Factorio Forums

We all know

I still think that allowing a setting for the existing splitter would work great. Just let you block off any combination of the outputs.

viewtopic.php?f=87&t=3657

Lets you simulate this, except you don't have to add new objects, just a setting for the existing one. Kinda like ?bobs? dynamic inserters which let you set the range they apply to, or however it works.

Block off the outer two or the inner two, or all but one, would work great....

Yes, I agree. And if would also be nice to be able to connect this splitter to the circuit network, so that it only blocks a certain side of the belt when a certain condition is true or false.

How about a belt piece with 2 inputs (N/S) and 2 outputs (W/E). Both inputs are split by side and redirected to the output on that side. And if you just want to split one belt connect only one input (input and output change when you rotate obviously). No need for a dedicated T belt junction.

5thHorseman wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:32 pm

sarcolopter wrote:

5thHorseman wrote:

sarcolopter wrote:never had a need for this in all the rockets i've launched, i don't get why people do it tbh

There are a surprising number of things I've never needed to use in the game, but I don't think the people who do use them are playing incorrectly.

Quote where I said I think they are playing incorrectly.

I apologize. "I don't get why you'd do that" is synonymous in my mind with "You're not doing it correctly." Are you asking for reasons instead?

Weird that you would think two completely different sentences mean exactly the same thing. Is English your second language?

sarcolopter wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 26, 2018 3:24 pm

5thHorseman wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:32 pm

sarcolopter wrote:

5thHorseman wrote:

sarcolopter wrote:never had a need for this in all the rockets i've launched, i don't get why people do it tbh

There are a surprising number of things I've never needed to use in the game, but I don't think the people who do use them are playing incorrectly.

Quote where I said I think they are playing incorrectly.

I apologize. "I don't get why you'd do that" is synonymous in my mind with "You're not doing it correctly." Are you asking for reasons instead?

Weird that you would think two completely different sentences mean exactly the same thing. Is English your second language?

Weird that you would think two completely different phrases mean exactly the same thing. Is English your second language?

Jap2.0 wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:42 pm

sarcolopter wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 26, 2018 3:24 pm

5thHorseman wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:32 pm

sarcolopter wrote:

5thHorseman wrote:
There are a surprising number of things I've never needed to use in the game, but I don't think the people who do use them are playing incorrectly.

Quote where I said I think they are playing incorrectly.

I apologize. "I don't get why you'd do that" is synonymous in my mind with "You're not doing it correctly." Are you asking for reasons instead?

Weird that you would think two completely different sentences mean exactly the same thing. Is English your second language?

Weird that you would think two completely different phrases mean exactly the same thing. Is English your second language?

I don't. You equated "don't get why you'd do that" with "You're not doing it correctly" by saying they're synonymous. They're not synonymous, they mean different things.

sarcolopter wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:58 pm

Jap2.0 wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:42 pm

sarcolopter wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 26, 2018 3:24 pm

5thHorseman wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:32 pm

I apologize. "I don't get why you'd do that" is synonymous in my mind with "You're not doing it correctly." Are you asking for reasons instead?

Weird that you would think two completely different sentences mean exactly the same thing. Is English your second language?

Weird that you would think two completely different phrases mean exactly the same thing. Is English your second language?

I don't. You equated "don't get why you'd do that" with "You're not doing it correctly" by saying they're synonymous. They're not synonymous, they mean different things.

Two minor things, and then I'll get out of your conversation:
1. I am not 5thHorseman
2. "Synonymous in my mind" is not the exact same as "mean[ing] exactly the same thing". I normally would not bring this up, but judging from your comments it appears to be relevant.

So about that lane splitting thing again?
I have over 1000 hours in factorio now and got by perfectly fine without even knowing it exists.
This is a pure min-max space efficiency kind of thing.

Doesn't matter if it's counter intuitive, if you're down to that level of control, you have hundreds of hours in this game already and probably found out about it yourself.
And if you're a beginner this isn't really something you need to concern yourself with.
Use full belts and sideloading and you'll be perfectly fine.

This exchange tho interesting looks a little like the Steam exchanges I get …. and what I have to say no one gets.

Interesting due to the level quoting being done … better than the Wat I often got in Steam for Endless Space 2 postings.

Gonna point out a few things relating to the new posts and not the original topic:

1. This thread was over a year old when you bumped it. @Sarcolopter
2. You didn't even post on the topic of discussion but instead replied on a completely off topic. @Sarcolopter
3. Synonym - Noun:
   1) A word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a synonym of close
   Oxford English Dictionary
4. @Jap2.0 - Sarcolopter is correct to call out 5thHorseman for the error. The two sentences--yes those are sentences as they can stand on their own--are not synonymous with each other. As such 5thHorseman was engaging in a conceptual error by equating the two. Sarcolopter was stating he didn't get why people did or used certain things in certain ways, because he had never encountered a situation in which he had to do so. In short, he was asking for an explanation and/or listing of reasons for using certain things or doing things certain ways.

As to the topic of the thread, I have never had to use undergrounds to divide up a belt into component lanes either. When I have a belt with mixed items on it, I just use a splitters with filters assigned to gradually sort them out. First splitter will take one item off onto its own belt, second splitter will do the same again and so on and so forth until each belt has only a single item on it.

The premise of this thread is "I don't like a feature, so i demand it should be removed".
If you don't like it, don't use it.

Blocking one belt lane with underground belts is a very useful feature to have input & output on one belt.
I use it for low throughput builds like engine to electric engines.
Filter splitters:
1) didn't exist when this thread was made
2) have more impact on performance than just blocking one lane
3) have items sit inside them that can't easily be used in linear builds with only 2 tiles to beacons

That is why I pointed out that sarcolopter was bumping a thread over a year after the last post. That said, I also didn't discover this game until March of 2018. With the coming changes in 0.17, I doubt using splitters for filtering will have any meaningful negative impact upon the game's performance. At least, that is unless someone has a potato of a PC. I can see how people using beacon builds would prefer such a solution. Personally, I do not like beacons at a conceptual level. They honestly feel like cheating to me. So I don't use them. As such, I do not face the same space constraints with my own builds.

Optera wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:45 am

The premise of this thread is "I don't like a feature, so i demand it should be removed".

I am not in favor of removing the feature, because I consider it an important feature. I am rather in favor of the feature being reintroduced into the game in a more intuitive manner, for example as a configurable splitter.

Tekky wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 01, 2019 7:11 pm

Optera wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:45 am

The premise of this thread is "I don't like a feature, so i demand it should be removed".

I am not in favor of removing the feature, because I consider it an important feature. I am rather in favor of the feature being reintroduced into the game in a more intuitive manner, for example as a configurable splitter.

Exactly, the issue has never been "I don't like this, remove it!" - it's always been "This is a vital and intrinsic feature, yet so far its only presence in the game is due to what amounts to a glitch that's been intentionally left un-fixed - why not introduce a more aesthetically clean and consistent part to do this properly?"

I'd like to re-iterate my old suggestion for a neat potential solution, as I still think it'd be the simplest and cleanest approach, without needing to configure filters and other UI fiddling :-

grimdanfango wrote: ↑

Fri May 26, 2017 5:51 pm

5thHorseman wrote:...
Or, added a new part that did more than just "blocks a lane." If there was a way to get all this functionality into a splitter? I'm down with that.

This is exactly why I think my previous suggestion of a T-junction-belt part would be the most elegant solution:

Code: Select all

<<<<<<< <<<|>>> >>>>>>>
<<<<<<< <<<|>>> >>>>>>>
<<<<<<< <<<|>>> >>>>>>>
<<<<<<< <<<|>>> >>>>>>>
        ^^^^^^^
        ^^^^^^^
        ^^^^^^^
        ^^^^^^^

It retains the exact same functionality as the current underground belt exploit, in the exact same space. Would function as a drop-in replacement in most cases (admittedly not all), adds significant additional functionality without making things more complicated, or requiring an additional GUI of any kind, and only adds a single basic part to the base game which would aesthetically blend perfectly in with existing belts.

Surely there's no real downside to this approach?

It is hardly a vital feature. Whilst I do occasionally use it, none of my normal designs requires it. (These days you can also use a filtered splitter to achieve the same thing, but I typically don't use those either).

Typically the only time I use it is because I've put two input products on separate lanes of a single belt, and I now want to use one of those ingredients for another recipe somewhere else and I now want to separate them.

Eg I might run a copper plate + iron plate belt over toward my refinery for making batteries and acid. After passing the batteries, I no longer need the copper plates, so I might use an underground to split off the iron. But nothing would break if I just left the copper on the belt, I'd just have a lane of copper plates sitting on belt where it wasn't going to be used.

The artwork for the hi-resolution underground has a cutout on the shroud when a belt side feeds into one. This makes it clear this is now an intended bit of functionality.