well if that's out of scope, then i guess i change my mind. none of this really needs to be integrated into the base game engine at all. stacking is fine the way it is implemented now, via mods.

Not sure why. Beltboxes are natural buffer boxes on their own. One stack of input and one stack of output. Isn't that enough buffer for you? because beltboxes don't make things available to bots, doi. Unless beacons prevent you from having the space you move the stacked items with bots and unstack ...

Not sure why. Beltboxes are natural buffer boxes on their own. One stack of input and one stack of output. Isn't that enough buffer for you? because beltboxes don't make things available to bots, doi. Unless beacons prevent you from having the space you move the stacked items with bots and unstack ...

Earlier someone mentioned having recipes taking 10 items and 100 items. The idea being that if you fill the furnace fast enough it would use the bigger recipe (which I assume would work around 60 recipes/s limit). Does that even work with the caching? Or work only once and then the caching keeps th...

The usage of loader -> compressor -> loader is due to game limitations. It also incurs unnecessary performance costs (furnaces with a lot of recipes are bad for performance, see here ) which this approach is trying to reduce. I think there should be a single entity that does this for transport line...

it would be cool if after n dynamic operations being the same to then cache the result for n ticks. then the furnace wouldn't need to work as hard when its inputs are not changing.

this would break sushi furnace belts but those are stupid anyway.

The usage of loader -> compressor -> loader is due to game limitations. It also incurs unnecessary performance costs (furnaces with a lot of recipes are bad for performance, see here ) which this approach is trying to reduce. I think there should be a single entity that does this for transport line...

What could be done into vanilla to test it, is a basic support for barreling - so that barreling won’t break your fluid statistics (nothing else). I think that making this work is already hard enough. What this misses is, that barreling is this type of compression that I described as “compression w...

However, if the dev team investing significant time and effort to integrate support for stacking in the game means them having less time to add what I feel would benefit more to the game, then I'd rather they used their time better. The most precious resource one can't afford to spoil is time, beca...

furnaces already sorta solve the recipe problem, stacked item goes in, stacked item comes out. assemblers could do the same.. but i don't see lots of recipes as a problem.

yes, i understand what you were going for, but you're ignoring all of the subtle aspects in which this is indeed, a change in throughput. it's a change in bandwidth. it doesn't matter what it is, really, because it changes downstream distribution, hence, it will be a bad idea, and annoying. See, no...

It will not change throughput at all.[...] it just means you get a compressed item less often. wut? that's ... a.. change in throughput... along with all of the distribution changes that come from having a split-off bus now moving more dense packages along. upstream will get more dense shipments, d...

kovarex wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:17 am

Zooming and panning in blueprint is a feature request we are aware of, we have it in some of the lists, but it is not going to be done now.

well if you could at least get the green line to be visible, that'd be great too.

It will not change throughput at all.[...] it just means you get a compressed item less often. wut? that's ... a.. change in throughput... along with all of the distribution changes that come from having a split-off bus now moving more dense packages along. upstream will get more dense shipments, d...

Using the attached blueprint (lol, it's quite large) in 1080p at default UI scaling, I cannot see the grid boundary (green dotted line) in the position that i require it to be. it seems that the scaled blueprint should probably be zoomable so we can see it at a 1:1 scale and get the corners where ne...

even though i don't rotate things, it's not perfect. i don't wanna threadjack, but we can't even zoom in to place the boundaries properly in a super large blueprint. the boundary doesn't even show up in certain positions

[bunch of confusing text] That, plus some sort of explanation of what all the above are, seems like all I personally would have needed to understand this in about 5 seconds. well, that all sounds pretty confusing to me. Do you find the current way to be not confusing? right, i updated my rail bluep...

seems like it's because your map drag keybind is the same as placing blueprint, try changing it.

No-one is preventing others to do things, it's just that making one or another playstyle WAY easier/convenient/ups efficient would change how one has to play in order to reach the maxium SPM at decent ups on a given specs, which would then gives incentives to one or another playstyle. And ultimatly...

The actual ingame time breakdown shows the trains at consistently < 1 ms. In the context of the 6+ ms chewed by entities and belts each, the advantages of switching stackers from diagonal -- which are inherently short, compared to the mainline train distances -- is not worth pursuing. That diagonal...