Video

The subdivided signaling chooses comes from the provided build guide. I will test the suggestion and report back, if it’s better I will let the build guide owner know.

so I moved the Path signal for the straight pathway back to the right/straight switch to act as both the straight and right path signal and it did way better then expected. it scored 86. which puts me in a weird spot. do i release a updated video?

@@BitwiseAssembly Wow, that's way more than what I expected, thank you for testing it. I think yes to update the video? Your channel is becoming a great repository to compare and reference intersections, so it would be nice to see the improvement.

That was an impressive improvement. Thanks for spotting this!

The link to the build guide is in the description. It is not my design I just tested it. I believe it was just for the aesthetics.

In Factorio there are no path signals, so you _have_ to subdivide the intersection for good throughput. I think the Celtic Knot can be built at a slightly (significantly) smaller size while still allowing signals in the center where they wouldn't fit in a "straight" junction of the same size.(*) And my guess is that people just copied the idea from Factorio to Satisfacory. (*) At "standard spacing" between rails. Which is based on the ability to put a switch-over between the tracks that allows trains to get onto the wrong track. I don't know when trains ever need to get onto the wrong track, though.

Sure how do you envision the approach to the Stacked Roundabout? 1) Approach at half the height difference and split as close as you can to the roundabouts. 2) Split the approach early to the heights of the roundabouts then join the roundabout on their level.

​@@BitwiseAssemblyI'd like to see the difference, if it doesn't take too much time and effort of you. I presume this layout would double as bidirectional slip lanes, so I expect it to have constant results regardless of how they approach, but it's always better to have data.

I think it’s because the trains maintain a higher speed through the intersection. But that change also removes the ability for a train to wait in the middle section.

That is true. This could be adjusted to include the u-turn, the change would not affect the score on this test bench. But I will keep that in mind if I need to do another round of testing.

Both intersections have a crossover so the middle part over the bridge is left-hand drive. This is the closest interpretation of the diverging diamond that I have seen in Satisfactory.

Thank you, I am hoping this helps fellow pioneers.

My confidence with the scores in the 90’s is not as high as I would like it to be. I am currently doubling the number of stations, so no train shares a station. Currently the 12 stations each have 2 trains assigned. This can cause a train to be delayed waiting for its station to free up. The current test stand has a max score of 102 by the void/invalid intersection, I will use it to test the 24 station test stand (same trains). Hopefully my concerns are unfounded and it scores about the same.

Especially in slow motion. I will try to prevent that in future videos.

Me too. This game is very cathartic.

I have 4 nuclear power plants in this world each one is covered in a video and each one uses a different set of recipes. This one has the most interlinked dependencies. So I would not recommend it for a first time nuke setup.

That’s expected, I don’t talk and my graphics are MS paint. This is just a hobby, I do not expect that to change.

There is one in my channel links.

There is two reasons a train would stop in station waiting zone. 1) the station the train wants is occupied. 2) another train is traversing the station path zone. Both affect the max possible score an intersection can get and it affects the higher scoring intersections more. When I am scoring the tests I am using the uncropped view. This allows me to see the trains in the waiting zones. I only saw a few instances of a crossover delay that would have reduced the score. The lost point(s) from the station limitations would not change the ranking if I added them. The intersection most affected was the stack interchange. Hopefully that answered your question.

Trains offer more flexibility in the movement of resources than a belt line. If you’re asking about the transfer rate there are a lot of variables you would need to consider, if you are comparing a train line to a belt line.

@@BitwiseAssembly flexibility and being able to group together an entire production run and dispatch it to different plants more easily than with belt conveyors? To have the same fluidity as belt conveyors, do I need to take into account the train's travel time and the quantity it carries? And possibly add several trains on the same track/or more wagon per train? thank you for taking the time to answer my beginner's questions :D

You can find plenty of answers to belts vs trucks vs trains elsewhere, but the simple answer is belts are perfect for short distance. Trucks and trains can both be good for high throughput medium to long distance. Belts are your only option for short distances, but can be as long as you want. You could have a belt bridge network that spans the map. Belts get harder to manage the longer they the network. You have to upgrade each section with new tiers and if you have to add a new belt line if you require more capacity. In contrast, roads and rails can be reused by new routes. If you need a higher capacity on the same route, you can add another truck or train on the same path. If you need a new route, you only need to build a road or track from existing infrastructure to the new location. Trucks vs trains is interesting. Trucks need fuel which can be more difficult to get started. Trucks can go pretty far round trip with just coal making a good strategy to have a single truck bring coal to a central place to fuel other truck stations. There is no such thing as a road in Satisfactory. You build foundations that trucks drive on. This means there's no pathing information. To automate a route, you must record yourself driving the route in a loop. This makes trucks simple for small routes. Once a route is recorded, you can only delete "nodes". You cannot move them. It is easy in the beginning to mess up a route you record. The easiest way I've found is use the vehicle path mode (shows connected lines instead of just arrows), then if you make a mistake, you can back up and try to resume the route and delete nodes later. You can add more trucks to the same route without recording a new route. You must drive and record new routes. Trains are a new level of complexity. Tracks have a set of rules and nuances that make them difficult to get started. I struggled at the beginning until I watched a few CZcams videos on how they functioned and how to build sections. It took a bit of practice. Now building tracks isn't difficult. There's a pattern to it. Tracks and stations take up a lot of space. In terms of the whole map, not much, but if you're used to belting everything, a simple U-turn takes at least 7 foundations wide and train stations are huge. It takes a bit to get used to the scale. Trains are electric and work off your grid rather than needing fuel. In some ways this is easier. Train networks can be expanded. A new route only needs to connect new areas to existing tracks. Trains routes can be managed by scheduling between train stations. To create a new route, you create a schedule from one train station to another. The game figures out how to route the train on your track network. You don't need to record yourself driving the train first. This makes it easier to make new routes, especially longer ones. You can play the game however you want. Personally, I like seeing trains and truck driving everywhere. Roads and tracks add to the aesthetic of the game. If I needed to create a new long distance route, a belt bridge would be more daunting than adding more roads or tracks. Roads are simpler with blueprints. Beautiful curves are easier with the blueprint plus mod that gives a larger blueprint area.

You should watch my video train signals testing for more insight. But the answer is depends the longer the entry block length the higher speed the train will maintain. But the relationship is not linear leading to some very long entry blocks if speed is the only consideration. Train will start requesting a reservation when two things are true. The train is in the entry block and braking distance calculation to the path signal says to start braking.

@@BitwiseAssembly Oh I didn't know about the second condition with the breaking distance. That makes so much more sense now.

I would suggest the previous two videos to this one should help you. They go into block and path signal behaviors.

It did not meet the either criteria to require path signals. None of the zones had 2 entrances and 2 exits where two trains could traverse without hitting or a train stopping in any of the zones could cause gridlock.

@@BitwiseAssembly so for that type of intersection it is best to go with only block signals? I do also have a stack interchange (slightly different) but i used path signals

Depends on which best you are aiming for. Highest throughput would be the stack interchange, easiest for train beginners the cross intersection.

@@BitwiseAssembly with "for that type" i meant the stack because i already built one as i said. It currently opperates with a normal path signal not subdevided or anything

Ok, sorry for the confusion. so path vs block,I believe that any interchange that can support a Block only signaling solution will perform better than a solution including path signal. But the difference may be so minor you will not notice the difference unless you are stress testing the interchange.

Thank you. The turbine interchange was popular on the Reddit before I even started playing, but it was created in an update before signals and train collisions. So I can only take credit for the signaling choices I made.

There is one downside to the turbine interchange, that I would need to fix before I consider using it. There is not enough clearance for the pioneer to ride on top of the train.

A) There is no randomness in the train operation. All tests start from the same save state with the power off in the test track. The first minute of the test the trains are still spreading out, they all start lined up at their first station. B) adding an additional waiting spot will likely improve performance but it would need to be tested to confirm. The save file I use for the tests is my channel links, if you want to have a go at it. It is setup for stacked interchange but the trains are in the starting positions for a test. You can build any interchange you want there.

I only used the cross intersection in my game. I might consider using a more complicated one as a centerpiece.

I remade as much of the Stack Exchange and Reverse Roundabout w/ Slip Lanes as I could in a modded blueprint designer and put it up on satisfactory-calculator but it seems I can't link it. I gave up on making the stack into a mound, but maybe I'll revisit later down the road.

my testing world download is available in my channel links. It is currently setup with the stack interchange.

​@@BitwiseAssembly I've shoved the blueprint in there and it's just another thing to see it running, thanks for providing that! It's a bit thicker since I spaced the roads a bit and a bit taller because I used thicker bases so I was kinda worried if it was gonna fit but I guess I'm bad judge for that. I think I'd like to try making this next [watch?v=EaYaBRcryb8] I'm not sure if I'll be able to fit it into a blueprint though so it might just end up being a centerpiece like you were talking about.

The slipway is a slightly shorter track to the destination, and trains will always take the shortest path.