Factorio Forums

Currently inserters just place items randomly on a belt, almost always resulting in extreme compression loss.

The top inserter doesn't even do anything because the belt is blocked by misaligned plates.



I think this should be changed. Instead of placing the item directly under the inserter, align it to the next item on the belt.

For example:



If the belt is moving, this will leave a wide enough gap to insert exactly 3 more plates and achieve full compression.

Multiple inserters placing things on a belt would now look like this:

Hm. On the first view it makes sense.

On the second: That will change all strategies, that set on the idea, that if you cannot insert something into the belt, there are enough items on the belt. It changes for example also big storage-strategies.

On the third: You already can do that like so: And in the end I don't want to insert so much items on a belt by inserters and fiddling around with fast belts etc. You need 4 inserters for a basic, 6 for fast and 8 for express belt (more or less). For both sides you need 16 inserters to fill an express belt like so. It makes no sense.

I want an own device for that type of compressed filling of a belt, because you really need that often.

ssilk wrote:On the second: That will change all strategies, that set on the idea, that if you cannot insert something into the belt, there are enough items on the belt. It changes for example also big storage-strategies.

I can't see how any of this is affected negatively. It will make all your belts (if you have enough inserters) be actually full instead of having only 50-60% compression. If the belt is full, you still can't insert more?

It would also be a huge plus for big storage setups because the same ammount of inserters required to unload a belt will load it again, making perfect sense. No more complex fiddling with splitters.

ssilk wrote: On the third: You already can do that like so:

Code: Select all

     $  <- inserter
     S 
>>>>>S>>>>>>>  belt with gaps
     ^
     splitter, which should probably one level faster, than the belts

Maybe, but that's ugly and requires something a level higher than the output belt. This change would be unnoticeably small visually (only half a plate offset at max) and work reliably with all belts.

ssilk wrote:And in the end I don't want to insert so much items on a belt by inserters and fiddling around with fast belts etc. You need 4 inserters for a basic, 6 for fast and 8 for express belt (more or less). For both sides you need 16 inserters to fill an express belt like so. It makes no sense.

I've fiddled around with the inserters and it seems to take 3 fast inserters to unload a fully compressed lane on a normal belt. So the same 3 fast inserters should also be able to put these items back on a lane in the same time, no?

ssilk wrote:I want an own device for that type of compressed filling of a belt, because you really need that often.

Seems over-complicated to have a seperate inserter for this. It will save everyone a lot of trouble if integrated by default.

Zeblote wrote:I can't see how any of this is affected negatively. It will make all your belts (if you have enough inserters) be actually full instead of having only 50-60% compression. If the belt is full, you still can't insert more?

OK, it's only in some extreme cases, where "fully compressed" is not really needed.

It would also be a huge plus for big storage setups because the same ammount of inserters required to unload a belt will load it again, making perfect sense. No more complex fiddling with splitters.

Hm. O.K. you're right.

ssilk wrote:

And in the end I don't want to insert so much items on a belt by inserters and fiddling around with fast belts etc. You need 4 inserters for a basic, 6 for fast and 8 for express belt (more or less). For both sides you need 16 inserters to fill an express belt like so. It makes no sense.

I've fiddled around with the inserters and it seems to take 3 fast inserters to unload a fully compressed lane on a normal belt. So the same 3 fast inserters should also be able to put these items back on a lane in the same time, no?

No. There are cases, where the frequencies of the inserters are so odd, that you need a 4th. But in general you're right; 3 inserters for basic, 5 for fast, 7 for express belt (per lane of course). (but only the extra one gives you the guarantee, that the belt is really always 100% compressed.

My point is just: I don't want to configure that much inserters. It's an impediment for building complex transport mechanics, where you need to program them all, cause you need too much time and it's always the same...
But I admit: This has nothing to do with this suggestion.

And yes: nothing against this suggestion any more.

ssilk wrote:Seems over-complicated to have a seperate inserter for this. It will save everyone a lot of trouble if integrated by default.

It's not an inserter, it's a completely different device, something like a funnel or hopper. I make an own suggestion about it.

ssilk wrote: My point is just: I don't want to configure that much inserters. It's an impediment for building complex transport mechanics, where you need to program them all, cause you need too much time and it's always the same...

What do you mean by configuring them? This would be an engine-level change and improve all inserters without you having to do anything.

This would be an engine-level change and improve all inserters without you having to do anything.

I know. I already said, that would be a good idea.
(BTW: The side-insertion (from a belt sideways into another) should not be changed.)

As said: This is off-topic!

Let's take an express belt: You need 14 inserters to fill/empty them.
Now, what I want is to automate the 14 inserters not to work on certain conditions. I need put a condition on one inserter and then I need to copy that 13 times to the other inserters. If I use circuits I need to wire them all, too.
I have also no feedback, if I really copied them correctly/all.
Alone placing 14 inserters and giving them all power is just a lot of work/stuff.

That is in my eyes something, which needs to be easier. In my eyes simply by replacing the need to have 14 inserters with something, that does the same. But you need it then only one times.

That is the point, where the silo comes into the game. I see that as a modular device, which is first simply a bigger chest and you can extend it with more functionality like some belt-succer (a vacuum-cleaner) which sucks in items from a belt into the silo, or a funnel, which puts out items from the silo onto a belt (or car, or train-wagon, or...).
But can also be used as some very configurable type of logistic chest.
Or you just put the items in/out by inserters - like the current chest, but you can use more inserters then, cause the silo is bigger. This can be very handy, when doing some complex production, cause currently you cannot output items into an assembler and put the produced items back into the same chest....

There are also some mods, which are about that part.

ssilk wrote:(BTW: The side-insertion (from a belt sideways into another) should not be changed.)

But a belt merging into another already has no compression loss, so nothing has to be changed about it.

Hm? No, it depends. If you have two belts and the second is joining the first from side (side-insertion) and you have on that side from belt 1 SOME items in more or less regular distances, then the result on belt 1 is not always fully compressed. To achieve this you need a splitter.

The same is with miners, it is possible, that you have a miner, which cannot insert into a belt, even if the belt is not fully compressed.

I see what you mean. You're right, a splitter should be used to combine multiple uncompressed belts into a compressed one.

The miner (and anything else dropping things on belts) should use the same method of aligning the thing to the next item on the belt.

I think we should look at it from the graphical/mechanical side:

- Inserter: Yes. It can hold the next item off, while placing it's item on belt.
- Splitter: Yes, makes total sense, cause it is pure mechanics.
- Side-insertion by belt: No. There is no mechanic there which is able to do it.
- Miners: Also no. Same reason.

Makes total sense to me.