In general, the proposed solution would likely make storage tanks (except maybe for circuit network signals), pumps and fluid train cars almost obsolete if you are optimizing fluids.

Remember, the point of Trains is not that you get more Fluid throughput, its so your Base is more modular and ...

You say trains are OP compared to belts, but if you run a belt over 1000 tiles.....

Likewise, if you use pipes to make some sulfuric acid over such distances, you'll have to invest 100000 units of sulfuric acid to fill the pipe, which is about 30 minutes of a factory working to make your pipe ...

This adds far more realism than it removes. I don't like how the flow thing existed and became more important than other real things.
1) Pumps wouldn't evenly flow out of junctions, now they do, just like real life
2) Before pumps at the back of a system wouldn't push the rest of the fluids along ...

Quite, but since it now takes longer to fill the pipe segment, and thus draw from the segment (assuming nothing but adding the tanks changes), your throughput (to the consumers) has been reduced. Of course, if your producers outperforms your consumers, they will eventually balance it out (but it ...

If your output matches your input, and other factors aren't forcing a break in the segment, then you don't need storage tanks. Storage tanks appear only to be useful when produced is more than consumed, because as - mentioned above - adding a storage tank means you lower the rate a pipe segment is ...

There are already restrictions on throughput, and the exact numbers are subject to change. You cannot simply add more machines to a pipe segment, hoping it works, because since pipe segments now behave as a storage tank, they are limited by the amount that can be in that "storage tank" (I believe ...

From FFF #416


Pipes, underground pipes, and storage tanks are merged into fluid "segments".
Each segment inherits its volume from the fluid boxes that comprise it and can hold one fluid.
Machines can push fluid into a segment at an unlimited rate, and can pull from a segment at a rate ...

I like the idea of "bigger" pipe segments in the new system. I think the overhead of processing every single pipe as a segment is a lot of overhead.

Maybe a solution that has a max segment length? Possibly based upon fluid viscosity?

For example water might have a max segment length of a larger ...

Using a 1000 SPM base to talk about nerfing logistics bots seems ridiculous. I'd like to see a 1000 SPM base with NO logistics bots, I am sure it would be a tedious exercise.

I think anything > 500 SPM base requires logistics bots and a lot of planning. I actually think the base shown in the FFF ...

Be careful increasing belt throughput as belts could displace trains

Currently I consider a blue belt equal to about one train car if a train comes every 50 seconds. If belts were "buffed" to 3-4 times the throughput of a blue belt, then most of my early to mid game trains (usually 4 cars) would ...

After a little more thinking, apart from what I said before (https://forums.factorio.com/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=56218&start=180#p331099) I think a research of MAXIMUM ACTIVE ROBOTS per LOGISTIC NETWORK would help to nerf them a bit forcing you to make more research if you want to use them elsewhere ...

Two suggestions:

1. Make belts carry more through automatic compression and maybe even OVER-compression, maybe items could overlap... so a belt could carry 3x as much if they overlapped by 6 of the 9 slots an item usually occupies. This could be a research technology that would allow for more late ...

+1 for giving this a higher priority.

I too am waiting for this fix before playing 0.16. As for priorities, not sure how this is lower than fixing the size of a tank train car, from my perspective this seems much more "game breaking."" (BTW, I like the tank car fix -- not complaining about it ...

Replacing "inventory" toolbar with shortcut toolbar - GOOD!

Tabbed interface hiding information and needing multiple shortcuts to see all information - BAD!

I agree map generation is screwed up in alpha 13 -- it is much different than alpha 12 -- and not just the increasing resources as you get farther away from spawn.

If not, devs should at least address how they changed them and what they do now.

I pretty much noticed this right away too, I almost always used low frequency for terrain segmentation in alpha 12. In addition I also tended to use low frequency for most resources.

Terrain segmentation is definitely different in alpha 13, if it is not bugged, could the devs explain the changes ...

Like the idea of more late game resource sinks. Could take a cue from civilization and create a "future tech", it could be repeatable and each time you complete the research, your score would increase by one, much like launching a rocket.

It would be neat if there were a few different resource ...

Basically this is an inserter that can fill a belt, so today it takes anywhere from 6-14 fast inserters to fill a belt depending upon it's speed. It might take a bit more space, but 6 to 14 times faster... OP. NO.

No for loader, unless it has some big disadvantage associating with using it, otherwise it seems too OP to me.

I like the idea of making it use lubricant to run as one such disadvantage.

"Loops is bad (all your stations are belong to us?)" originated last year in August with this version (0.12) which includes chain signals.