Factorio Forums

Yttrium wrote:But if you can change this behaviour without breaking splitter filtering then I'm fine with changing it.

It's going to break splitter filtering for sure. Even though that mechanic is rather volatile to begin with, as you need to rely on the splitter never forgetting its state.

For the splitters, how about doing it both per lane and per item? So two per-item memories, one per lane.

The "nonsense" is pretty bad for a factory where you want to split stuff off to a section as it may halve throughput. So I vote that fixing the per-lane is most important.

But when having a mix of items on a belt I'd still like to be guaranteed that no matter what order they're in, both sections get an equal amount of each.

Also, the awesome item sorter is a demonstration of doing more with less items, which is factorios goal afaik, so breaking that would be sad

Thanks for considering!

Right now splitters work perfectly fine. They don't prioritize left side anymore but still work per item type. For me it's the best behavior.

Neotix wrote:Right now splitters work perfectly fine. They don't prioritize left side anymore but still work per item type. For me it's the best behavior.

Do you mean the described "ugly" problem was fixed? In that case I had missed that. Then I'm perfectly happy with it as is

Aardwolf wrote:

Neotix wrote:Right now splitters work perfectly fine. They don't prioritize left side anymore but still work per item type. For me it's the best behavior.

Do you mean the described "ugly" problem was fixed? In that case I had missed that. Then I'm perfectly happy with it as is

They aren't fixed yet, it will come in 0.13.

I think that they did something because it works like that.
https://i.gyazo.com/65925d8c73aa831f81b ... bb7f59.gif
As you can see, event with full compress both input belts, splitter take from both equally.

It's about splitting a compressed belt in two, not merging two into one. If you try that the other way around you'll get two one sided belts.

Zeblote wrote:...If you try that the other way around you'll get two one sided belts.

And this is great feature. I hope that they don't change it.
Because of that feature we can built e.g. sorter without inserters.
We can easily split belt into two 2-sided belts without changing splitter behavior, just organize belts. There is few topics about balancers.


What I was showing earlier is test to check left side priority. Before when we merged two belts into one belt, left input had higher priority and items on right moved through only when left had gap between items. https://wiki.factorio.com/index.php?tit ... s/Priority
Now It taking from both inputs.
I have to test that with different item types.

My worry is this:

If I have a belt with iron plates on both lanes, for max throughput. Now I want to use a splitter, to split half of it to a section of the factory that uses iron. But the main belt should keep max throughput on both lanes after the split. There may be faster belt types before the splitter and slower belt types after the splitter since of course I want to use the more expensive faster types at the beginning. So using both lanes should be done.

The main belt is a. the split off belt is b, the splitter is S. I want a to keep using two lanes:
This setup works if one lane is copper and the other is iron. But if I would want to use iron on both lanes, to have 1 high capacity belt for each plate type:

My worry is:

will a on the right side have only 1 lane after the split, or still use both lanes? I really want it to use both lanes.

This is not a subtle issue, but half of a belt unused in the very simple case of both lanes the same resource

Neotix wrote: And this is great feature. I hope that they don't change it.

This is not a feature, this is a bug.

Neotix wrote: Because of that feature we can built e.g. sorter without inserters.

Which was never intended, and only very few people would ever try to use it.

Neotix wrote:There is few topics about balancers.

This is a joke, right?

Splitting belt sides using underground belts is also bug, but it's also great feature. http://i1.kwejk.pl/k/obrazki/2013/10/f2 ... 7d_gif.gif

Maybe few people use it, but still use. After changing splitter behavior they will be forced to give up that. You want to ruin others creations?

About balancers it's not a joke because now you can achieve what would do changed splitter. It's sole purpose of that game to solve complex problems with simple tools.

Aardwolf example easily solved

Neotix wrote:Splitting belt sides using underground belts is also bug, but it's also great feature. http://i1.kwejk.pl/k/obrazki/2013/10/f2 ... 7d_gif.gif

Maybe few people use it, but still use. After changing splitter behavior they will be forced to give up that. You want to ruin others creations?

About balancers it's not a joke because now you can achieve what would do changed splitter. It's sole purpose of that game to solve complex problems with simple tools.

Aardwolf example easily solved

image

https://i.gyazo.com/017ac0b97d3b81d7ab1 ... beaf98.png

So you want us to build this crap everywhere



to work around this bug



just so you can make a fancy and unnecessary sorter with splitters?

Neotix wrote:Splitting belt sides using underground belts is also bug, but it's also great feature. http://i1.kwejk.pl/k/obrazki/2013/10/f2 ... 7d_gif.gif

Maybe few people use it, but still use. After changing splitter behavior they will be forced to give up that. You want to ruin others creations?

About balancers it's not a joke because now you can achieve what would do changed splitter. It's sole purpose of that game to solve complex problems with simple tools.

Aardwolf example easily solved

image

https://i.gyazo.com/017ac0b97d3b81d7ab1 ... beaf98.png

Sorry but that is not an easy solution, it's a humongous workaround around splitters not using all lanes properly, which is not fun gameplay but annoying.

Neotix & Zeblote: What got fixed in 0.13? Will "not prioritize left side anymore" fix the issue of the screenshot in the post before this, and the worry I typed a few posts earlier?

Thanks!

keyboardhack wrote:Making combinators easier to use is a great step forward!

I agree, this is good.