Talk:Turbofuel

Suggestion: Seems like the JetPack should be able to run on turbo fuel. Azeroth2b87517 (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We are wiki worker, not devs, sorry cant help you.～～～～ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.65.35.203 (talk • contribs) at 04:50, 13 May 2019‎ (UTC). Please sign your posts with
 * I know who you are - I've been told the DEVs are also reading the wiki. Azeroth2b87517 (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The probability a dev might see this here is close to zero. Use their official website for suggestions like this: https://questions.satisfactorygame.com/ --Cadaei (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Turbo fuel has a reddish icon now. Kwjcool321 (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I made a change that probably didn't work
The turbofuel crafting recipes aren't showing up at all. So after comparing the source with other pages that did have their recipes, I decided the change the capitalization of the CraftingTable calls. I'm not sure if the crafting_recipes table takes time to update itself or if the changes I made don't matter because it's not case sensitive. I should note that the crafting recipes for turbofuel do appear on the alternate hard drive recipes page table. This is my first time editing a wiki page so I hope I didn't pull a stupid move or make unnecessary work for anyone. DavidTriphon (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a bigger problem. Neither Turbofuel or Packaged Turbofuel recipes are stored in cargo, yet the somehow appear on the Hard Drive page...? Ondar111 (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: they disappeared from the Hard Drive page after a purge. The problem seems to lie in the recipe not being stored to cargo. Ondar111 (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see the recipes on the page now. Thanks for fixing it Ondar! :) DavidTriphon (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Credit goes to Mr Pie 5. The issue was caused by the infobox having "N/A" stack size, while that parameter only expected an integer to be input. Ondar111 (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ThanksMr Pie 5! I'm thankful that you figured out how to fix it. DavidTriphon (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

New Analysis Seems Unnecessary
I'm not sure a fuel vs turbofuel analysis should be on this page. If anywhere it should be on the fuel generator page. But even beyond that this flawed (even before double-checking math). Comparing weighted resource usage is odd, because the goal seems to be to point out how much sulfur it's using. But, turbofuel is one of the primary usage of sulfur. And the other uses either of sulfur don't need much or don't provide much benefit compared to turbofuel. Using sulfur here gives you extra power and simplifies logistics by needing less pipes. It would only become an issue if scaled up really large, but using fuel instead is hardly the remedy for really large power usage; that's what nuclear is for.

Also there isn't enough oil for to make that much energy from fuel. There's only 11,700.

Lundurro (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * If thats the case I understand and apologise. Im @800hrs and starting megabuilds, trying to slip in my findings as I progress through. Short version for this one, making Rubber/Plastic factory where all oil is processed, with Fuel overflow when exports arent taken at 100% capacity. While going through I realised there isnt actually enough Sulfur for max potential fuel throughput which bothered me cause Batteries are soon on the agenda. If i was to amend to your intent, id like to keep the 4Sulfur:3Crude oil and/or the 75% efficiency as these were the deciding factors to me in considering if TFuel was worth the value of next-stage of dedicated refinement. (PS: Just realised you were correct about CrudeOil, was focused on ratios and not viability, my b) Eagles_Rule_Der (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I cleaned out the fluff from the section. Please let me know if this is a bit more approperiate :-D Eagles_Rule_Der (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah looks good to me. It's just facts now, so I have no issue with it anymore. Lundurro (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually I will do one quality/math check pass, let me know if I messed with your intent too much. Lundurro (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Turbofuel vs Fuel analysis incorrect?
As I'm not familar with wiki etiquette, I'll refrain from making any changes. The section that analyzes turbofuel vs fuel efficiency concludes that Turbofuel is 1.6x more "expensive" than fuel. The math that was used to arrive at this conclusion was unclear, but I took a guess at how to calculate "weighted resource efficiency", and I arrived at Fuel being 1.6x more expensive than Turbofuel.

2,000 MW = 60 turbofuel or 160 fuel turbofuel = 45 oil + 30 sulfur fuel = 60 oil

I'm guessing resource "weight" is calculated according to this Total oil on map = 11,700 Total sulfur on map = 6840

Thus we will say sulfur has a value of 1.7 and oil has a value of 1. I'm not sure I agree with weighing resources in this way, but that's another discussion.

Calculating turbofuel vs fuel "score"

(60 turbofuel per 2K MW) * ((45 oil @ 1x resource value) + (30 sulfur @ 1.7x resource value)) = 5760 resource "points" per 2K MW (160 fuel per 2K MW) * (60 oil @ 1x resource value) = 9600 resource "points" per 2K MW

9600 / 5760 = 1.6, except the math suggests that fuel is more "expensive" than turbofuel, not the other way around as the analysis concludes