[MOD] Deadlock's Stacking Beltboxes & Compact Loaders

[Deadlock989]

A note about the future of these mods, i.e. what might happen in Factorio 0.17 or 1.0.

There are two possibilities: (A) Factorio gets some kind of belt throughput improvement (a stacking box, or special belts, and/or new abilities for stack inserters), or (B) it doesn't, status quo. If you read the FFFs, it could go either way and I'm not calling it. Sometimes they appear to favour it, other times they appear to favour mild nerfs to logistics bots instead. But there's not much in the 0.17 roadmap about it unless you optimistically lump this under "final balancing".

These two mods have grown much more than I expected, way more than you'd expect for mods which only provide one new entity each, to the point where it hardly makes sense for them to be separate. Certainly it's extra and not very fun work for me to keep them aligned when they cover so much of the same ground and rely on so much of the same data. Now third party mods can register their own items for stacking in DSB, and they can auto-generate matching loaders for their modded belt tiers. Really there's only one thing missing: the ability for third party mods to request an arbitrary beltbox that matches any arbitrary speed of belt. But I'm kind of burned out on supporting other mods, especially ones I don't play with myself and which keep moving the goalposts.

If Factorio gets some kind of native stacking, then DSB will be happily discontinued, job done. If Factorio gets official loaders (unlikely but you never know), then DCL will be discontinued.

If neither of those things happen, then I'll probably be merging these two mods into one. DCL only got built to support DSB anyway - I originally wanted the beltboxes to have their own built-in loaders, like Klonan's buffer box, but I didn't like having to cope with hacky hidden entities and all the many, many things that can go wrong when other mods build or deconstruct or move them: vanilla Factorio never uses that method. So I made a separate 1x1 loaders mod instead, which in retrospect was a mistake. If the mods get merged then players will get options around whether they want stackers or loaders or both.

And at that point I'll probably remove any "native" support for third party mods, i.e. DSB won't do any setting up of third party belt tiers at all, only provide the mechanisms for others to do so. I'll try and make it as easy as possible for them to tell DSB2 about their belt tiers and their items, it's already very easy, and if they stored their stuff in any kind of sensible data structure, they could register everything with DSB with just a few lines of code. It might seem a bit harsh but it will saves me many hours of not-very-fun duty, in exchange for a few extra minutes of another modder's time.

[shanemadden]

And at that point I'll probably remove any "native" support for third party mods, i.e. DSB won't do any setting up of third party belt tiers at all, only provide the mechanisms for others to do so. I'll try and make it as easy as possible for them to tell DSB2 about their belt tiers and their items, it's already very easy, and if they stored their stuff in any kind of sensible data structure, they could register everything with DSB with just a few lines of code. It might seem a bit harsh but it will saves me many hours of not-very-fun duty, in exchange for a few extra minutes of another modder's time.

As someone who added third party belt support to my own mod and am now realizing what a moving target it is: go for it.

You could drop the existing third-party mod integrations in a separate mod to get them out of the main codebase, or else just provide quick instructions for how to write an integration mod - if the authors of the mods that add the belts won't do it, it'll be easy enough for someone in the community to make a glue mod to get the belts to register.

[Deadlock989]

You and me both, brother. These civvies, they don't get it, man, they don't get it.

[blendi_93]

loader snapping stoped working after version 1.5.0

modlist:
"DeadlockLoaders",
"even-distribution",

btw, thx for ur great mods.

edit: including version 1.5.0 (snapping worked in 1.4.1 and dont work after upgrade > 1.4.1)

[Deadlock989]

loader snapping stoped working after version 1.5.0

modlist:
"DeadlockLoaders",
"even-distribution",

btw, thx for ur great mods.

edit: including version 1.5.0 (snapping worked in 1.4.1 and dont work after upgrade > 1.4.1)

Well spotted. I hadn't even noticed and I've been playing all afternoon. Fixed for next version.

[durzolr]

having issues with getting any speed of your compact loader to insert into your stacker. output compact loader works just fine. vanilla inserter works, but destroys throughput, defeating the purpose of using the stacker. I have tried going into the mod options and turning snapping on/off.

no other funtion or logistics mods active.

[Deadlock989]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deadlock's Compact Loaders version: 1.5.3
Date: 06. 04. 2018
Bugfixes:
- Loader snapping repaired after a recent breaking change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Deadlock989]

having issues with getting any speed of your compact loader to insert into your stacker. output compact loader works just fine. vanilla inserter works, but destroys throughput, defeating the purpose of using the stacker. I have tried going into the mod options and turning snapping on/off.

no other funtion or logistics mods active.

Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. Are you saying loaders won't load, only unload? Screenshot would help.

[Shadowaves]

Hello, I plan to do an extensible localization mod for your mods (I'll handle the french translation for my part), so I came to ask you if I have your permission to do it.

[Deadlock989]

Hello, I plan to do an extensible localization mod for your mods (I'll handle the french translation for my part), so I came to ask you if I have your permission to do it.

You can. I'm willing to include it in the main mod, with credit to you, if you prefer, or you can have it as a separate mod, I don't mind either way. There was a German locale in an early version but my rusty school German wasn't up to it in the end.

[Shadowaves]

Thank you ! And thanks too for your proposition but I was planning to compile the three config.cfg from DSB, DCL and DCM into one and post it on Github, so anyone can easily contribute to the translations that way (you can tell me if you're ok with that too by the way)

[Deadlock989]

Thank you ! And thanks too for your proposition but I was planning to compile the three config.cfg from DSB, DCL and DCM into one and post it on Github, so anyone can easily contribute to the translations that way (you can tell me if you're ok with that too by the way)

No problem, go ahead.

This is what one of the Factorio devs was talking about in relation to getting projects localised, I've no idea what it's like to use, I was thinking about trying it for my next mod: https://crowdin.com/

Bugger that, it costs £££.

[Shadowaves]

Nice, thank you infinitely I'll keep you in touch when the translation will be released !

And didn't know that website, it seems cool, too bad it's a paying service...

[steinio]

Hi,

is it correct, that the loaders have no circuit wire connector?
Wanted to set filters per circuit wire :/

[Deadlock989]

Hi,

is it correct, that the loaders have no circuit wire connector?
Wanted to set filters per circuit wire :/

Yes, it's correct.

[aklesey1]

Hi,

is it correct, that the loaders have no circuit wire connector?
Wanted to set filters per circuit wire :/

Yes, it's correct.

Can u add filters pls? its will be very useful and modern? bcuz although vanilla loaders are hidden but they have filters

[Deadlock989]

Can u add filters pls? its will be very useful and modern? bcuz although vanilla loaders are hidden but they have filters

Compact loaders have all the same features as vanilla loaders:

• They have filters (in output mode).
• They don't have circuit connections.

[Anson]

If Factorio gets some kind of native stacking, then DSB will be happily discontinued, job done.
If Factorio gets official loaders (unlikely but you never know), then DCL will be discontinued.

Let's wait first, what and how they do and if they do it at all.
even if they introduce loaders and stacking in vanilla, they might use the old 1x2 loaders or some assembly machines (like the (un)barrelers, or other crating assembler mods) which are 3x3. such large assemblers would make it very dificult or even impossible to come up with "smart solutions" that have the (un)stackers right in the middle of an assembly line and reduce them to be usefull only directly at a main bus.
in all those cases, i probably would like to have your stackers and loaders in addition to the vanilla versions !

I originally wanted the beltboxes to have their own built-in loaders, like Klonan's buffer box, ...

as much as i liked that buffer box at first, i really don't use it any longer since (besides being partly overpowered) it has several disadvantages, eg the size 1x2, sometimes bad snapping, and that the inputs and outputs are a bit strange, eg at the small front and back they behave like loaders, and at the sides they sometimes behave like loaders or unloaders in one place and like belts with sideloading at another (and even then it is like sideloading with or without priorities of lanes). they also are no longer neccessary to achieve full compression.
thus i prefer your separate loaders and stackers (no matter whether in two mods or in a combined mod) a lot which allow to arrange the parts (eg building an L-shaped 2x2 loader/stacker/unloader, or even a 3x3 stacker with one loader as input/output and three loaders as output/input), also allowing to use inserters in addition to or instead of loaders (even with direct insertion from miners like any other chest). and you always know exactly what is built and how it works.
thus there probably will be good reasons to keep your mods even if some similar functionality becomes vanilla in 0.17+ or 1.0.

thank you for the mods !

ps: there is really only one small(!) problem that i have with the stackers ... jamming :-( (and that filters to avoid that are taking up a lot of space)

jamming

jamming in my factory happens in two ways. the first is simply getting the wrong items in the stacker, eg when some other items spill onto an incoming belt, or when using the stacker as destination of a miner which directly inserts ore from a "mixed ore field". But i understand that there is almost nothing that the mod can do about it, and it is the user's problem to add some splitters (or another method like a wired filter inserter and an active provider chest) in front of it for filtering. maybe I'll start adding such filters at several strategically chosen locations anyway.
the second method how i like to jam my setups is by building while the first items already are coming (eg when having a belt already and later adding some stacker to it to improve throughput), thus causing non-stacked as well as stacked items on the same belt or in the same warehouse. when those items finally get to the unstacker, they can jam the (un)stacker or the items are all treated (stacked items are unstacked, but unstacked items are stacked). the user might be responsible to add filters or be more careful (just like in the first case), but quite often i would like to have two separate machines for stacking and unstacking. those machines should simply "pass through" all incorrect items, eg on a mixed belt with stacked and unstacked ore, the stacker would stack unstacked ore while already stacked ore is simply passed through (and similarly the reverse for an unstacker). this feature would be most useful on assembly lines or on mining setups where items are transported on a belt from one stacker to the next and to the next etc, while machines or miners put additional (non-stacked) items on the same belt or directly into a stacker where also they are stacked while the already stacked items pass through. and on an unstacker this would take care of passing all items while unstackig the stacked items and not stacking any items, resulting in a pure unstacked belt afterwards.

but as i already said, those are minor problems which all can (with a little effort and more or less additional space) also be solved by the user instead of by the mod.
thus take it only as an idea, and there is no need to change anything when it is too much work.

[Deadlock989]

Thanks Anson.

Yeah, I've encountered most if not all of those jamming issues myself. I recently played a game where I converted a very large bus. It took a long time and involved isolating and clearing a lot of very, very long belt sections. Mistakes were made despite trying to be careful and it took a long time to track down some blockages. But like you say, there's no moddable solution to that, the same or similar kinds of irritating stuff would be happening if I were redesigning/moving a 48 lane bus in vanilla, because that's a giant "fix" that ideally you'd avoid having to make.

quite often i would like to have two separate machines for stacking and unstacking. those machines should simply "pass through" all incorrect items, eg on a mixed belt with stacked and unstacked ore, the stacker would stack unstacked ore while already stacked ore is simply passed through (and similarly the reverse for an unstacker).

There are two separate things here.

1. Having separate stackers and unstackers. The advantage: prevents the wrong thing heading off down belts when you're building and altering them, gives you more control. The disadvantages: adds to menu clutter and presents the challenge of making the two types of machine distinguishable when you've only got a single tile to work with, basically giving me extra graphics and icon work to do, as well as deciding what to do with existing beltboxes (convert them? but you can't tell which type to convert to, so you'd probably have to have three types, a stacker, an unstacker and a multipurpose stacker-unstacker). Verdict: adds at best complexity and at worst confusion for players, and creates a lot of work for me, for a problem that's fairly rare and completely avoidable.

2. Having unstackable things "pass through". I can totally see the point of this and I even suggested it for the vanilla version, but in a mod it would be trickier to do. I think it's possible but it would be super-awkward and probably have some odd side-effects. The beltboxes are essentially a modded furnace. This means that to work with any item, they have to have a recipe for it. To have everything that isn't stackable "pass through", you'd have to create a new recipe for every single item in the game that doesn't already have a stacking recipe. Those pass-through recipes would all have exactly the same result as ingredient. Even if that doesn't completely freak the game engine out, that's a lot of extra complication and maybe memory overhead (not sure) and gets even worse when you consider the many hundreds of items that some mods add, and I'd probably have to rewrite the inter-mod support, and that's the modding equivalent of bread and water for me. I agree it's probably a feature that "real" belt stacking should have, but in the more limited mod version it's tricker and we should be trying to avoid sending mixed belts to beltboxes anyway. I think with this one I'll wait to see what happens for Factorio 1.0 because it's something best suited to testing out during a complete re-write and that's not happening any time soon.

Edited to add: also, enabling "pass through" would probably just create more blockages. e.g. you're sending a belt of iron plates to a beltbox, but you're all laissez-faire about chucking fish around since you know they can "pass through", and so a couple of fish got on the belt. 3 out of 5 iron plates get into the beltbox, followed by the fish. The fish are going to "block" that partially filled stack of iron plates no matter what, even if they could "pass through", because nothing other than manual intervention is going to clear that partial stack. Solution: don't be getting all like fish and shit on your belts.

[Neuromantix]

Suggestion - corner loader - 90 degrees output relative to input