Disallow inserters from interacting with underground belts

[Tekky]

Currently, inserters do not seem to care whether they are interacting with a normal piece of belt or a splitter/underground belt. They can take and put items onto the splitter/underground belt as if it were a normal piece of belt.

However, judging by the graphics, this should obviously not be possible:

u_belt.jpg (52.25 KiB) Viewed 8081 times

splitter.jpg (42.3 KiB) Viewed 8081 times

The graphics of the underground belt implies that it has a roof, so that it should not be possible for an inserter to interact with it. The graphics of the splitter also implies that inserters should not be able to interact with it.

For my single player games, it has been easy for me to ignore this issue, by simply imposing the rule on myself that inserters should never interact with splitters or underground belts. However, since Factorio has now become multiplayer and is also becoming more competitive (PvP), I can no longer do this, because I must always try to use the most efficient layout that the game rules allow.

Therefore, I an in favor of changing the game rules by removing the possibility for inserters to interact with splitters and underground belts.

In order to allow backwards compatibility with previous games, an option or a mod could be created that allows inserters to interact with splitters and underground belts.

[Koub]

Inserters indeed don't care whether graphics seem to make their move impossible or not, which can sometimes be misleading (same thing for side insertion on an underground belt).
However, I don't think that it needs so badly to be "corrected". It's a core mechanic. It could be solved by changing the graphic, or by disallowing the inserters to interact with some parts of the underground belts and splitters, but ... honestly, is it so important ? Such a shitstorm (sorry, maybe the term is excessive, but I can't find a better suited) for such a minor kwirk seems unnecessary.

[Tekky]

Yes, this issue could also be resolved by changing the graphics. However, I really like the graphics of both the splitters and the underground belts. Therefore, I would rather be in favor of disallowing inserters from interacting with splitters and underground belts.

honestly, is it so important?

I just find it ugly whenever I see an inserter interacting with an underground belt through the roof. This breaks immersion.

I am probably used to Factorio being very well polished in every respect, so that it is rather annoying in the few cases where it is not well polished. I guess I am being spoilt by Factorio's high quality.

[Tekky]

On second thought, maybe you are right that it would be better to change the graphics. Otherwise, I'm afraid many players would be angry when their favorite blueprints don't work anymore.

[quyxkh]

Easiest graphic change might be to have the inserter arm swing stop at the input end of the segment, but it's even easier to just say that that's where the hand operates, at the input end where it could clearly put/take items , and the arm swing continues all the way to vertical because inserters are ambidextrous and can continue or return.

[ssilk]

I point to viewtopic.php?f=80&t=32665 Make Underground Belt Magic More Visible

@Tekky: Especially I don't understand, why you don't seem to have problems with the inserter is grabing into the assembler, furnace etc. - which looks into my eyes much more unrealistic - but a problem with the inserters into splitters/ug-belts.

[ricktor16]

Yeah, I personally like how I'm able to add an additional layer of complexity by allowing my inserters to grab and drop right onto underground belts. Removing this would require a massive rework of my entire factory.

I think the easiest fix is a massive graphics overhaul where each factory, etc. has output and input slots that dynamically update based on where you place the inserters. Then special graphics for the splitters and underground belts that make things more realistic. /sarcasm

I'm personally totally fine with how it works, even if it doesn't look totally realistic (does anything in the game look perfect?)

[Tekky]

@Tekky: Especially I don't understand, why you don't seem to have problems with the inserter is grabing into the assembler, furnace etc.

Damn, now that you have pointed that out, I am now unable to play the game without a mod which removes the roof off assemblers.

Just kidding.

Actually, now that you have pointed that out, it is a little easier for me to tolerate an inserter moving things through the roof of the underground belts.

[Tekky]

After spending a further several months playing Factorio, I must say that I find that this issue increasingly annoying.

Since Factorio is all about finding the most efficient and compact layouts, it would make sense that there should be certain rules in place which prevent players to "cheat" by doing absurd things, such as placing items directly into a splitter/underground belt. The graphics (and common sense) clearly suggest that it should only be possible to place items onto the belt before or after a splitter/underground belt, but not directly into it.

Because the game allows players to "cheat" in this way, it is my strong opinion that the game offers the players too much freedom in this respect.

Also, in my opinion, it causes the game's graphics to look ugly, when the game allows layouts which the graphics imply should not be possible.

Whenever I see someone use such "cheaty" and ugly layouts in multiplayer games, it breaks immersion for me every time.

I really like the current graphics. Therefore, in contrast to what I stated before, I am no longer in favor of changing the graphics to imply that such "cheaty" actions are possible. I am instead in favor of disallowing inserters (and miners) from placing items directly into inserters/underground belts.

As I stated before, I realize that this will cause many people's bases from functioning. However, this issue of backward compatibility could be resolved by introducing a less restrictive game mode (which is disabled by default) or by requiring users to download a mod which lifts these restrictions.

[Tekky]

but ... honestly, is it so important ? Such a shitstorm (sorry, maybe the term is excessive, but I can't find a better suited) for such a minor kwirk seems unnecessary.

Let me illustrate:

In this post of yours, you posted the following screenshot:



Don't you agree that such a layout is very ugly, because it does something that the graphics imply should not be possible?

Whenever I see such layouts, it breaks immersion for me very time.

I strongly believe that Factorio would be much more pleasant without such "ugly" or "cheaty" layouts.

[Koub]

The devs have already shown that even if backwards compatibility is something they try to keep, they will break this backward compatibility if they feel it's necessary to make a better overall game. That's why Factorio is still considered in alpha.
Examples of breaking backwards compatibility ?
- steam boiler change with 0.15
- in 0.12 (if i'm not mistaken), belts went from dropping items one tile after the last belt tile to items remain on the belt when they get to its end. Seems minor, but broke factories a lot
- Size shift of turrets (now they are 2x2, back in 0.12 or 0.13, gun and laser turrets had different sizes (one was 2x1, and the other 1x1 iirc)
- ...

So devs will change things if they feel they must. However, it's their choice. I guess there could be a mod that would prevent interaction between inserters and splitter/ug belts. Maybe would that be enough ?

Currently, the devs seem to consider it's a clever use of the game's possibilities, and approve its usage (if I'm not mistaken). Should they change their minds, then well ... it's their choice again .

[Veklim]

Hrm, I wonder do you also take issue with side-loading belt to UG belt layouts such as is used in almost every lane balance design I have used/seen. The graphics don't particularly lend themselves to this behaviour either, and yet I would be very interested to see your 'non-cheaty' method of lane balance if this is the case.

The graphics aren't always going to perfectly represent the function of an item, for instance, flamer turrets have a permanent pilot light at the end of the barrel, yet they don't have a constant (if tiny) fuel drain as a result. Now the graphics are suggesting you can have infinite fire with no fuel! When you put rails through a gate in a wall the gate seems capable of magically transversing the rails without causing major derailments every time they're used. You can only fit 40 stacks of items in a train wagon, and yet a single one of those item slots can hold 5 train wagons.

The list is a long one and I'm not going to go through it all, it merely serves to demonstrate a simple fact, Factorio is a game, and as such will do things beyond reasonable 'realistic' expectation. The idea of changing inserter behaviour and removing a large and useful mechanic in the game because it 'doesn't quite look right' is somewhere between pedantic and absurd, but that's just my opinion.

[Factoruser]

In principle, insertes really should not directly interact with splitters, but with the underground belts it's an important mechanism. If you think it's too ugly, just don't use it this way. On the other hand, the graphic of the roof might be made smaller, though, but that's just cosmetic.

[Tekky]

Hrm, I wonder do you also take issue with side-loading belt to UG belt layouts

I certainly do, as do other people. Please see the following thread for more information:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=48047 Underground belt lane splitting, anyone else hate it?

Here is a quote of what I said on that thread:

I also agree that underground belts being used as belt lane splitters is very ugly.

I like it that this feature exists, because it is an important feature. However, this feature should be integrated into the game in some other way, using a different entity (for example a programmable splitter).

Related threads:
viewtopic.php?f=80&t=32665 Make Underground Belt Magic More Visible
viewtopic.php?f=71&t=42620 Make underground belts work like underground pipes
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=30245 About underground belt trick (lane swapping): art?

The graphics aren't always going to perfectly represent the function of an item, for instance, flamer turrets have a permanent pilot light at the end of the barrel, yet they don't have a constant (if tiny) fuel drain as a result. Now the graphics are suggesting you can have infinite fire with no fuel! When you put rails through a gate in a wall the gate seems capable of magically transversing the rails without causing major derailments every time they're used. You can only fit 40 stacks of items in a train wagon, and yet a single one of those item slots can hold 5 train wagons.

The list is a long one and I'm not going to go through it all, it merely serves to demonstrate a simple fact, Factorio is a game, and as such will do things beyond reasonable 'realistic' expectation.

I am not claiming that the game should be realistic in every way. After all, it is a game. All I am saying is that the layouts would be more pleasant to look at if it didn't allow you to do certain things which are just ugly hacks. This could be fixed easily by simply disallowing them.

Since Factorio is such a perfect game in so many ways, it really annoys me that the game permits these ugly hacks. I guess I wouldn't find them so annoying if the rest of Factorio weren't so perfect.

In other words: Factorio's perfection has reduced my tolerance to non-perfection, so that I get annoyed more easily now if something is not perfect.

The idea of changing inserter behaviour and removing a large and useful mechanic in the game because it 'doesn't quite look right' is somewhere between pedantic and absurd, but that's just my opinion.

As I stated above in my quote from a different thread, I am not in favor of removing the mechanic of belt lane splitting, since it is an important feature. I am just against an underground belt being used for this, because it is an ugly hack. The game should instead introduce a different way to accomplish the same task, for example customizable/programmable splitters or simply an option to block one side of the belt, as has been suggested in the thread that I mentioned above.

[Tekky]

Another reason in favor of my suggestion is that the behavior of inserters is inconsistent when taking items from underground belts. See the following thread for more information:

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=54032

In my opinion, this problem would be best solved by forbidding such layouts altogether, since the graphics also implies that they shouldn't work.

[Zavian]

Well factorio is full of similar little idiosyncrasies. If I recall correctly a yellow inserter can't grab from a red belt, if the red belt is running at full speed (the belt is too fast for the inserter). A blue inserter will struggle to grab anything from the outside of the corner of blue belt. (The outside of the belt is moving faster than the inside when the belt is going around a corner). If you are short on power, inserters slowdown, and you can get those same effects with yellow belts.

In the example you posted the inserter can only grab from the very furthest of part of the belt, before it enters the start of the underground. If that was a yellow belt, or the when the belt is stationary, it will have no problem, but when its a blue belt moving at full speed, a blue inserter doesn't have enough time to grab an item before it enters the start of the underground.

You can also have situations which players think are weird when inserting into a splitter that is arranged so it is facing away from the the inserter. But this behaviour is perfectly logical if you remember that inserters always insert on the far side of the belt, hence if the inserter is inserting into a splitter that is facing away from the inserter, the inserter is inserting after the splitter does it's balancing logic, and hence you are effectively inserting after the splitter. This sort of attention to detail in the simulation is all over the belt and inserter mechanics.

Edit: If you don't like such layouts, you can definitely play the game without needing to build any of them. (Eg I don't normally bother to use undergrounds to compress a belt when mining, I just merge 2 belts into one later. I almost never use underground belts to split lanes).

[JohnyDL]

Is this really a thing given that so many people rely on this 'quirk' to make compact systems I mean really it should be a non-issue, the graphics seem to clip so what, the graphics are old need updating anyway when undergrounds get their update a small notch out of the centre fixes the apparent inconsistencies, and tweak the inserter animation to be either side of center depending on undergrounds or splitters.

Infact that "inconsistency" is caused precisely because it's behaving exactly as you want it in some directions it detect and pick up in 1 tile length but because of the hood it doesn't have access, the other side it can detect while the item is under the hood and reaches it because it's reachable where there is no hood, perfectly consistent perfectly in line with "The graphics of the underground belt implies that it has a roof, so that it should not be possible for an inserter to interact with it."

That said the same sorts of idiosyncrasies that make useful tech can be seen in all sorts of games, sticky pistons in minecraft Java edition spitting out their block on a one tick pulse to Oxygen Not Included one fluid type per tile making free water filters these, are the things that allow some of the most interesting and useful contraptions in various games why you would want to get rid of it because it looks wrong with the current graphics is kind of weird. I vote fix the graphic if it's an issue and not the "bug".

[Rseding91]

Inserters working with underground belts is intended. We have tests made to ensure it works correctly as well as all of the other combinations of inserters and belts interacting with things.

That's not going to change.