Friday Facts #128 - Back down to earth

[xad001x0w]

Apologies if this has already been suggested but how about the loaders being 1x2 as in the FFF gif. But they hold a buffer of 1x full stack of items.

They could work in a sort of flip-flop mode by where they fill their buffer to maximum then when it's full empty it out the other side.

During the "input cycle" they output nothing and during the "output cycle" they take no input. This would serve to balance them a bit against inserters and would become less useful if their inputs become starved, this making them more of an end game item.

It is also similar to how real world dispensers work in factories. They are filled to a prescribed weight then dump their load onto the line below.

You could do enhanced versions that maybe have filters, wire connections or bigger internal buffers.

[Mccharls]

One word - Overpowered!

Still, it would be nice to have around, but it have to be VERY VERY VERY expensive - Maybe the cost should be 1/10 of the rocket silo..

IMO - i think there should be more focus to the endgame than making new "inserters" and stuff

[Ramlock]

I'm voting for it only work with chests (not trains).

Trains can already be loaded pretty fast with 6-7 fast inserters working between chests and the train, and it looks A LOT nicer and more realistic than an inserter would. But as for chests, sure, I don't see why not, as long as their cost fit their gain.

--Edit--

PS: If you have an idea for a new item, you should of course add it. If some people don't like it, they should just not use it! In a worst-case scenario, make it optional to have "op items" on map creation.

[Bodega]

I agree with almost everyone else. The loader seems way too OP. It's not really needed and will take away from some of the creativity of figuring out solutions.

If it has to be added, then I would want it to be very difficult to obtain to avoid abuse.

I know this has all been said before, but I wanted to give my "vote" to not add it.\
Thanks for an incredible game and for consulting with your playerbase, these types of interactions are what sets successful games apart from games the wither and die because stubborn devs try to make bad ideas fit into their games. (Not saying the loader is a bad idea, it just doesn't seem to fit the scope/vision of the game).

[ThaChillera]

I'm voting for it only work with chests (not trains).

Trains can already be loaded pretty fast with 6-7 fast inserters working between chests and the train, and it looks A LOT nicer and more realistic than an inserter would. But as for chests, sure, I don't see why not, as long as their cost fit their gain.

--Edit--

PS: If you have an idea for a new item, you should of course add it. If some people don't like it, they should just not use it! In a worst-case scenario, make it optional to have "op items" on map creation.

I'm the other way round, I'm voting It only works with trains, not chests/machines etc. This makes train loading/unloading a lot easier, whilst not killing the belt optimisation part of this game. Make it expensive and not have a filter, so you ave to choose between smart inserters or this thing. that would work.

Also, adding items for the sake of adding items is a horrible idea, but I'm sure the devs already know this.

[Splitframe]

I would suggest to not make the Loader a part of the Belt system, but split it into 2 kind of chests:

The Sink Chest and the Dispenser Chest.

They both have the volume of a steel chest but the sink chest can only accept items via belt
and the dispenser chest can only dispense items onto a belt.

These chests are also 2x1 with a chest part and a sink/dispenser part.

So if you want to benefit from smart chests you have to transfer it first via inserter.

Just an idea.

[Rythe]

I'd say no to loaders. That (un)loader idea is a step in the right direction if it goes through, but I don't actually like it now that I've thought about it. Seems like a very special case fix to a few late game issues that crop up.

Raw ore/material hoppers for trains would be the thing, tho'. Have a special 2x2 building that connects to the side of rails like a station/signal and dumps raw materials from internal storage into the hopper rail cars. Have a second special 2x4 rail building that goes across, but under a rail segment kinda like concrete walls to quick unload the bottom discharge rail cars. So said rail cars would be able to dump into two separate ones each. And since this 2x4 building will extend a space beyond the rails, inserters can pull from them as normal. A lot more work making the additional assets, but I think it'd enhance the game quite a bit to see 'em in action. These two rail buildings + car would remove a lot of redundant chests and inserters from train stations without oversimplifying things while also speeding up materiel transfer to/from trains, which is a lot of what seems to be the goals here.

This could be a set of late-middle game tech, train-related items that's broadly useful, rather than a special case, late-game fix that half the community doesn't want and/or demands be expensive in weird ways for balance.

So I'd say leave the (un)loader to the modders and give everyone the improved handling of raw materials over railways.

More work, but much better results that fit the current feel of the game.

[kel]

Here is a series of tables i made to show the how loaders work in comparison to Fast insterter based train unloaders (Items Per Second is for each insterter and ins stands for Fast insterter)

Code: Select all

Reference examples:
====================================================================================
= Stacksize bonus = Items Per Second = time to unload =           notes            =
====================================================================================
=    None (1x)    =      2.2 IPS     =     56.8s      = the mode value of 15 tests =
====================================================================================
= IISSB 1 (2x)    =      4.4 IPS     =     28.4s      =    Produced by a formula   =
====================================================================================
= IISSB 2 (3x)    =      6.6 IPS     =     18.9s      =    Produced by a formula   =
====================================================================================
=       n         =      2.2n IPS    =   1500/26.4n   =   Formula used for table   =
====================================================================================

12 Fast insterters vs 1 unloader:
==============================================================================================
= Stacksize bonus = Items Per Second = time to unload =                 notes                =
==============================================================================================
=      0.63x      =      1.38 IPS    =      90s       = Basic unloader @ 16.66 IPS (7.5 ins) =
==============================================================================================
=      1.25x      =      2.25 IPS    =      45s       = Fast unloader @ 33.3 IPS (15 ins)    =
==============================================================================================
=      1.89x      =      4.15 IPS    =      30s       = Express unloader @ 50 IPS (22 ins)   =
==============================================================================================

12 Fast insterters vs 6 unloaders (unloaders require Lubricant scenario):
==============================================================================================
= Stacksize bonus = Items Per Second = time to unload =                 notes                =
==============================================================================================
=      3.78x      =      8.31 IPS    =      15s       = Basic unloaders @ 100 IPS (45 ins)   =
==============================================================================================
=       7.5x      =      16.5 IPS    =     7.5s       = Fast unloaders @ 200 IPS (90 ins)    = 
==============================================================================================
=     11.34x      =     24.94 IPS    =       5s       = Express unloaders @ 300 IPS (136 ins)=
==============================================================================================

12 Fast insterters vs 12 unloaders (unloaders have no effiency-impeding requirements):
==============================================================================================
= Stacksize bonus = Items Per Second = time to unload =                 notes                =
==============================================================================================
=      7.5x       =     16.66 IPS    =     7.5s       = Basic unloaders @ 200 IPS (90 ins)   =
==============================================================================================
=    15.15x       =     33.33 IPS    =    3.75s       = Fast unloaders @ 400 IPS (181 ins)   =
==============================================================================================
=    22.72x       =        50 IPS    =     2.5s       = Express unloaders @ 600 IPS (272 ins)=
==============================================================================================

Made by Kel
2016-03-05

[RodneyMckay]

I'm thinking the same like Rythe , but I think the hopper waggon unload / load machinery should be the same length as the hopper waggon itself. It could be two tiles wider than the rail, and one ore two belts coming out of it. The hopper waggon could carry only raw materials like Ores / Coal. The loader could work and look like in this post:

Super keen on the loader, but only for smart chests (make it high tier) and unloading wagons. Current train stations work, but look reeeeealy derpy IMO.

Just had another thought - perhaps a train station addon which is a specialised loading or unloading platform which has it's own storage, and can feed/be fed like a loader? Something along these lines:

The unloader could even turn the waggon upside down for unloading - I think these would look really nice - into a undersurface bunker. Both buildings having a buffer storage of 1 -1,5 times a full waggon cargo so that if someone want's to have more buffer will stick with the inserter / chest Method. Both buildings will also need power in order to work - maybe equivalent to 8 blue inserters, with high cost on research and build (e.g. 8 el. engines, 10 belts, 50 steel, 25 red circuits... for the slowest yellow one filling two yellow belts per side).

I think these wouldn't be op because of raughly the same throughput (two full compressed belts per side and waggon) - maybe slightly higher than with inserters, could make stations north-south orianted with the same throughput like east-west ones, mayby it even could be build on diagonal railroads. It even could be the same entity like the building for loading and unloading fluids - with tanker waggons. These would give an alternative way of loading / unloading, and I like it if you could build sth. in different ways.

Instead of the loader mentioned in this FF there could be an double inserter, laying simultaneously on both side of the belt but with the same or lower speed than a normal inserter.

What I would love to see in the game:

• 1. 90 degree inserters - even if thera are lot of mods with these
  2. tanker waggon with loader/unloader station
  3. hopper waggon with loader/unloader station
  4. robots charge pathfinding - first calculate path to destination (line), if too long to reach with charge find nearest port alongside the path for charging
  5. automated raillayer / FARL

[Peteza34]

I think as is the loader is overpowered. It will make a lot of complex builds obsolete and it will oversimplify things. The biggest appeal of this game for me is the complexity of it.

Perhaps just limit it to a "loader" without the ability to unload. Realistically, I can imagine dumping a bunch of crap into a chest all at once. But then dumping stuff out of a chest perfectly onto a belt? Not so much.

I would also suggest limiting it to containers and not assembly machines, smelters, etc.

</my2cents>

[DerivePi]

For the technology tree - I'd like to see the connecting lines be color coded to what science beakers are needed. Maybe even apply a thickness scale so that the science requirement can be seen at a glance.

[Oxyd]

For the technology tree - I'd like to see the connecting lines be color coded to what science beakers are needed. Maybe even apply a thickness scale so that the science requirement can be seen at a glance.

Colour-coding the edges based on science packs required is something I'd never think of, that sounds like an interesting idea, thanks.

Only issue is that it's a bit unclear how that should work with mods that add new kinds of science packs, like Bob's mods do.

[Ojelle]

For the technology tree - I'd like to see the connecting lines be color coded to what science beakers are needed. Maybe even apply a thickness scale so that the science requirement can be seen at a glance.

Colour-coding the edges based on science packs required is something I'd never think of, that sounds like an interesting idea, thanks.

Only issue is that it's a bit unclear how that should work with mods that add new kinds of science packs, like Bob's mods do.

You could add the science icons (relatively small) on the lines? (with a toggle, default off?) quadrouple collor line is a bit to much I think, and for bobs that would be over the top.
Really not large, so its not intrusive.

[Oxyd]

For the technology tree - I'd like to see the connecting lines be color coded to what science beakers are needed. Maybe even apply a thickness scale so that the science requirement can be seen at a glance.

Colour-coding the edges based on science packs required is something I'd never think of, that sounds like an interesting idea, thanks.

Only issue is that it's a bit unclear how that should work with mods that add new kinds of science packs, like Bob's mods do.

You could add the science icons (relatively small) on the lines? (with a toggle, default off?) quadrouple collor line is a bit to much I think, and for bobs that would be over the top.
Really not large, so its not intrusive.

There isn't enough space, unless by “relatively small” you mean like 3x3 pixels. Or unless we spread the entire thing apart by a ridiculous amount.

[torham]

For the technology tree - I'd like to see the connecting lines be color coded to what science beakers are needed. Maybe even apply a thickness scale so that the science requirement can be seen at a glance.

Colour-coding the edges based on science packs required is something I'd never think of, that sounds like an interesting idea, thanks.

Only issue is that it's a bit unclear how that should work with mods that add new kinds of science packs, like Bob's mods do.

you could program it so that the game would pull the border color from a small jpeg with a color palette. If anyone was modding a new science pack, they would just have to include a new palette picture, and define the colors...

EDIT: or even just have the color be definable by 3 RGB numbers somewhere in the files...

[Dark_star]

First, I wish to congratulate you and the team on a very successful launch. All of you have done a superb work in designing, developing and managing the factorio project.
Thank you
The loader idea seems to be a simpler solution with using cost to balance impact, a good addition. I always had a problem with bots moving masses of material and that belts/trains needed a little improvement.

[Req]

Loader No, to overpowered, if implemented, it need to have some sort of drawback making it more balanced to loaders. For example it's faster but consume whatever item it's unloading as well.

Would like to see multi player add-on for steam where you can invite our steam friends, shouldn't be too hard since multi player already exist in game.

[bruteman]

Its funny the Dev of fortresscraft has been ranting about factorio on his stream all week and now claims the "unloader" ideal is stolen from him

[n7m6e7]

May i suggest you divide the loader into 2 parts?

Loader: meant to load chests. Looks like an elevated belt, with an oscillating funnel, as if it were dispensing into separate compartments of the container. 2x1?

Pros:
Loads containers as fast as the belt supplies them.

Cons:
Can ONLY pull from a belt leading INTO it
Can ONLY dispense into containers (chests and trains)

Unloader:Meant to quickly unload containers Looks like a hopper with a drum that sports staggered holes, to dispense objects left-right-left-right. 2x1?

Pros:
Unloads containers faster than inserters (maybe the speed of a fast inserter x2? but speed isnt dependent on the belt)
Dispenses onto BOTH sides of a belt

Cons:
Can ONLY pull from containers
Can ONLY dispense onto a belt

using both of these would simplify and speed up train stops. loaders could be used separately for better storage systems.

[quinor]

Loaders are awesome. It feels hugely OP but that's something we've been definitely missing. If they'd be comparable (or rather much higher) in price to blue splitters I think the balance should be totally OK. What about chest-to-chest operation mode?

They should be done in three tiers following the transport belts theme, and I'd make them not use electricity, just to follow the rule.

Usecases I see so far:
1) train stops (how you build those now is hillarious)
2) belt balancers
3) storage buffers

Any more?