1) That is still a limitation/adaption, imagine you have an oupost that centrifuge uranium, all the abundant one is gathered in one place, all the rare one in another. How many belts would you need to wire for the rare uranium train !mrvn wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2019 3:03 pm
Note quite. The number of belt tiles you need depends on only two things: 1) the belt speed, 2) the mining speed of the last miner. You need to connect enough belts so that with just one miner working there still always is one ore in the covered section.
Personally I simply connect the chest to the train stop and set it to enable when it has a full load. That takes 0 combinators. I really don't care about the last partial load. Exhausted mining outpost will be deconstructed at some point and then I enable the station one last time manually. So this is more of an academic issue.
Concerning taking train contents into account while loading: I also did a more complex design for higher throughput unloading stations with a waiting bay. The station will allow one or two and only two trains into the station depending on the amount of space for ore. All other trains with be redirected to other stations:
viewtopic.php?f=194&t=48069&p=277977&hi ... on#p277977
Feel free to change this for loading and combine it with the "Dry Ore Patch Train Restrictor" of either design for the ultimate station.
With original design ideas and little tweak, you could just configure it so that if quantity increased the last 20 minutes, the trains comes, disregarding the quantity that is actually in the chest. Using 1 slider to change the interval. And the train would only come every 20 minutes, if the thing was active, in case you have dozens of slow uranium outpost but some of them are backed up in low quality uranium.
Imagine then that the distance between 2 ores is not constant , due to for example sulfuric acid production being irregular ! ( link that here because in my mind it is the same thing)You need to add more belt tiles. Enough to cover the distance between 2 ores.
2) concerning the academical answer, I do what you describe, when i can, but sometimes, other conditions are forced onto your design, or you wouldn't force yourself to balance things, if you can use original design. It enabled me to think differently about some problems.
3) The design you link is something different , more complex, has similarities, but has different use cases ( in my mind) it uses several ideas, and aims at making trains follow a different behavior than what the original design does ( in my mind it is more like a part of an autonomous system, rather than an autonomous part that you can add to your system )
and after all you asked :
so tried to answer your question from my point of view, thinking maybe that is also what op had in mind, or @waduk when he said thanks, now i realised maybe it wasn't really a question but more a rethorical way to propose an alternative , which when i see it i don't in my head, that's just that, sorry mrvn , that is something that i already knew about since that's what i was thinking was the only method (not really but using it often) ! I don't say it's bad, i was using it, i say it's prone to false positive/flickering, and could require tedious/custom configuration , that involve more than 1 number, i like the simplicity of scratching my head once, and then only tweak a slider here and there, this is adding a "string to my bow"