Well decided to go with a poll for now... let's see how this is going.

Too bad that it's not possible to do a more in-depth poll with strength of support/rejection, but I guess the amount of votes or not voting will eventually show how much people are in favor of something.

I strongly support that each and every inserter should have an option to be restricted to 90° (counter)clockwise movement as well. There's no practical excuse as to why an inserter able to perform 360° turns can't be restricted to do only 90° turns when needed. Hell, if I were stranded on the planet...

So... getting back to this topic once more. There's still the fate of some items to be discussed and if they finally should be changed or not: Burner Inserters: Should they be a requirement for normal inserters? Would people use more burner inserters if they could upgrade them later on rather than d...

I was facing this same dilemma just this weekend - spent about an hour getting a rail line started, realized how much work was ahead: Pumps->Factories for barreling; Full Barrels->storage chests; Barrels from storage->onto train; Train->unload barrels into chests; chests->Factories for unbarreling;...

Hypothetically the 23.8 panels/20 accumulators for 1 MW would be perfect. The ratio is known for a very long time now and the discussion could stop right there as the solution has been found a year ago. But realistically it never really works out that way. Just never. At least not without peaceful m...

I think the devs picked the most annoying liquid configuration on purpose. :lol: They really did... I swear I have this feeling everytime I try to come up with a better solution for the refineries. :P Swapping them would be enough for chemical plants. For refinieres I also think swapping around the...

psorek wrote:The simpliest solution is just to spawn burners with some energy already, much like roboports do.

+1

Best solution to the problem. They should have enough energy to be able to make a few turns on their own directly after being placed so that they can pick any further fuel up themselves.

So after some weeks of playtesting it... I can definitely say that I find the intrusive way it is done currently absolutely annoying. I toned down the amount of autosaving already several times because of it and still it seems like it happens in the most impractical moment. It would be nice if there...

Oh... yes the fluids would make some sense too somehow.

So how about 3 different tabs in the production menu?

1) Classic production as it is now
2) All mined resources
3) All fluids

Or something like it. May overdo it for most casual players, but nonetheless one can never have enough statistics.

Yeah well I know they are mined and not literally produced but I guess it's a minor discrepancy we could easily live with until the devs decide to rework the production/power statistics windows, if they ever chose to do so in the first place.

At least it would be shown somewhere in the meanwhile.

Ever somebody else noticed that the amount of ore/coal being mined by all mining drills is not being charted in the production window? I actually would like to see the amount of ores/coal currently being mined to be added to the production side of the production window. Because I can't really tell i...

I'd also say stick to underground pipes and eventually use pumps every now and then if the flow becomes a trickle. I know that laying pipes over a long distance is a tedious work, but once you've done it you will never tear it down anymore and it doesn't require any further management anymore and it...

Actually it seems to be only time inefficient, saves space, prevents overproduction, and seems to have a lower overall pollution than most main-bus systems I have seen. You may be right about it... Maybe it's me just being "Copper Cables on belts? Heretic!" :lol: I'm just used to think of...

Eyebe wrote:A scalable and efficient but dynamic multi-item assembly line. [...]

Well that is easily one of the most sick things I have seen on the forums for a long time now... I like it. Even if it is somehow inefficient, especially on the copper cable/circuits part.

There are some nice layouts in there... Remembers me of the way I handle my factories lately. In my maps I currently have multiple from each other seperated roboport areas so that the robots don't fly all over the place like crazy. And within each of those seperated areas I group together similar it...

All I see in the artefact is a pixel-mish-mash that could easily resemble a space invader from the Atari 2600 game. Probably I just lack imagination.

The question that comes to my mind is... How efficient is it? I mean liquids other than water have a higher base temperature, so it wouldn't actually take as much fuel to heat them to 100°C. But in the long run, without doing the math, I think it is still better to turn any excess heavy/light oil or...

Since I'm pretty much the one who invented and popularized this idea I'm able to say that the setup from razztorback just sucks. It will eventually clog once one of the output belts is full of plates. No matter what you do, if you are using bots ore belts... you need buffer chests and set the Smart ...

GlassDeviant wrote:Such as Diesel Locomotives that actually run on Diesel instead of Coal? hehe

For example... xD

Peteza34 wrote:Here you go:
[...]

Man, that's one ugly resolution as well as quality for an image. I can't read anything of the production screen, just take wild guesses of what it might say.