Request: option to include requester chest count in LN

[basementjack]

Request:

Optionally include "Requester chest" item contents be included in totals when connecting a train station to a logistics network:

Something like this mockup:


Reason:

• When enabling/disabling the stop, we're interested in the count of goods we can immediately load on the train (Blue chests)
• The "Enabled Condition" formula currently excludes blue chests from it's inventory count
• This causes the station to often disable when it doesn't need to as red chests are often empty, while blue chests have sufficient quantity
• It also means when the mine runs dry, the final inventory is never cleared from Blue chests because the station does not enable

Proposal:
Either always include the blue counts in totals reported by a logistics network to a train station, OR, Offer the option to include those totals as shown in the picture above.

[Zavian]

If you want the count of items in the requestor chests, then you can wire the chest together and read their contents that way. The logistics network contents shows the number of items that are available in provider/storage chests that are available to satisfy logistics requests. It is not useless, you are just reading the contents of the wrong chests.

Ask yourself how your proposed system would cope if you tried to add a second iron ore loading station to the same outpost. Using your proposed solution the station still could not tell whether the ore was is its requestor chests, or its neighbours, or stuck sitting in providers because you didn't add enough bots. You would still want to wire up the requestor chests and read their contents directly.

[Koub]

Hi,
What would this solution do that a few red/green cables and maybe a combinator wouldn't ?

[JohnyDL]

What would this solution do that just items in network>little n because if there are items not being moved by bots that probably means the requester chests are full and if you're looking at the things everywhere in the network you might count things other than in the closest few dozen requester chests

[eradicator]

This sounds like it could be solved with buffer chests. Because the content of buffer chests should still be considered part of the logistic network content. Which should have the effect you want if the outpost has 0 requester chests.

[basementjack]

Thanks everyone for the replies!

For those that replied to use wires:
Yep, I totally get that you can wire the chests at the platform and get the count that way.

I guess then a question is, what are players using the "Connect to logistics network" feature of the train station for?

It seems like in it's current form, it would only be good for disabling a station at the destination.

Is there any harm in adding an optional checkbox to include requester chest contents(*)?

This would make these usable for source stations in a large percentage of scenarios and likely 100% of a novice players scenarios.

(*) note that if the proposed buffer chests solve the problem then that wouldn't be needed. (thanks eradicator!)

[basementjack]

@JohnyDL

It's an interesting question you ask about having other requester chests nearby.
In a mining outpost, there's usually only one thing going on and the bot networks are disconnected from the main base, so the total quantity of the requester chests would be limited to that outpost.

Also, lets saythere are two mine patches close together, one iron, one coal.
The criteria for shutting off the station is to count a single resource, so the count of coal would not affect iron and vice versa.


And if there happen to be 2 mine patches of the same material close enough that a logistics networks would overlap, wouldn't most players just combine them to the same station?


- Jack

[basementjack]

@Zavian

So far I've never found a patch of resources that could fill trains so quickly that a second loading platform was needed.

It could just be that I've not ventured far enough out in the game.

The largest patch I've found so far was 16 million.

I have the opposite problem - nearly every mining outpost can't mine enough ore fast enough to keep up with trains loading one right after another. Trains line up and sit waiting, while other outposts have plenty of inventory. This is the reason I want to disable the station.

You do bring up a good point - multiple platforms would need different logic.

- Jack

[JohnyDL]

Yeah except on huge patches some people have 4 or 5 loading bays to a train 'station', I see the logic in one station setups but bigger bases sometimes one station isn't enough it's also not helpful to manage how distributed the load is, if you look at requester chests and check for 8000 ore for a 1-4 train well all that 8000 could be waiting in the set of requesters for 1 of the 4 wagons not all of them

Yes it's probably better used at destinations, say you actively unload to storage a bunch of iron and copper to bot based make green circuits, you only have so much storage space you don't want it to all be copper and none iron cause you'd never make any circuits and you'd have copper sitting doing nothing you read the network and when the thing you need is less than the amount you think you'll need then you open the station to allow the next delivery.

If you want a good example of what I mean by a station being more than 1 train at a time watch Katherine Of Sky's Video MB59 on her trains at a copper mine and smelting set up the mine has 2 loading bays and the smelting has 6 or 7 loading bays I think.

[Zavian]

Ore patches do tend to get bigger the further you go. I've seen patches over 400m in size, and have used stations that had 2 loading platforms serving 2-4-2 trains.

THe way I solve your problem is totally different. I name each ore outpost differently, eg Iron 1, Iron 2 etc. Then each outpost get a dedicated set of trains that always pick up from that outpost, and then drop off at a central smelter. You don't need to use just one drop off, but each drop off should be named differently and be served by dedicated trains. (You can have multiple stations sharing the same name, that works well when the stations are all close together, eg for multiple pickup/drop off platforms that are side by side. But if they are far apart trains tend to always go to the closest, and ignore the other ones. Trying to control this by disabling stations is something I consider fragile and brittle, except for the special case of only one train serving those stations, and only disabling the station when the train is actually in the station.

When using this type of system you will need enough waiting bays at each end to cope with the maximum number of trains that will serve each station.

I don't think I've ever used the connect to logistics feature of stations to control when to disable a station. Personally I would view it as an easy way to accidentally shoot yourself in the foot, and leave a train blocking the mainline with no path.

If I'm going to disable a train station then I want a setup where only one train will ever serve that route. (For me that just doesn't scale. For most routes I want at least 2 trains, often more). Secondly I want to guarantee to the greatest extent possible that the only time a station will become disabled is when the appropriate train is in the station loading or unloading cargo. At that point it's not going to matter if the station is disabled, and even if the train suddenly develops "no path" it's not going to be blocking other trains. (This also requires that only one train can ever use that platform). Whilst it is possible to design a rail layout where trains shouldn't ever get stuck, in reality you probably don't test all possible scenarios, and it's easy to make a mistake that could make a "no path" situation possible when changing a layout.

Now that "guarantee to the greatest extent possible" means I'd rather use wires to chests to prevent causing transient enable/disable cycles by simply running through the logistics area with the appropriate item in my trash slots.

Now the connect to logistics network is very useful for things like inserters that you want to disable anytime you have more than a certain amount of items in the local logistics network. (Note that here in most case the disable is actually the right response if it's sitting in my trash slots, and even if it isn't a transient and unintended disabling of the inserter simply stops production temporarily. It won't lead to a train blocking the mainline).

[basementjack]

Thanks! watching the video now!

Seems like this is probably more of a pain point for my current progression in the game.

- Jack