Modification of inserters. Separate input/output direction.

[_0rbit_]

In some suggestion threads on the forum there is mention of how there need to be bigger chests so that it would be easier to use more inserters to get things in and out of these chests.

I think increasing the size of chests or having a kind of silo is an ugly solution. (Except for maybe a silo that can be positioned so that a train can run under it, a silo that can be filled by having a transportation belt run directly into it; only used for coal, ores, stone?)

An elegant solution to many inserter speed/position problems would be to not have a simple arrow dictacting where an inserter takes and drops goods, but to actually have two and to allow them to be placed diagonally too.

Example image: (input in green, output in red)

[ssilk]

This idea is cool!
I won't let the user choose any second direction. This is completely automatic: one of the two directions must be the direction, in which you placed the inserter, the other is found automatically in some spen cial order. And the allowed extra angles are just as described above (+-45 degrees).

An inserter can then deliver or unload 2 items, instead of one. I think in the first 2 hours of free play this could really help and will bring the game forward.

Code: Select all

There are five possibilities an inserter can choose its direction:


1.  |
    |
(straight, of course, this is the current default)
2.       |
         \
(first straight, then 45 left)
3.  |
    /
(straightforward, right)
4.       \
          |
(right, straight)
5.  /
   |
(left, straight)

[_0rbit_]

Yes, even that would be very helpful, although I think the best solution would still be to have two arrows to control. Perhaps only having the 180 degree and 90 degree angle would be more than enough. It probably is.

This would also make sense for the long-arm inserters: Now you can not use them for much else. They have long arms, meaning they should just have higher reach, not lower flexibility.

Modifying the inserter setup would for instance allow such simple setups as attached in the image. This could make factories more compact.

Another idea:

We already have transport belts that can run underground to cross other belts. Why not make bridges or entirely elevated belts? Make the belts run in rack like things. Then an extension to the inserts could be the level on which they operate.

For instance:

Top view:

v
v LO
>>>>>>>>>>
v
v

Horizontal belt is bridged over vertical belt. Inserter LO can pick up things from the lower belt and put them on the higher one and vice versa.

In terms of controls; you would not even need more keys to operate this, because when setting input and output vectors the game can determine immediately on what level the belt is. (Restriction: The "crossroads" between belts is non-accessible for inserters).

Perhaps there could be a programmable inserter. Pick up resource R from location x. Put in factory F. Pick up product P. Put on belt at location y. Repeat.

[ssilk]

Hm.

To my suggestion: I thought a bit more about it... And i mean it isn't such a good idea. An flexible inserter will make problems, when it is not clear, to which belt something should be placed, and some more situations. So it will extremely influence the gameplay. When someone would implement it, then only as special device; but I think it is useful in the later game, when using logistic bots, when we say that only the side, at which an assemblers sits has that flexibility. This can spare much work, only one requester and one provider-chest per two assemblies are needed so (if placed in a row), half the work.

To _Orbit_s suggestions:

Free angle, set by player: I wouldn't like to set this up. And the rules, when placing on belts in 45 degree angle are not clear. Only 90 degree: well, that makes it much easier, but then I don't see the usage, because nearly everything can be built more or less with the current.

Longer reach: there was a suggestion, that the long arm inserters can change the side of the long arm, so that the input can be two tiles away and the output only one. Longer distance: well, could be usefull, but more than 3 tiles would be monsters.

More compact factories: I mean it is important to keep the overview simple.
So, the suggestion with the multi-levels is ... not bringing the game forward, because in the game we can see only one level. And imagine a second. But with your suggestions three levels are possible and the example you described can be built much simpler. I mean it has a sense, that only underground belts where implemented.

Programmable inserter: yes and no. The smart inserter is a pretty flexible thing. And doing what you described needs no programming, just a second inserter.

Keep on doing suggestions, but keep in mind, that the current stuff is pretty flexible, for example the splitter looks harmless but has more usages than an inserter.

[_0rbit_]

Oh thank you sir. I am well aware these are just suggestions

I actually love Factorio as it is now. It is unfinished, but playable and provides a lot of fun. Especially seeing new stuff implemented. I love seeing how it influences the game and how you play it differently after it is updated etc.

I think from this game a whole type of genre of games could arise in which functional layout design is the goal. Why not design a car factory? Why not make electronics for fun?

This brings me to another one of my coffee-induced Factorio-dreams: If at some point Factorio has enough features, it could be entirely possible to directly make Turing-machines. Wouldn't it be cool to be able to build computational device in Factorio?

[slpwnd]

This idea sounds interesting, however it is a little bit against one of the core concepts of the game. That is that you have available several simple elements from which you need to build more complicated structures. With the current inserter functionality pretty much any setup can be done. Yes, sometimes it is more tedius and requires tricks and stuff, but that is exactly the point. If it challenges the player to think how to solve the problem with limited possibilities he has at hand then it is good. Of course, if something proves to be too tedius (though still possible) we make a special unit for that - that was the case with the splitter.

This brings me to another one of my coffee-induced Factorio-dreams: If at some point Factorio has enough features, it could be entirely possible to directly make Turing-machines. Wouldn't it be cool to be able to build computational device in Factorio?

This will happen sooner or later;)

[kovarex]

This brings me to another one of my coffee-induced Factorio-dreams: If at some point Factorio has enough features, it could be entirely possible to directly make Turing-machines. Wouldn't it be cool to be able to build computational device in Factorio?

This will happen sooner or later;)

I believe it is possible to do already

[Cordylus]

This idea sounds interesting, however it is a little bit against one of the core concepts of the game. That is that you have available several simple elements from which you need to build more complicated structures. With the current inserter functionality pretty much any setup can be done. Yes, sometimes it is more tedius and requires tricks and stuff, but that is exactly the point. If it challenges the player to think how to solve the problem with limited possibilities he has at hand then it is good. Of course, if something proves to be too tedius (though still possible) we make a special unit for that - that was the case with the splitter.

That's for now - not implemented.