2 words: Transparent cover
![Cool 8-)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
I agree that stacking probably only makes sense for some items. eg plates and circuits are relatively flat, and stacking multiple items on top of each other is not unreasonable. Ore isn't flat, but to a certain extent you can probably just pile more on top.POPISowyNumer wrote: βWed Jan 17, 2024 9:53 pmNot gonna lie, I do not vibe with the graphic aspect of stacking at all.
Something about building tall towers of loose and/or unwieldy times makes me uneasy.
This will be one of parts of this update that I hope will be modded soon
Underrated post. Stack inserters move bulk, and bulk inserters move stacks. Why do game devs do this?TheKingOfFailure wrote: βSat Jan 13, 2024 9:26 pmStack inserters move lots (a bulk load) of items, but do not stack items
Bulk inserters do stack items when moving them in bulk.
I'd like to extend that idea of adding a small amount of visual noise to everything shown on the map, at least if zoomed out, to avoid flickering and moire if large similar looking structures are shown.
Hi, new forum account, very old lurker/player.GregoriusT wrote: βFri Jan 12, 2024 4:48 pmI just remembered a previous FFF about Underground Belts not being distinguishable in blueprints, and this new olive color of the highest Tier Belts is insanely close to the yellow of first Tier Belts to the point that even with normal 100% color vision it can be difficult to distinguish those two colors at times. I highly suggest choosing a color that is sufficiently different from the Yellow, Red and Blue that already exist. Sadly the little bit ugly "Uranium Green" and "Cheaty Purple" that most Mods use for highest Tier Belts already, are some of the very few colors that are different enough to be distinguishable in this context.
On the subject of color randomization on displays, I personally have my display as dark as possible to not strain my eyes, so certain things like weird movement are showing very bad ripple effects, worse than lack of vsync, like that last video did somehow.
Yeah it got me thinking, new belt 60/sec with 4 items tall would be 240/sec, 4.8 stacks of ore (storage stacks) per second. However that's the easy math, for calculating vs a train would obviously be a 3'rd degree equation where avarage speed is one variable, number of wagons the second variable and distance the third. Assuming loading and unloading speed are the same (absolute max). Just intuitively on short distances from base it could make more sense to have a belt instead of trains but considering that different trains can use the same network obviously makes it superior in the long run.Justderpingalong wrote: βFri Jan 12, 2024 2:25 pmYou have a point good sir.
A comment I saw several people mention (though am not worried about it because I love trains) is that these new belts can possibly outperform a train. I'd love to see the math on that.
Another point I'd like to make is that whilst sure, we can restack items via the bulk inserter, I feel that's a very awkward solution. A stacker would be a very welcome addition. Simply place it on a belt and it automatically stacks any items it gets inserted, outputting the resulting item on the side of the belt where the first item of that type got in.
I kind of agree with you here, at least in terms of the perfect stacks, but it does make sense to make them stackable anyway. It might be possible for them to tweak the graphics of it so that some items, such as ore, look more "piled" on vs stacked on.
If you are looking at the belt going north-south you wouldn't se anything of the belt under it.Henry Loenwind wrote: βSat Jan 20, 2024 2:35 amOne solution for faster belts that don't move faster would be to give us multi-layer belts. Simple rule:
Done. Now, a two-layer belt can move twice as many items as a normal one. And it even fits into the 2.0 theme---there are already multi-level train tracks (just not stacked directly above each other).
- Inserters can only access the top layer of a multi-layer belt. (Add a flag on the prototype to allow accessing all layers for modded loaders.)
- When a multi-layer belt ends and feeds into a single-layer belt, it behaves like a merging splitter that has the lower level set to priority. (i.e. top-level items drop down if and only if there's space to drop to)
- When a single-layer belt feeds into a multi-layer belt, it feeds onto the same (i.e. the lower) level normally.
- Splitters. Either all splitters are single-level (easy way out), or multi-layer splitters have their UI doubled, and the top and bottom splitters work independently.
- Top and bottom layers are one belt, so they always go in the same direction. Otherwise, this would become insane.
Graphics would also be no nightmare. A copy of the belt graphics shifted up, and 2 connecting pillars to hold up the upper layer. Undergrounds need completely redrawn entries and exits. Yes, items in the back row of the lower level would be almost completely hidden, but that's still better than too fast or enclosed belts. And the sidebar preview could show both levels side by side.
(Side note: I wouldn't implement multi-layer belts with more than 2 layers in vanilla, but put the logic for them in for mods. The logic for connecting layers that are beneath other layers 1:1, and merging all layers that feed into the top layer of the target is trivial. The only thing needed is chaining implicit splitters in place.)
Damn this post made my tummy hurt, now i wanna see someone build a megafactory that mass produces nuclear reactors and fills the new transport belt with 240 reactors per second just for shits and giggles xDZavian wrote: βThu Jan 18, 2024 1:54 amBut for many taller items like barrels, stacking makes less sense, and for things like nuclear reactors it makes no sense. (It make no sense to even be able to put those on belts in the first place, but whatever. Also they probably should have a stack size of 1).
That... would be hugephooenix wrote: βSun Jan 21, 2024 6:51 pmDamn this post made my tummy hurt, now i wanna see someone build a megafactory that mass produces nuclear reactors and fills the new transport belt with 240 reactors per second just for shits and giggles xDZavian wrote: βThu Jan 18, 2024 1:54 amBut for many taller items like barrels, stacking makes less sense, and for things like nuclear reactors it makes no sense. (It make no sense to even be able to put those on belts in the first place, but whatever. Also they probably should have a stack size of 1).
Yeah thats what i figured, i mean just look at those iron ore miners, 130k of them, just for that you'll need to fill up several thousands of ore deposits. It would definitely save you time to first reach max quality of all items and then proceed with building the actual thing. Or you could save up a couple million of ore and just have burst of 240 reactors/sec but that's cheatingguy-732 wrote: βTue Jan 23, 2024 2:20 pmThat... would be hugephooenix wrote: βSun Jan 21, 2024 6:51 pmDamn this post made my tummy hurt, now i wanna see someone build a megafactory that mass produces nuclear reactors and fills the new transport belt with 240 reactors per second just for shits and giggles xDZavian wrote: βThu Jan 18, 2024 1:54 amBut for many taller items like barrels, stacking makes less sense, and for things like nuclear reactors it makes no sense. (It make no sense to even be able to put those on belts in the first place, but whatever. Also they probably should have a stack size of 1).
https://kirkmcdonald.github.io/calc.htm ... 6VXUN/4wM=
16k concrete assemblers... with 4 speed module 3 and 12 speed beacons, I know quality would bring those numbers down but still, never thought we'd need 2k offshore pumps though.