I'd have posted in modding help except that I know this worked previously and don't remember reading that it ever got changed intentionally, so I'm assuming a bug.
From my understanding game.createentity{name="item-on-ground", position={x, y}, stack={name="iron-ore", count=99}} should create a single entity (of item-on-ground) that when picked up (using "f") will place 99 iron-ore items in the inventory, I remember having an inserter being able to pick this up and insert all 99 items in a chest at the same time or 'streaming' the 99 items onto a belt (rather as if it was holding a bucket and pouring the iron ore onto the belt). Now it seems to ignore it stack count and only create 1 item. Also, you can call stack.insert on an item-on-ground without error, but with no effect either.
If this is not a bug and was changed intentionally what would be your suggestions for replicating this effect? chests? I'd rather avoid creating 99 separate entities since blast mining sand from DyTech can easily result in a count above 100,000 with only an area of 1, an area of 10 would be able to get a count of over a million...
Creating item-on-ground with >1 stack count
Re: Creating item-on-ground with >1 stack count
Anyone?
[song reference]It's so quiet here and I feel so cold...[/song reference]
jk
[song reference]It's so quiet here and I feel so cold...[/song reference]

Re: Creating item-on-ground with >1 stack count
So, this was resupt of some internal refactoring, and item on ground takes by default just one item from the input stack when created.
It is fixed, that when created by the script it takes all the stack, so all the previous behaviour works again (for 0.9)
It is fixed, that when created by the script it takes all the stack, so all the previous behaviour works again (for 0.9)
Re: Creating item-on-ground with >1 stack count
Ah ok, understandable reason
Glad it'll be fixed for 0.9
as for the reference I'm not sure where you got that one from (though it was interesting), this is the one I was referencing (obviously meant as an exaggeration due to how long it had been since I'd originally posted): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50XiNiVOTko

as for the reference I'm not sure where you got that one from (though it was interesting), this is the one I was referencing (obviously meant as an exaggeration due to how long it had been since I'd originally posted): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50XiNiVOTko