Logistic network priority

[sabriath]

I agree with priority system....just not the way it has been suggested here. My suggestion is simply to put an input box in the upper right corner of all logistic chests GUI for a number. Any items within that chest cannot be transported to any other chest that has a lower value than it....so commands that "get_inventory" or "get_item_count" within a network should have an added argument "priority" which effectively ignore any inventories that have a number higher than it for searches (so returns a nil table as if the chest didn't even exist).

Here are a few uses:

1. Having your raw resources harvested and stored closer to your furnaces for more efficient bot usage. This can be done by having priority "10" requester chests at 9600 copper/iron/etc. limit feeding into several priority "9" provider chests near your furnaces....then having priority "8" requester chests for each duplex/quadplex of furnaces for feeding. This will have the effect of storing all of the raw materials without backfeeding the first requester and locking up your system in an infinite loop. The alternative without it is to put all requesters at 9600 and cross your fingers that the robots will evenly balance between all the furnace inputs.....or place several storage chests nearby with a few raw materials in it to "lure" the robots in that direction, but eventually it will dry up and they will just store your raw mats 50 miles away.

2. Allowing priority levels gives the added bonus to giving the player a priority of "0" which overrides all requesters currently on the network and bumping any request that players have to the top of the list.....so the wait doesn't become a nightmare.

3. The ability to "force path" the robots on long runs by setting up daisy chains of requester-provider throughput.....it would also look pretty cool, in my opinion.

[bigyihsuan]

holy mother of bump

I agree with priority system....just not the way it has been suggested here. My suggestion is simply to put an input box in the upper right corner of all logistic chests GUI for a number. Any items within that chest cannot be transported to any other chest that has a lower value than it....so commands that "get_inventory" or "get_item_count" within a network should have an added argument "priority" which effectively ignore any inventories that have a number higher than it for searches (so returns a nil table as if the chest didn't even exist).

Here are a few uses:

1. Having your raw resources harvested and stored closer to your furnaces for more efficient bot usage. This can be done by having priority "10" requester chests at 9600 copper/iron/etc. limit feeding into several priority "9" provider chests near your furnaces....then having priority "8" requester chests for each duplex/quadplex of furnaces for feeding. This will have the effect of storing all of the raw materials without backfeeding the first requester and locking up your system in an infinite loop. The alternative without it is to put all requesters at 9600 and cross your fingers that the robots will evenly balance between all the furnace inputs.....or place several storage chests nearby with a few raw materials in it to "lure" the robots in that direction, but eventually it will dry up and they will just store your raw mats 50 miles away.

2. Allowing priority levels gives the added bonus to giving the player a priority of "0" which overrides all requesters currently on the network and bumping any request that players have to the top of the list.....so the wait doesn't become a nightmare.

3. The ability to "force path" the robots on long runs by setting up daisy chains of requester-provider throughput.....it would also look pretty cool, in my opinion.

This is more or less I was wanting in the OP, I just didn't explain it well.

Negative priority should be the "EVERYTHING GO TO HERE" priority of differing degrees, while everything has a default priority of 0.

[ssilk]

Maybe I should point to the overlapping logistic network idea (colored logistics), which enables also the idea of being "within" the same network (but only with two priorities, but that is in my eyes enough to handle every problem), cause I really think that 9 different priorities will be never used and when then only in some strange and normally not needed cases.

Read here: https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... f=6&t=8905