Those wasted items at splitter dead-ends...

[MalcolmCooks]

Just wondering if anyone knows a mod or something that changes the splitter behaviour so it doesn't output anything onto a side that's not connected to another belt? It's not really important, it just bugs me because it looks untidy. Hopefully the devs will actually change this themselves soon - it seems that it was only really needed when inserters would pick items up off the ground in front of a belt.

[Peter34]

Just wondering if anyone knows a mod or something that changes the splitter behaviour so it doesn't output anything onto a side that's not connected to another belt? It's not really important, it just bugs me because it looks untidy. Hopefully the devs will actually change this themselves soon - it seems that it was only really needed when inserters would pick items up off the ground in front of a belt.

Yes, indeed, it is a silly idea. An artifact of how alpha 11 and earlier versions worked. And it's not just an OCD thing, not always. Some in-game resources are fairly valuable, such as Alien Artifacts or Processing Units (or level 3 modules!), and so it's genuinely annoying to sit there and watch 2 such items idling at the "dead end" of a Splitter, and knowing that even if you manually go in and pick them up, 2 new ones will just appear.

You can usually resolve the situation by manually adding a Belt at the end of the Splitter that turns inwards towards the on-going Belt, so that the end is no longer a "dead end", but it shouldn't be necessary to do so. Splitter functionality should be changed to no longer require it.

[Phillip_Lynx]

My splitters uses in all cases both exits. Because they are splitters and I can not really of think of another use. Do you have an example?

And btw, an other test (in the programm), if some belts are connected to an exit for every splitter in the world, wich checks periodicaly (every tick?) seems to me as wasted CPU-time.

But this are only my 2 cents

[edit]

... And it's not just an OCD thing, not always. ...

OCD-wise I would hate to use a splitter with an dead end. Then I use 2 curved belts.
[/edit]

[ssilk]

This loosing of two items bugs me too, cause there are situations, where I need to keep one end open. For example a splitter cascade ( https://forums.factorio.com/wiki/inde ... /Cascading )

It makes no sense to put belts on this, but I use this really often in my factories to guarantee good workload in all areas. For iron or so it doesn't hurt much, but it hurts a lot with processing units. And it looks ugly. I recommend, as in the OP that the non-connected belt-part of a splitter "moves out" only, if there is a belt connected.

And no, there is no mod, which does this, so I move this to suggestions.

[narrowtux]

If you have valuable items on the belt, initialize it by putting worthless items on it until the dead ends of the splitters are filled with those. Collect all the residue at the end of the band and then you have your belt system ready for the valuable items.

[ssilk]

Sometimes I do that, but this is very non-elegant it happens, that it introduces stupid errors, when you forgot that the parts a different item.

And I think the splitter is still looking unfinished.

On the other hand I think this is really difficult, cause a beginner might not understand, how the splitter works, if there are no belts and he sees no items coming out of it.
Hm.

[MalcolmCooks]

My splitters uses in all cases both exits. Because they are splitters and I can not really of think of another use. Do you have an example?

mainly I'm using splitters like this for lane balancing and merging of belts. Generally if I am going to just split a single belt again later (for example, ore loading at train stations) then I just have two belts running parallel. But if I need to merge onto one belt then there is always that dead end. Putting a curved belt would heavily weigh the output belt in one lane and make the balancer pointless. Balanced merging and splitting is especially important to me at train stations, because I need items to be taken evenly from each cargo wagon, otherwise eventually I will end up with backlogged belts somewhere. Something that I go to great lengths with the circuit network to avoid.

And btw, an other test (in the programm), if some belts are connected to an exit for every splitter in the world, wich checks periodicaly (every tick?) seems to me as wasted CPU-time.

Wouldn't it be just as simple as the way belts currently work to detect neighbouring belts and become curved or straight depending on that? So that little output belt on the splitter would only appear if there was another belt on the next tile.

[Choumiko]

Not that i care much about whether it would work as it is now or as suggested here, but actually it's 4 items per dead-end.


For "realism" (please note the quotes ) i think the current way is more logical. Even for higher tier items the waste shouldn't be that much of an issue, it's really only a one time loss when setting up.

[deepdriller]

mainly I'm using splitters like this for lane balancing and merging of belts. Generally if I am going to just split a single belt again later (for example, ore loading at train stations) then I just have two belts running parallel. But if I need to merge onto one belt then there is always that dead end. Putting a curved belt would heavily weigh the output belt in one lane and make the balancer pointless. Balanced merging and splitting is especially important to me at train stations, because I need items to be taken evenly from each cargo wagon, otherwise eventually I will end up with backlogged belts somewhere. Something that I go to great lengths with the circuit network to avoid.

This is what my lane balancers look like, because they won't have a backlog on either side while one lane is available. Does this help?

showsplitbalancer.jpg (116.52 KiB) Viewed 15028 times

[ssilk]

The problem happens is for constructions, where connecting both sides of a splitter reverse the sense of a special construction. See above for example the splitter cascade.

[MalcolmCooks]

Yeah that works fine for most situations, but it's not ideal for merging belts. Problem I had (and this is also with merging without splitters) is that if you have an unbalanced demand on each side of the belt, it transfers that back up the line, especially if the belt is saturated.

[Quizer]

Some people use splitters in ways that require those 'dead-end' items. For example, if you add a splitter to a belt and have an inserter pull directly from the split-off section, it would probably no longer work if the wasteful behavior was fixed. It bugs me, too, but I'm generally able to avoid having splitters with open ends, and I much prefer having the use case I outlined still work.

[MalcolmCooks]

In .12, belt behaviour has changed: Belts no longer deposit items onto the tile in front of them, so inserters need to be placed directly beside a belt in order to take items from the end. So to take items from the end of a splitter, you need to attach a belt there anyway

[ssilk]

... it would probably no longer work if the wasteful behavior was fixed...

Why would it not work any longer?

In .12, belt behaviour has changed: Belts no longer deposit items onto the tile in front of them, so inserters need to be placed directly beside a belt in order to take items from the end. So to take items from the end of a splitter, you need to attach a belt there anyway

I don't think so:

Inserter takes from end of a splitter with v0.12

Screen Shot 2015-09-05 at 04.35.24.png (327.3 KiB) Viewed 12008 times

[MalcolmCooks]

I was thinking about this situation:

factorio1.PNG (80.01 KiB) Viewed 11992 times

[Quizer]

Yeah, ssilk's picture is what I meant. I'd expect it to no longer work if items didn't get pushed into the dead-end part, but it actually looks like the inserter just latches on to the middle of the splitter in general and can pull from anywhere inside it. So I guess the scenario I described wouldn't be a problem. Still, I'm fine with how it currently works.