think a budget system bought in 2015 should last them forever and they should never need an upgrade.
What the actual fuck are you talking about? This has to be a troll comment.
4 GB is nothing. Mid-grade GPUs from 2013 had 4 GB. Budget GPUs from 2016 (10 years ago!) had 4 GB.
You can play Factorio on laptops and other devices that don’t have dedicated GPUs. A mid-grade computer from 2013 would be a $599 laptop with a Core i3 integrated GPU that shared the 4 GB of system RAM.
Such a machine would probably benchmark favorably against the Nintendo Switch, which runs Factorio on downclocked tablet hardware of a similar era.
I think the Switch version of Factorio uses low-res sprites.
the "minimum requirements" aren't even the actual minimum, the game can definitely play on worse machines than that (just inconsistently). I know from personal experience that you can play factorio (at least the base game) on a crappy old 2009 toshiba laptop. Pretty sure it doesn't even have a GPU, just integrated graphics. It doesn't run well but it's not an action game, a little stutter isn't the end of the world and anybody playing on a system like that should not be surprised by it.
The most potato i've run it on was a CB131 chromebook, (which was about a hundred bucks in 2017) and even then, even though video was chugging at 20fps, the main update loop was locked at 60TPS. very impressive. (and helpful for a 9 hour layover on christmas eve, anecdotally)
it does?
I don't have it installed now (lest I get tempted into a quick 2-hour session and end up being late for work 12 hours later), but IIRC it performed the same for me on iGPU and 4090, even on the big saves running below 60 FPS/UPS.
> Everything in the game is a 2D render of a 3D model, which is why the game uses so much VRAM.
Surely from first principles one'd expect 3D models to be heavier than the 2D renders, due to the extra axis?
Purely from a vram perspective. A triangle is just 3 vertices and some edges. A few bytes of data.
A similar 2d image of a triangle would likely be thousands of bits of data.
The 2d probably uses a little less per pixel. Whereas the triangle has slightly more expensive compute per pixel cost. But modern gpu have dedicated hardware for that.
3d is probably more expensive compute but cheaper vram usage. At least to a point and a certain set of conditions. Barring things like textures and others.
This is such a wild take, I'm not sure where to start. Let's just consider this:
> Barring things like textures and others.
Other than some really expensive stuff, it's not expensive. Who could have guessed?
As a graphics programmer, the most charitable interpretation I have here is that in 2D all the animations are baked into texture atlases. A 3D model would re-use its textures during animation, in 2D it’s a new one.
But I don’t see Factorio as being a VRAM pig, even with all their animations, which you could certainly improve on from the simplistic “every animation frame is a whole new texture” model.
you do not need a different texel for every rendered pixel in every animation frame, which is what you need, and factorio has, with the sprite approach.
Somehow the engineering behind this will help that fly and all his viewpoint windows
Do they really load so many spirites into memory it's heavier than 3D?
There are assumptions being made about texture resolution.
The high quality sprites are 64 pixels across per tile. With each tile being 1 meter, 1 pixel is 1.56 cm (About 0.63 inches) across. By today's standards, that's a very low texture resolution, though they can get away with it when your camera is so far away.
But if the game was 3D, you could expect players to put the camera closer to your objects. You'd need significantly higher texture resolutions. And you'd need a texture for each part of the object.
Meanwhile, consider a 3x3 object. That's 192x192 = 36,864 pixels. Assume it has a 60 fps, 2-second animation loop. That's 4,423,680 pixels. With 8 bytes per channel and 4 channels (RGBA), that's about 17.7 MB, which allows you to store 56 objects per GB.
Which doesn't sound like a lot, but we're making some huge assumptions. Not all objects are 3x3 tiles. Most don't have 120 frames of animation.
And as I mentioned in another comment, you don't need to store ALL the game's art in VRAM at once. Only what's on the screen. And you can certainly fit an entire screen's worth of animations in a 2 GB GPU.
> Meanwhile, consider a 3x3 object. That's 192x192 = 36,864 pixels. Assume it has a 60 fps, 2-second animation loop. That's 4,423,680 pixels. With 8 bytes per channel and 4 channels (RGBA), that's about 17.7 MB, which allows you to store 56 objects per GB.
I am assuming that they are laveraging multiple compression technics like using texture specific compression on the gpu, or sub sampling the resolution directly. 8 bytes per channel seems rather large here as well.
Incorrect. It's all just plain old pixels. It should be 8 bits per channel though, not bytes.
> 8 bytes per channel seems rather large here as well.
That was a typo. I meant 8 bits per channel.
Yes. Several GB. I had to enable half resolution to play modded Space Age.
Hmmm... The Factorio team is famously performance oriented, and more scenes are often far less so. Are you sure the problem wasn't the mods? I have good memories of sending my Kerbal frame rates to hell with generous modding, both for graphics and the physics engine.
I also struggled with performance in space age and mentioned it to a developer, but the solution was setting a setting which I had tested previously (no fog) and did nothing... on Nauvis. Turns out it's the difference between stuttering and smooth when in space platform view. They do still care but I guess there's only so much you can do if you also have other tasks to get to
Reporting the issue with mods to the team will likely get them to fix something - they're that performance oriented.
Switching to actual 3D rendering to save VRAM has been suggested and rejected (ideologically) many times.
3D almost certainly involves floating point and uncertainty! It must be anathema.
Oh - but only touching them?
I was hoping for an iteration of a factorio belt that could actually move!
I thought you were going to taste them for a second.
Real-world Factorio, aka composable manufacturing, aka "factories building drones building factories", aka universal constructor, is the next trillion dollar company.
The entire planet taken as a whole is already a form of universal constructor ;)
But we can't program it yet.
I'm (hopefully) getting a G1X soon, so I think I'm going to put it to work printing this stuff out. I'm now excited for this as a use case and I kind of hope someone builds something to convert an existing factorio world into a 3d model, though it might be to big to actually print so maybe a way to take a section would be even better.
Blueprint would be easiest. Grep for printable entities, count how many you need and the grid extent.
https://wiki.factorio.com/Blueprint_string_format
(Also unrelated, I think by clearance they mean tolerance?)
A "screen" for blind people, where "pixels" would move up and down instead of changing colours would be so cool. Factorio would "display" the game world, something else would "display" text in Braille...
I love this <3 Wube should be the example the game industry follows
not me hoping for an official factorio board game
Not quite Factorio, but Satisfactory has a board game in the works: https://www.reddit.com/r/SatisfactoryGame/comments/1wj4gc6/i...
There was an attempt, with a very well known board game designer. They got along well, but didn't find a board game in it.
I imagine it takes a football field and a small building full of pieces. Sounds like fun!
Until then, there's Factory Fun, and Factory Funner.
not you? Is that an expression I should know, meaning the opposite presumably?
yes, "not me X" means "absolutely me X", in gen-z form.
i typically interpret it as having a hint of embarrassment to it (e.g. "not me eating instant ramen for dinner for the 3rd time"), but not always.
Omg, this is so my jam...
I'm looking forward to making a Factorio themed war game table. Star Wars Legion on the factory planet...
Based on the title I thought this would be about adapting Factorio for touch controls, but this is way more interesting. The folks at Wube have such a unique sense of technical curiosity.
Now try to get a Factorio-Lego collaboration going.
It's in the vote, support it : https://ideas.lego.com/product-ideas/e71b69f4-827f-47dc-be5e...
Not as sexy as the satisfactory one tho : https://www.reddit.com/r/SatisfactoryGame/comments/1vw7hb0/i...
The factory must grow.
This project looks simple until you realize how much engineering went into it.
The original assets were never meant to be physical, so they had to completely re-engineer isometric tricks and floating geometry for 3D printing. Releasing the files instead of an expensive collector's edition is a classic Factorio move, and I personally love it. Now the community can remix these and build some awesome stuff that the original devs could never imagine. Awesome stuff!
What a good AI-generated summary of the article!
Fun thing about taking Factorio physical is that the game already has a real scale. A tile is a metre, that's what the km/h readouts for vehicles are based on. So a yellow belt moves at basically walking pace, and the engineer runs everywhere at about 30 km/h all day without getting tired. The mining drill that eats a whole ore patch is a 3x3m box.
guessing the suit has an exoskeleton built into by default, and the exoskeleton equipment simply boosts the performance
I think my body would still be worn raw if it were moved at that speed for an extended amount of time.