only has 2 modules like base game furance

furnace_entity.module_count =

doesn't seem to be working

it should be

furnace_entity.module_slots =

Ahh, they changed the name of that property. But I did mean it to be 2 -- I didn't notice that property was set since the game still showed 2 modules. If I set it to 3 then this furnace becomes the only furnace anyone should use and I'm not sure that's a good idea. I was aiming for it to be bigger and faster, essentially well-balanced against the nuclear reactor, but not more productive. I could potentially be convinced -- what do you think?

I am enjoying messing with it.
It's a touch clunky with heat requirement and connections to a heat source + ramp up time before it functions at the end of a long heat pipe.

personally I would be happy with 3 or 4 modules to compensate for the Nuclear setup.
Also with the diminishing returns on beacons, you could argue 4x electric furnaces under 8x beacons, would function faster than 1x Big furnace under the same 8. so it looses out on production per footprint once beacons unlock.
playing SA its outclassed by the foundry the moment that's unlocked.

gives it a somewhat narrow window of usefulness.

Still, Nice to have something different :)

Bump.

More slots = more quality modules = higher Quality %
Assuming foundries for infinite lava on Vulcanus, this could elevate the total Quality % of steel to the same level as the other iron plate ingredient intermediate products i.e. iron stick, gear wheel (Foundry > Assembling Machine 3; 4 slots). Essentially a furnace with equal amount of module slots to the AM3.

Honestly, I'd even take a slower crafting speed to compensate for this; It'd prefer it if the bonus of bigger, advanced machines was them being customizable (i.e. modules) for different purposes instead of 'just' going fast. Hell, I'd even take forbidden Prod modules for that, the foundry will outclass it anyway, but that's just my ignorant take.

Hmm, you have my attention. Reduce speed, ban productivity, but allow quality. This is an interesting idea. I hate the way I have to use convoluted recipes to get quality plates; it's so stupid. Maybe direct heat is a "better" way to make plates.

Hey Adamo, I've used it a bit more now. I have a controversial balancing proposal.

Honestly the speed of the furnace is nice as is, however it is not that amazing, for such a footprint and such a hard required secondary infrastructure. I do want to be able to go much faster, but not as an imbalanced base speed, rather as an additional investment (= modules). So I still think 4 module slots are fitting.

This does need balancing; I do think however that this furnace isn't a mid-tier machine that competes with electric furnaces.
It is still a 5x5 building - that seems to qualify as a high-end machine in space age, like a Nauvis/Gleba/Aquillo exclusive unlock or something. I think this is better suited for competing with the foundry for high-end smelting. It's a matter of what secondary requirements one would rather put up with, depending on what planet.

Now, a foundry with infinite lava + access to calcite + 4 modules will always outclass this. However, this kind of is annoying to deal with outside Vulcanus.

On Nauvis, nuclear reactors are expensive but easy. On Gleba this could take advantage of burnable fuel with heating towers. I think Fulgora is around the same - an Electric Furnace MK2 would be a fitting exclusive unlock there. I haven't been to Aquillo yet.

Also, one thing I have noticed is the heat consumption is disappointingly trivial in the long run. Once the reactors and heating towers are build, when it gets going, it's just way to easy to keep running atleast on Nauvis and Gleba.

So, I figured this out:

-Keep base speed, or increase/decrease it by 1, to 4 or 6.
-4 module slots.
-Disallow productivity modules.
-(here it comes) base productivity bonus like the foundry, just a tad lower, also lower than an EFournace with two rare prod module 3s. Something like +25% prod (if base speed 4, outputs at a speed of 5), or +20% prod (if base speed 5, outputs like speed 6), or +13.33 % at base speed 6 for an output of speed 7.
-(and important) Huge energy consumption efficiency penalty +100% or even +200%, or even higher to make up for this prod bonus and to really test the hell out of nuclear setups, heat towers on Gleba etc. because producing heat is a bit too easy imo
-Maybe increase construction cost (additional two prod module 2s?) and science cost.

And you could then decide what to use the 3 remaining modules for: smelting much faster, or smelting much more energy efficient, or smelting for a much higher quality.

What do you think?

I'm still considering your proposal. But regarding Aquilo, counter-intuitively, heat is readily available on Aquilo since you have to use it already to keep all your buildings from freezing.

because producing heat is a bit too easy imo

This is the kicker. I'm a physics guy. I try to find nice proxies to real numbers; like requiring a very high minimum temperature. Unfortunately, nuclear plant only puts out 1000C, but steel melts at 1540C. So I just tried to make it as high as possible while still allowing logistics (i.e. if furnace was 1000 you'd get almost no ability to chain them because the next furnace over wouldn't reach 1000). One thing I have considered is a heat condenser, that would raise the temperature at the cost of more energy: however, this is reasonably modeled by just increasing the energy cost and assuming the furnace does this itself.

The issue, I think, is that the smelting itself is way too cheap to be physical. This is a guess; I've not calculated it. How even would I calculate it anyway? How much iron ore is in a single item? (I know the many arguments -- I even tried to make a framework once upon a time, but now it would need to be based on the rocket launch weight table.)

Generally, I think this is an interesting idea. I'm keen to do speed 5 with 20% prod at first thought. And the efficiency penalty could model the heat condensation. It is unfortunate that I cannot set different temperatures for different recipes. I'll double check there isn't some backdoor way of doing this in the prototype.

Oh I forgot, lol. I had figured out Factorio modding and did it myself.

It's even faster now at speed 8. 20 furnaces consume 40 MW ( 1 reactor ) and output 1 green belt of iron plates at 120% fixed productivity. A viable alternative to the foundry depending on the planet (but still outclassed).

crafting_speed = electric_furnace.crafting_speed*4 -- speed 8 == 1:1 foundry considering it outputs 2x plates at a time
energy_usage = "2MW" -- over 10 times electric_foundry, still better than foundry
module_slots = 4 -- 1:1 foundry
allowed_effects = {"speed", "quality", "consumption" } -- never extra productivity
effect_receiver = { base_effect = { productivity = .20 }} -- fixed base productivity

I had also experimented with base_effect = { effectivity = 0.5 } to get close to your idea; taking in much more input heat than output. It was a bit too annoying and took a long time to get to 800°deg.

By the way I agree wholeheartedly and I'd like it if the game was much harder. Smelting and electricity, fuel densities etc. most productions are obviously way too cheap and easy and make the game a joke. Then with Space Age the new buildings are soo cheaty and overpowered with base productivity. I would've liked it if the game had global multiplication sliders not just for science cost, pollution etc. but for material cost (at least the basic plates), energy usage, and machine crafting speed.

Personally I prefer not overpower thing. Look reasonable to me for now. I play without space age mod activate.

Unfortunately, nuclear plant only puts out 1000C, but steel melts at 1540C.

You can always choice to change nuclear or heating tower to have greater max temp but inertia is already hard with 800C the furnace can take a long time to startup and each time you add one energy drop like crazy.

Yeah I often consider changing the max temps and such but it would require serious crawling through data to adjust things in my physics mod -- not something I want to maintain over time. The other way I look at it is that the machine "concentrates heat" on site. It's a hand-wave but it lets me calculate a reasonable relative power use.

I don't think I want to increase the power of it, yet. I would have to recheck my calculations but as I recall it already rivals the foundry and I don't want it to go too crazy.

I agree with giving it more module slots or faster speed, atleast when space age is active. Even if it is outclassed by the foundry in terms of productivity, having a fast alternative in space platforms with a nuclear reactor is nice and makes quality steel easier