Factorio Forums

A Machine to recycle most things, put in unwanted object get back half of the resources used to make it.

Also a Incinerator to get rid of an object and gain energy. Would not be able to incinerate raw materials (Iron or Copper Ore).

I feel both are good ideas +1 from me

I was going to post an idea for a recycler also - glad to see others have thought of it already.

Nice ideas, I'm hoping for them to be implemented!

I often wondered why there is no waste. For coal I understand. It gets burned. But I mean, you have this tons of iron and copper disappearing in the research facilities. At a certain point you have to wonder if they don't produce leftovers that have to be removed (manually in the beginning or automatic later on using filter inserters) and perhaps recycled. It is more or less like they do in factories now for cleaning and maintenance.

The same goes for when a turret full of ammo blows . You would expect debris that can be recycled.

But I understand that to have multiple outputs in a fabricator might be difficult as everything now seems to be programmed to have only one output.

What I mean by "Item Decompiler" is a block that will convert your devices back into the components that made them. So if I put a Science Pack 2 in their i'd get a Transport Belt and an Electronic Circuit. Get the idea? Because after we use the burner stuff, They're useless.

I think everyone is waiting on this lol. I'm sure they have a plan for what to do, i'm also sure that it's not a priority lol.

I suppose it wouldn't be too difficult for someone could create a mod that does this (ie throw burner inserter into 'recycler', have lua lookup recipe for inserter and then after removing the inserter placing it's components into a nearby chest.) at least until the devs get one into the main game

ManselD wrote:What I mean by "Item Decompiler" is a block that will convert your devices back into the components that made them. So if I put a Science Pack 2 in their i'd get a Transport Belt and an Electronic Circuit. Get the idea? Because after we use the burner stuff, They're useless.

i think simply going back one stage would be too powerful AND limited in scope, i would rather have a machine which reduces it all down into base parts with a set efficiency level, so if something cost 10 iron to make then it'd give 8 iron back, i would prefer this because just going back one step feels too easy

well based on mod-explanation I said before, the code could simply throw everything back into the recycler instead of another chest and it would keep breaking everything down into their base components. Though there maybe a better way by referencing the total base cost, I mean the game can already show you that, I just don't know how you would get that data in code lol.

Dakkanor wrote:i think simply going back one stage would be too powerful AND limited in scope, i would rather have a machine which reduces it all down into base parts with a set efficiency level, so if something cost 10 iron to make then it'd give 8 iron back, i would prefer this because just going back one step feels too easy

I think this is a better idea. But I think an efficiency of 50% would be better.

it'd be easy to code a random chance on if items got put back into the chest or not. Maybe I'll look into this but I've got a couple of things I'm trying to get done first

Mysteria9 wrote:

Dakkanor wrote:i think simply going back one stage would be too powerful AND limited in scope, i would rather have a machine which reduces it all down into base parts with a set efficiency level, so if something cost 10 iron to make then it'd give 8 iron back, i would prefer this because just going back one step feels too easy

I think this is a better idea. But I think an efficiency of 50% would be better.

yea 50% seems good, 80% would only be there if it could be heavily upgraded

There must be considered situation when one product may have several different procedures and different resources which are needed. This may causes problems

Arakasi wrote:There must be considered situation when one product may have several different procedures and different resources which are needed. This may causes problems

Good and important point..

Arakasi wrote:There must be considered situation when one product may have several different procedures and different resources which are needed. This may causes problems

If I understand you correctly, having multiple output slots would solve this. Am I on the right track?

I think what he means is that an item may have different recipes. To give a silly example, you could craft a bowl of spaghetti from vegetables, ground meat and grain, or from store-bought spaghetti and a microwave. The recycler wouldn't know whether you want the vegetables or the microwave back. Multiple output slots - if you mean what I think you do - would work for an item with different ingredients, not recipes.

Eagle_V wrote:I think what he means is that an item may have different recipes. To give a silly example, you could craft a bowl of spaghetti from vegetables, ground meat and grain, or from store-bought spaghetti and a microwave. The recyclers wouldn't know whether you want the vegetables or the microwave back. Multiple output slots - if you mean what I think you do - would work for an item with different ingredients, not recipes.

this is a really good point, which is why i think it should reduce to base materials, i.e an assembler returning iron plates and copper bars. for multiple recipes i would either say it chooses the first recipe in the list or the cheapest and return a % of that in base material.

and for clarification sake i'll call the following base
stone (only from a furnace not from a brick)
bricks
steel
iron plates (not from steel)
copper bars
wood.

ATM there is no real reason to decompile walls, however there may be more use for stone bricks later.
also i would say either have several outputs OR only return the greatest base material, so return copper from circuits ect

Mysteria9 wrote:

Arakasi wrote:There must be considered situation when one product may have several different procedures and different resources which are needed. This may causes problems

If I understand you correctly, having multiple output slots would solve this. Am I on the right track?

You can have multiple slots on a furnace I think,

Dakkanor wrote: i think it should reduce to base materials, i.e an assembler returning iron plates and copper bars. for multiple recipes i would either say it chooses the first recipe in the list or the cheapest and return a % of that in base material.

and for clarification sake i'll call the following base
stone (only from a furnace not from a brick)
bricks
steel
iron plates (not from steel)
copper bars
wood.

ATM there is no real reason to decompile walls, however there may be more use for stone bricks later.
also i would say either have several outputs OR only return the greatest base material, so return copper from circuits ect

Sounds good to me.
The recycler facility would have to be pretty specialized for each decomposition task (if mechanical) or abusing child labour to return anything besides raw material.

I am not sure about reversibility of the science packs.

I think it might me more complicated with several different recipes. Even if we push disassemble process to basic items (iron and copper plates) there might be different number of these basic elements (e.g. 10+2 vs 2+10). Does not matter which basic combination will be chosen and how there might be possibility that user transform original 10+2 iron and copper into 2+10 iron and copper which does not exist in the beginning.

This allows cover lack of resources. I think this is not good.

I propose to keep process life-cycle together with each item. This will lead to easily recognized basic elements. But I realize that this will probably cause huge memory requirements since there might thousands, maybe millions of items.