PERFECT 3-STAGE NUCLEAR POWER; 210 000 MW & No Waste | 23 | Satisfactory 1.0 | Lets Play

SATISFACTORY
Satisfactory​ is an FPS open-world factory building sim by CoffeeStain​ Studios. You play as an engineer on an alien planet as part of the ‘Save The Day’ program - a program whose goal is to construct a massive machine for a mysterious purpose. Conquer nature, build multi-story factories, and automate to satisfaction!
Consider pledging on Patreon to get immediate access to BLUEPRINTS and SAVE GAMES: / nilaus
SOCIAL:
Twitch: / nilaus
Patreon: / nilaus
Discord: / discord
Twitter: / christiannilaus
Tips: streamlabs.com...
KZbin VOD Channel: / @nilaustv8036
SAVE GAMES & BLUEPRINTS:
Available to Patreon supporters of rank Protector or higher
#Satisfactory #StayEffective #LetsPlay

[@yobgodababua1862]

I love that most people play this game for aesthetics and you have ruthlessly pared it down to it down to it's factory game core in search of efficiency and order. I don't play that way, but it is engaging, enlightening, and intriguing to watch. Stay effective.

[@Caboozel]

Well thanks to this series I can finally start playing the game for it's aesthetics and architectural design lol. Now I have a base that churns out all the building resources and has allowed me to unlock peak efficiency so i can build a mega base lol.

[@cubcrafts]

Me: I wonder if the next part of the nuclear power video is out yet Nilaus: Uploaded 1 minute ago

[@rayperfetti5928]

Thanks for the series. Really interesting approach to making complex production chains, relatively easy. I'm playing with Nilaus' blueprints with modifications to make each major production chain a vertical building. This is a great case study in the efficiency that's gained from standardization and modularity.

[@LeGiT4345]

Thank you for this series-I found your channel from Dyson Sphere content but I’m waiting for that game to fully release as well.

[@jeffreyspinner5437]

Ty for verifying my conclusion that Rocket Fuel is just the best energy source in the game based on many factors, not including any "completest" reasons... You're way better than I from Factorio to anything else you study to play, so this was good to know (!)

[@oljackie35]

With blender recipe its superb for of energy

[@ProzacStylings]

@@oljackie35 It also creates the ideal supply material to fund Drones (ionized fuel is impractical in volume). Literally one huge plant near an oil center, plus a modest aluminum build, can fund all of the power and cross-map transport an industrious player needs, as long as they play with local factories and not a borg cube superfactory.

[@BenHarrold]

Isn’t ionised fuel the best fuel as it’s stronger than rocket fuel?

[@joedalecki7327]

Technically, if sloops were unlimited, you would be limited by power shard production but 1200 Crude would make 11TW of power with Ionized fuel.

[@joedalecki7327]

Requires 4400/min power shards.

[@anglerfish61]

this series gave me new ideas again even after playing it for years. Thanks bro

[@moustifleouf4093]

very cool serie! I got a lot of inspiration from the BUS idea and I loved doing the 1.0 this way. thank you

[@Русич-т6п]

Thank you for the interesting approach to passing this game. It was very exciting. What will happen next is unknown, but I think you will be able to return to the game only if you make a challenge for yourself. For example, mini city blocks without drones, but with rail and road transport.

[@chimmy_jim]

Thanks for all the memories, great series, really enjoyed watching, thank you!

[@roadtrain_]

Personally I think rather than overclocking slightly I would've gone for the much easier solution of building 4 of these running at 80% (8x4=32).

[@ProzacStylings]

Overclocking is the easiest strategy. Shards are extremely abundant and eventually unlimited in 1.0. My first big jetpack exploration trip brought back 1,000 of them. The power cost of overclocking is the same as the power savings from underclocking. There is nothing special about 100% clock speed on the 1%-250% spectrum. Generally, you should view all of your production buildings as machines that can run at anything between 1 and 250% with no downside except requiring shards, and only make things more complicated for yourself by building more if you've underperformed on your power build or have a lot of space you can afford to waste.

[@Alex-gu1ry]

@@ProzacStylings Bro the power increase through overclocking is exponential, not linear. If you want to save power, overclocking a particle accelerator is a horrible idea, as it will cost much more than just building another one. The more you know!

[@ProzacStylings]

@@Alex-gu1ry It's amazing, watching you make a comment not knowing what you're talking about, and assuming it's someone else that doesn't know what they're talking about. The power savings through underclocking is also exponential, not linear. Did you not know that? If you think it's silly to make one 200% building instead of two 100% buildings, it is JUST as silly to make one 100% building instead of two 50% buildings, and JUST as silly to make two 50% buildings instead of 4 25% buildings, and so on, and so on. Every time you reduce your clockspeed by X%, you save the same percentage of power. Overclocked particle accelerators work fine. A sizable power plant in satisfactory is 100+GW. A maximally overclocked particle accelerator is average ~3.4 GW (or 1.7 for cheaper recipes). Plenty of room. You not having the power to overclock a power accelerator, or a thousand other buildings, is a power problem -- one that is more easily fixed than your proposed solution of tripling the building count of literally everything you build, and one that is logically consistent. Unlike your position, where you somehow think 100% is better than 250% because it saves 34% power, but don't think you should be using more buildings at 40% clock speed instead of less buildings at 100% clock speed, which would also save another 34% power.

[@88porpoise]

​@@ProzacStylingsExcept if you care about power consumption, yo really do want to build as many underclocked machines as possible. The thing about this situation is that, for Nilhaus, power is effectively unlimited so power consumption is not a serious consideration.

[@ProzacStylings]

@@88porpoise It is possible, and quite easy, to build a very large number of machines. Is your view that you should be building as many machines as it takes, to build at 1% clock speed? (The minimum) No. It isn't. You don't build at 1% clock speed, even though 1% clock speed is exponentially cheaper than half as many buildings at 2% clock speed. Power is effectively unlimited for anybody that builds even one significant power plant in satisfactory 1.0. The only time power is a 'serious consideration' in satisfactory is when you haven't built much in the way of power generation, and the easiest solution to that isn't slowing down every machine you make. It's Build More Power.

[@GreatBAO2]

Today I completed my power plant using turbofuel: 840 crube oil + 1140 coal + 1140 sulfur + 1200 ozone = 3000 turbofuel or 180 megawatts of energy produced.

[@Uncledaz]

Loved all the content. Thanks. Can you please now do a speed run and set the world record? Need to quieten the bus non-believers :)

[@sawyeriii]

Aww, I hoped you'd have proven proper radiation management by recycling( through conversion or awesome sink) all the radioactive material in the 2 buffer chests and removing them. With no buffer chests in line and the last 9 power plants running, that would proof the ratios and minimize the radiation on the platform( excepting by the primary U input line.

[@firenter]

When you were doing the last products for the space elevator you said you were going to show off the final send up in a different video, but I can't seem to find that? Did you decide to not make it a video in the end?

[@mattr791]

I like the idea of ficsonium as a convoluted endgame process to dump plutomium waste but it costs waaaay too much sam... like my fairly modest nucular plant processing 1500uranium/m would need almost 100% of the avalable sam just to neutralize plutonium waste

[@PyroYeet]

yeah and sadly it's almost all going to ficsite ingots, which have no way to decrease sam consumption outside of slooping, which ofc are better spent on alien power augmentors

[@pcfan1986]

yeah, its still better to process it into plutonium fuel rods and sink them. Still expensive, but way less so and you avoid creating a death zone and get a few points for it. I prefer turbo or especially rocket fuel over nuclear still, but for you to call yourself a real satisfactory player you at least need to dabble once in nuclear.

[@pedromiguelsilva2077]

you could use the dark matter residue produced by the other quantum processes, but you would have to either: A - transport the plutomium waste to the quantum factury B - build the quantum factory near the nuclear power plant C- build long pipes I wonder if fluid trains can transport dark matter residue

[@PyroYeet]

@@pedromiguelsilva2077 the dark matter is not the issue, it's ficsite ingots that consume copious amounts of SAM

[@mattr791]

@@pedromiguelsilva2077 yea dark matter is an infinite byproduct you make basically for free... the issue is the "ficsite trigons". In my case 1500 uranium turns into 160 plutonium waste @ 20 trigons per unit of waste is 3200 trigons which using the best recipe will cost 8500 sam per minute Obv you can get that down with loops but giving up +85% of your worlds sam supply just to get rid of plutonium waste is insanely expensive

[@dnarobo]

Well done. Indeed, well done.

[@halbouma6720]

Thanks for yet another great playthrough Nilaus!

[@PumpkinDog33]

Nice work, another great series! Factorio hyyyyype!

[@FaxDozer]

Excellent series! Very inspiring. I saw you using some ionized fuel along the way, did you do an Ionized fuel build?

[@eriafi]

Great series, and awesome functional and efficient base!

[@surferdude1100]

It’s funny, I just watched your last video wondering when this was gonna drop and then I refreshed 😂

[@hazir7618]

goodbye satisfactory! hello factorio space dlc

[@thomac]

The advantage of this chain is that you don't have to check if you filled your storage with nuclear waste.

[@sharkking9679]

It´s nice to see the different styles of building in Satisfactory, the Factorio style is great and the games even allow for this

[@evancashman7614]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences! Has been great!

[@isaacwriston]

incredible series! cant wait for timberborne!

[@ThePiachu]

I built my 3x Nuclear setup a week ago. I found that a base of 6.25 Ficsonium Fuel Rods per minute as a base unit is pretty good, gives pretty nice ratios overall - 5 Uranium Fuel Rods, 1.25 Plutonium Fuel Rods. That being said, I'm a bit disappointed in the third production stage of the nuclear. It takes a lot of effort and you gain a good deal less than from just the Uranium. You have recipes to get more Plutonium Fuel out of Uranium Waste but who would even do that if Ficsonium is rather complex in comparison...

[@thomac]

the value is waste removal, so you don't have to check if you filled your storage with plutonium waste. To be fair, by the time you get the full nuclear chain, the only reason to build it is if you plan to build a massive base, or just for fun. Otherwise rocket fuel is just easier to build, and has no need for maintenance.

[@ThePiachu]

@@thomac You could stop at Plutonium Rods and sink them to cut down on the production chain complexity (if you're not importing Singularity Cells from elsewhere). In my setup I had like 20 Uranium power plants, 10 Plutonium power plants and 5 Ficsonium power plants (all 250% overclocked). So with all that added complexity you're getting less than double the power. Sure, in post end game where you are building megabases and are constrained by how much Uranium there is you might as well get a bit extra, but for powering a modest end game factory it's an overkill...

[@AhmadSammy]

You can type the valve value now? I tried a lot in the past and couldn’t do it!

[@kanetsb]

Techtonica is coming out in November... It's decent now. Not factorio / satisfactory amazing but still decent...

[@AhmadSammy]

Are pipe floor holes 100% fixed now?

[@ChuTheMoose]

yes

[@danielh.9010]

No. When I connect the pipes above with below there's often no flow at first, until I rebuild and reconnect the pipe from below. But I can live with that level of bugs.

[@Calvin1914]

After playing along with you again since 1.0 released - thank you for the journey btw! - I realized how much Satisfactory is reliant on mods. Can't wait for the next Factorio series.

[@albertotognoni4819]

When the video of finishing the game

[@mirage1857]

Takes a 3d game and forces it to play like the 2d game he likes better.

[@ProzacStylings]

I also don't really jive with this bus+singular-super-base limitation. The most fun (and productivity) I had with satisfactory, is when I built local factories near resources, using generic blueprints that stacked vertically, and drones for transport. Anything that needed creating could be easily crafted by planting down a few drone stations, a few stacks of the same ~6 blueprints, and setting recipes and clockrates, with very little lateral footprint.

[@Zeruul]

What's the problem with that? The way you phrase it makes you sound like those Dark Soul gatekeeping elitist.

[@mirage1857]

@@Zeruul lol wtf get a grip dude.

[@danielh.9010]

But you have to admit that it works and is quite efficient. Also, the horizontal layout can easily be transformed into a vertical one, and can also easily be used in a hybrid way (not a single main bus, but smaller, distributed buses at production sites). IMO it was a gift to the community to show how even the most complex production chain logistics can be solved by a bus approach with stackable factory modules at the branches. I wasn't aware of other KZbinrs handling the logistics with this efficiency. Of course you can argue about style and whether it takes the challenge out of the game..

[@ProzacStylings]

@@danielh.9010 There's nothing particularly efficient about the bus design. It's space inefficient, it's not particularly power inefficient (because power efficiency requires space efficiency). I wouldn't call it time efficient; generic blueprints instead of item-customized blueprints would be quicker. It's not even resource efficient, as Nilhaus limited his recipe selections so that no item requires inputs more complicated to make than itself, so that the advanced items on the bus wouldn't have to go both directions. But it is simple and relatively easy to understand and troubleshoot, which are benefits. And it's how Nilhaus likes to build, which is what matters.

[@maloo2brvo26]

Sad that you’re pausing satisfactory

[@zviper]

Ni!