Have Splitters split each "lane" of a belt

[suprnova74]

Have Splitters split each "lane" of a belt

Have splitters split each "lane" of a belt more evenly when content is same on both lanes.

"But splitters already split contents" you say? You're correct, but it has a quirk.
If the input belt is fully loaded, it essentially takes the output and splits one lane to output belt 1 left-side and the other lane to output belt 2 right-side (may switch depending on circumstances). An example:

iNkldC2.png (546.5 KiB) Viewed 7587 times

What ?

If belt content is the same on both sides, still treat it as separate inputs (so technically a splitter would have 4 inputs -- belt 1-lane 1, belt 1-lane 2, belt 2-lane 1, belt 2-lane 2) so the output belt lanes are load-balanced more evenly.
So as shown in the rudimentary diagram below (and image above), the behavior of the Current System sees it's fully loaded with iron plate and says "a" is the first piece so to output track 1. "1" is second piece so output track 2, "b" is piece 3 so output track 1, etc:
Belt Dir>>
...........SSSabcdefgh
...........SSS
hgfedcbaSSS
87654321SSS12345678


Suggested change:
the single input belt's contents are handled on a "per lane", per belt basis.
...........SSS a c e g
...........SSS 2 4 6 8
abcdefghSSS b d f h
12345678SSS 1 3 5 7

Why ?

This more appropriately truly splits the contents when a single input belt is utilized, allowing both "lanes" of the output belts to be populated more consistently.

[Tekky]

16 months ago, in Factorio Friday Facts #122, a developer stated that they are aware of these issues with the splitters and are considering to implement your suggestion.

I really hope that they do.

I also hope that, if they redesign the splitters anyway, they will also make the splitters input-balanced, not just output-balanced, so that most of these ugly layouts will be unnecessary.

[suprnova74]

Ah good find. I read all the FFF's but that one didn't stick out as the same issue for some reason.

[Optera]

Splitters are prefectly fine.

Source: viewtopic.php?f=18&t=19114#p123202

[Tekky]

I am not sure if your previous post was sarcasm or not.

Even if the current splitter behavior allows for efficient sorting of items on a belt, I consider this to be an ugly hack.

The original poster's suggested behavior of splitters is a lot more intuitive, in my opinion.

[Koub]

You're a bit late, mate.

[Tekky]

You're a bit late, mate.

Better late than never.

This topic is still relevant for 0.16.

[Koub]

I doubt this change will ever happen in vanilla.
Maybe try and see if this can be modded somehow.

[Tekky]

I doubt this change will ever happen in vanilla.

As I have already pointed out above, one of the Factorio developers stated in Factorio Friday Facts #122 that they will be considering exactly this change. Therefore, I wouldn't consider it unlikely that it gets implemented. They are probably just focussing on other things right now.

Maybe try and see if this can be modded somehow.

Even if the modding API allowed creating such a splitter, I doubt that it would be possible to create it in such a way that it is not too CPU intensive. The LUA modding API is a lot slower than C++ and the splitter is used a lot, so the total CPU load would add up very quickly.

[darkfrei]

https://mods.factorio.com/mods/judos/beltSorter

[Tekky]

This "BeltSorter" mod confirms what I wrote in my previous post. Instead of updating the belt contents 60 times per second, as vanilla splitters do, it only does it about 4 times per second. This is probably necessary due to the LUA modding API being significantly slower than if it were programmed in C++.

Therefore, we need a proper implementation in vanilla, which is programmed in C++.

[Koub]

Well, you still have the underground-belt split, which I think I remember reading was considered "legit" by the devs. Don't take me wrong, I'm not saying I'm against the suggestion, I'm more like ... neutral .
So I try to enrich the debate by providing alternate opinions.

[Tekky]

I guess this thread can now be moved to "implemented" (in version 0.16.16).

Thank you very much to the devs (and the moderators too, once they have moved the thread ).

I doubt this change will ever happen in vanilla.

I'm glad you were wrong.