Cargo bay throughput alternative: cargo hatches

Post your ideas and suggestions how to improve the game.

Moderator: ickputzdirwech

Milichip
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2025 11:51 pm
Contact:

Cargo bay throughput alternative: cargo hatches

Post by Milichip »

Tl;dr
Add a new item that connects to cargo bays, cargo landing pads and platform hubs, called "Cargo hatch".
Cargo hatches can have item filters set, extremely similar to a requester chest making the hatch work to "pull" items to itself after a progress bar is filled, one stack at a time.
factorio_v4BsrFHiCN.png
factorio_v4BsrFHiCN.png (453.94 KiB) Viewed 504 times
What
When the cargo hatch works on pulling an item stack, it is immediately "teleported" to its inventory, but hidden in the same way an assembling machine would hide items. Once its progress bar completes, the stack appears and can be pulled from the hatch.
Cargo hatches increase throughput, however the farther they are from the cargo landing pad, the more latency they have. In practice, this means that if an item has just appeared in the landing pad the hatch will take an extra amount of time to pull it to itself depending on the distance from the landing pad, however, pulling additional stacks that appeared at the same time will then be a constant amount of time.
Essentially, while cargo hatches will immediately pull items to their inventory and hide it as soon as it appears on the landing pad, the "throughput progress bar" only starts after the item has "sat" on the landing pad for a time, which would be the "pull progress bar". However the displayed progress bar would be a combination of both. Confusing stuff, so here's an example:

For example, if hatches have a throughput of 1 stack every second;
And if 2 stacks JUST landed and the hatch takes 10 seconds to pull the item to it due to "travel time", then it will take 11 seconds to pull the first stack, and 1 second after that to pull the second.
If another stack lands 5 seconds after the first 2 stacks (while the hatch is working on pulling the first stack), then it will be taken out 11 seconds after its landing time as well (if the hatch is not busy with other stacks).

Cargo hatches MUST be connected to a cargo bay or cargo landing pad to function.

Items can then be pulled from a cargo hatch via inserter (or with an arrow like burner miners and recyclers), but not inserted.

Multiple downsides to the hatch would exist to make it worse earlier on and to discourage use across very long distances: slow pull rate without modules, high power draw, high crafting cost.
Hatches still need to be directly connected to cargo bays or the cargo landing pad to function.

The higher power draw would make it very inadvisable to use in space, and even then it can only be used for pulling items out.
Additionally, quality would increase the hatch's throughput VERY significantly, perhaps 10x at legendary, making early-game quality hatches much less desirable.

This does mean someone could theoretically design all of their item transportation to use the cargo hatches by inserting any items into the landing pad, however this would take an incredibly large amount of power relative to using trains, bots or belts, would be significantly more expensive, and would have more latency and less throughput than with the other solutions. The hatch is specifically designed to be worse in every aspect, but to be the only solution (aside from bots) to increase throughput of the landing pad from cargo deliveries.
And it would get bonus points for being more optimization friendly than bots.
Why
Current cargo landing pads have limited throughput (although high), and require heavy use of logistic robots to increase it. Late game, this becomes a very uninteresting way to solve the issue as it is very one dimensional.

Items cannot be pulled out of cargo bay extensions, and this is a good thing as it would create "instant travelling time", so I am not suggesting that.
However, as a result of this, bots remain the only way to increase cargo landing pad throughput. This is why I propose adding a new item, the cargo hatch as described above.
R060
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2025 10:17 am
Contact:

Re: Cargo bay throughput alternative: cargo hatches

Post by R060 »

Milichip wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2025 5:03 pm
Tl;dr
Add a new item that connects to cargo bays, cargo landing pads and platform hubs, called "Cargo hatch".
Cargo hatches can have item filters set, extremely similar to a requester chest making the hatch work to "pull" items to itself after a progress bar is filled, one stack at a time.
This is just a replacement for a train-chests, and it will be "abused" is the same way.
I believe the current way how cargo exchange is working is flawed because of how bot-centric it is. Surface-platform - because we can not launch rockets via signals because "signals are hard" (they are not, in fact signals are the most intuitive thing in the game, with the exception of introduced hacks to make new 2.0 set-recipes at least to work "good enough"). Platform-surface - because we can't control what, when and how much is dropped down to the surface, because there is no way to separate a cargo on the platform in the same way we do on the ground with trains and signal-driven inserters. All for the sake of noobs go faster to space (and complain about assemblers not producing enough seeds).
Кусаки жрут конвейеры - это просто полуфабрикатное болоньезе.
Milichip
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2025 11:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Cargo bay throughput alternative: cargo hatches

Post by Milichip »

R060 wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2025 4:51 am This is just a replacement for a train-chests, and it will be "abused" is the same way.
If you mean cargo wagons, I specifically mentioned that you can't insert into a hatch, only pull from, so I fail to see how it could be abused.
I also believe you can't insert into the cargo landing bay, but even if you could, all other alternatives are better anyway as mentioned in the post.
Of course you could insert into a space platform hub, however the hatch power draw would be immense, and would be restricted only to pulling items out, so it would be impractical.

As for circuits and platform logistic requests and all that stuff, that is beyond the scope of this suggestion. I am only interested in increasing throughput for the cargo landing pad in late game via something other than bots - if that also adds a new way to transport items that is less optimal that everything that exists currently then that is a positive in my mind, as people using it "just because it's new/cool even if it sucks" is neat too.
Milichip
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2025 11:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Cargo bay throughput alternative: cargo hatches

Post by Milichip »

wobbycarly wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2025 9:29 am train-chests example: https://youtu.be/SWa6hAqsh_Y?si=V-hTuOQzHiXFQhAo
Thanks for showing this, however-
I fail to see how that relates to my proposal in any way: the cargo hatch would have a "progress bar" during which it is pulling the item from the main landing pad, and in that time you cannot pull anything from the hatch as the item is "hidden" inside itself and thus unavailable.
Additionally, since the hatches can be spaced further out, placing more inserters and cargo hatches is relatively simple, so you don't need to worry about it beyond worrying about how you're gonna transport the increased throughput elsewhere.
User avatar
Mooncat
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1207
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Cargo bay throughput alternative: cargo hatches

Post by Mooncat »

Milichip wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2025 1:40 pm
wobbycarly wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2025 9:29 am train-chests example: https://youtu.be/SWa6hAqsh_Y?si=V-hTuOQzHiXFQhAo
Thanks for showing this, however-
I fail to see how that relates to my proposal in any way: the cargo hatch would have a "progress bar" during which it is pulling the item from the main landing pad, and in that time you cannot pull anything from the hatch as the item is "hidden" inside itself and thus unavailable.
Additionally, since the hatches can be spaced further out, placing more inserters and cargo hatches is relatively simple, so you don't need to worry about it beyond worrying about how you're gonna transport the increased throughput elsewhere.
I actually have a very similar idea. But rather than having a special storage entity, my idea applies to all multi-grid storage entities, including cargo wagon: all items that were inserted to the multi-grid storage entity will become unaccessible until a set duration. Inserters can extract them only after the duration has passed. The duration increases by the size of the storage entity. (Players can still manually get the items out for convinence.)

This should fix all issues about item teleportation due to multi-grid storage entities, but also mean the devs would need to overhual all storage entities and I'm afraid they won't do that at this stage of the game. I don't even bother to open a thread for that.

You have my vote. Cargo landing bay is a bottleneck of megabases right now. Cargo wagon is useful but feels cheaty. There should be a better option to scale the throughput of space cargo.
wobbycarly
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:00 am
Contact:

Re: Cargo bay throughput alternative: cargo hatches

Post by wobbycarly »

Milichip wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2025 1:40 pm
wobbycarly wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2025 9:29 am train-chests example: https://youtu.be/SWa6hAqsh_Y?si=V-hTuOQzHiXFQhAo
Thanks for showing this, however-
I fail to see how that relates to my proposal in any way: the cargo hatch would have a "progress bar" during which it is pulling the item from the main landing pad, and in that time you cannot pull anything from the hatch as the item is "hidden" inside itself and thus unavailable.
Additionally, since the hatches can be spaced further out, placing more inserters and cargo hatches is relatively simple, so you don't need to worry about it beyond worrying about how you're gonna transport the increased throughput elsewhere.
Apologies for any confusion, but I wasn't advocating for this setup or using this example to contradict your proposal, merely sharing the concept of "train-chests".
Post Reply

Return to “Ideas and Suggestions”