> *Originally posted by **[Heroguy](/forums/33278/topics/626040?page=17#13047663)**:* > My fast-forward button completely disappeared; resetting the game entirely, refreshing, none of it worked to bring it back. yeah well go offline for a bit to get it back

> *Originally posted by **[iceph03nix](/forums/33278/topics/626040?page=17#12636367)**:* > I'm seconding the comments about the Sorter not fitting the window. I can only see 2 of the 3 dropdowns. yeah just click on the tiny sliver of white

My browser crashed and when I try to restart my game it just infinantly loads. What can I do to fix this? I tried refreshing and closing my browser entirely and it didn't seem to work. Help?

There have been some posts about conveyor anti-loop algorithm already but I'd like to bring back this topic again. It seems completely unnecessary and is causing bugs that should not be there. I don't think it should be considered to be part of game mechanics you have to deal with but rather inconvenience that has no added value to game itself. The problem is that anti-loop does not consider conveyor crossovers to be separate lines. That's perfectly fine as removing one side will join rest together. The problem is that it prevents you from applying some designs. Let's take working example.  In this case those two are simply two parallel conveyors which don't create virtual loop. Removing wither part of this design will not make a loop. In opposite case it does not work as it can create loop if some leg is removed.  Similarly it happens with 4 crossing conveyors.  I think there are two options of solving this issue. 1. If anti-loop is not required by game algorithm, maybe it should not be placed there in the first place? If you create backloop it might affect performance or block itself but is there any reason for blocking players from doing so? Build can be broken in many ways, is this way any special case? 2. I can imagine that there might be some limitation due to movement calculations which requires all conveyors to be finite. In this case this system should be extended to prevent real loops from happening by creating new or removing existing conveyors. - Allow creating such virtual loop only in case the line continues on the other side. It would require creating extension first and connecting to it as second step.  - When removing conveyor creates loop, remove also conveyor leading to it. Here is example in which I have to create different layout to make it work as I can't feed second lab with such layout.  The problem is mostly that it's counter intuitive. It surely can be explained but you should not think about this problem when building factory. It's different than output order, conveyor transfer rate or machine production. After all, it's a bug, not a feature.

Just as a spelling error, When you are looking at your factories menu, the text says "Buy more land to create even bigger empire" It should say "Buy more land to create **an** even bigger empire"

Hi, I think I have found a bug with Coal buyer costs. Setup: Coal buyer upgraded once (2x production & costs) and one upgrade in costs reduction (-5%)  Current income 25.3/t:  Income with one more coal buyer added (after stabilization, nothing else changed) 21.4/t:  as seen in the last picture costs should be 1.9/t according to the description (and theoretical expectation 2 x 1 x 0.05), but are 3.9/t in reality. (I can't find an explanation for it so I consider it a bug)

> *Originally posted by **[Emcoma](/forums/33278/topics/626040?page=18#13187433)**:* > Hi, I think I have found a bug with Coal buyer costs. > > Setup: > Coal buyer upgraded once (2x production & costs) and one upgrade in costs reduction (-5%) >  > Current income 25.3/t: >  > Income with one more coal buyer added (after stabilization, nothing else changed) 21.4/t: >  > > as seen in the last picture costs should be 1.9/t according to the description (and theoretical expectation 2 x 1 x 0.05), but are 3.9/t in reality. (I can't find an explanation for it so I consider it a bug) the coal itslef cost $20 per 10 ticks so $2/t if the coal get sbacklohgged and isnt used (as i nyour picture) it will eventualy got to 1.9/t since it won tbuy more coal > *Originally posted by **[Bonaducci](/forums/33278/topics/626040?page=18#13069292)**:* > There have been some posts about conveyor anti-loop algorithm already but I'd like to bring back this topic again. It seems completely unnecessary and is causing bugs that should not be there. I don't think it should be considered to be part of game mechanics you have to deal with but rather inconvenience that has no added value to game itself. > The problem is that anti-loop does not consider conveyor crossovers to be separate lines. That's perfectly fine as removing one side will join rest together. The problem is that it prevents you from applying some designs. > > Let's take working example. >  > In this case those two are simply two parallel conveyors which don't create virtual loop. Removing wither part of this design will not make a loop. > > In opposite case it does not work as it can create loop if some leg is removed. >  > > Similarly it happens with 4 crossing conveyors. >  > > I think there are two options of solving this issue. > 1. If anti-loop is not required by game algorithm, maybe it should not be placed there in the first place? If you create backloop it might affect performance or block itself but is there any reason for blocking players from doing so? Build can be broken in many ways, is this way any special case? > 2. I can imagine that there might be some limitation due to movement calculations which requires all conveyors to be finite. In this case this system should be extended to prevent real loops from happening by creating new or removing existing conveyors. > - Allow creating such virtual loop only in case the line continues on the other side. It would require creating extension first and connecting to it as second step. >  > - When removing conveyor creates loop, remove also conveyor leading to it. > > > Here is example in which I have to create different layout to make it work as I can't feed second lab with such layout. >  > > The problem is mostly that it's counter intuitive. It surely can be explained but you should not think about this problem when building factory. It's different than output order, conveyor transfer rate or machine production. After all, it's a bug, not a feature. > abotu this post loops are possible wiht sorters so i really don tget his antiloop system

So, my steel foundries aren't exporting the steel. Any solutions? Also, how the heck do I upload an image to the forum?

> *Originally posted by **[Emcoma](/forums/33278/topics/626040?page=18#13187433)**:* > Hi, I think I have found a bug with Coal buyer costs. > > Setup: > Coal buyer upgraded once (2x production & costs) and one upgrade in costs reduction (-5%) >  > Current income 25.3/t: >  > Income with one more coal buyer added (after stabilization, nothing else changed) 21.4/t: >  > > as seen in the last picture costs should be 1.9/t according to the description (and theoretical expectation 2 x 1 x 0.05), but are 3.9/t in reality. (I can't find an explanation for it so I consider it a bug) There are 2 costs - per tick 'operating costs' and resource purchase costs (which occur at some interval - in this case, 'buy 4 coal for $20 after every 10 ticks'. Thus, the income is showing you the **average** per tick, which can be figured out as follows: $20 / 10 ticks = $2/tick = averaged resource purchase costs $1.9/tick = per tick operating costs $2 + $1.9 = $3.9/tick total costs, averaged Another way to look at it is to figure out every ticks cost, which will give you the same amount: Tick 1 = $0 (resource purchase) + $1.9 (operating cost) = $1.9 Tick 2 = $0 (resource purchase) + $1.9 (operating cost) = $1.9 Tick 3 = $0 (resource purchase) + $1.9 (operating cost) = $1.9 Tick 4 = $0 (resource purchase) + $1.9 (operating cost) = $1.9 Tick 5 = $0 (resource purchase) + $1.9 (operating cost) = $1.9 Tick 6 = $0 (resource purchase) + $1.9 (operating cost) = $1.9 Tick 7 = $0 (resource purchase) + $1.9 (operating cost) = $1.9 Tick 8 = $0 (resource purchase) + $1.9 (operating cost) = $1.9 Tick 9 = $0 (resource purchase) + $1.9 (operating cost) = $1.9 Tick 10 = $20 (resource purchase) + $1.9 (operating cost) = $21.9 Total = ($1.9 * 9) + $21.9 = $39 Average = $39 / 10 = $3.9 / tick Note the upgrade for cost reduction will only reduce the operating cost - resource purchase price is constant (in this case, no matter how many upgrades you make to coal, each coal will cost $5)