They are fast and easy at the beginning, if you do not care about realism or role game things, but you will need plan B when your unload station have to sustain 8 blue belts. Even 4 will be more problematic than advantageous compared to longer trains. Can't see any disadvantages really. 1-1 trains ...

Everyone should just try to use four 1-1 trains instead of one 1-4 (or 2-4, or 1-4-1, etc.).
It's sooo convenient!
Don't see any reasons to not use them now. Not a one reason.

You should try, really.

Used to build 1-2 trains. Dropped all alternatives after having tried 1-1 trains. They are simple, fast, stations are small, outposts are small as well and can't saturate big trains anyway. And you can use more trains and run them often when it's not enough. And more trains is always better, right? ...

... It seems to me, therefore, that the "standard" concept of 4x iron, 4x copper, 4x GC bus is really unbalanced. It seems to me that there is a pattern that a lot of the community simply does out of habit. This: ... It seems to me that there is a pattern that a lot of the community simpl...

With the new recipes, 108 items need to be manually crafted, only 3 item buffer left if you make a mistake I don't really understand why so tight a condition is. :( Be it a margin of 50 items -- will it be not a LazyBastard condition anymore? It's so easy to hand-craft by mistake. When you do a laz...

If you want to know anything about forests, you should know that a newly planted forest takes quite a few years even in a tropical biome to grow big trees, ... If you want to know anything about the real world (and not the game) you should know that you cannot (in the real world) keep 50 locomotive...

humroben wrote:With the new recipes, 108 items need to be manually crafted, only 3 item buffer left if you make a mistake

I don't really understand why so tight a condition is.
Be it a margin of 50 items -- will it be not a LazyBastard condition anymore?
It's so easy to hand-craft by mistake.

Well in my opinion the only downside of lasers is, the passive energy consumption. Lower the need will change the game balance as fas as i see it. In addition i don't see the benefit for vanilla Gameplay. What would this add? This will add one more useful way to spend science packs. And will make t...

Yoyobuae wrote:There is. It's called Power Switch.

And it works on beacons too (they don't technically idle).

Very funny.
So, you can use a power switch, if you wish. And some more workarounds as well.
Do you srsly think one more way will spoil the game?

It would be really nice to have a tech (might be expensive) to decrease "idle energy consumption" of all things (especially lasers, roboports) for like -90% (or even -99% on the 10-th level of tech). And it won't make catastrophic impact on the game too. And it's just IDLE consumption anyw...

Shortly (to make less mistakes in English):
Let me put a marker on the map and have a direction indicator to that marker outside of the map.

Idea/Suggestion:
Let me put a marker on the map and have a direction indicator to that marker outside of the map.

If one station starts holding up the train because the buffer chests are unbalanced then less time remains for the other stations if the same frequency is to be kept. Note: the station blocking the train will not be the one running dry, which is where your argument breaks. You didn't get my argumen...

I don't know what you think you have shown but clearly when the belt consumes items somewhat slowly only the first chest will empty. Then when the train comes in it takes 6 times as longs to unload as with balanced chests. It has been said a few times already. I have nothing to do but repeat it, tr...

Except you don't have the same unloading time. and we are back at the beginning, going round in circles. I've shown that unloading time is the same. Because it is limited not by free space in the chests, but by free space on the belt. And the belt is either free or backed up. In a case the belt is ...

mrvn wrote:I think the most important part is to have a faster belt at the inserters.

Or you might just ignore all that circuitry and balancing and use cheap red belts. And have fully compressed belt of ore and the same train unloading time.

What might also help is to connect the inserters to the belts after where the inserters drop things. Set the belts to report and hold the item count and the inserters to work when item count == 0. This still relies even more on the faster belts for compacting the gaps away but I found this prevents...

huliosh wrote:Splitter in your case isn't necessary.

Splitter helps a lot to fill gaps in the lanes from another belt. Belt before splitter works as a small buffer and one belt fills gaps in another belt thanks to the splitter.

Splitter helps to balance lanes on the belt if the consumption is unbalanced too.

BTW they don't work synchronously. %)
Somebody should check if they work evenly.

P.S. Yes, seems they are working evenly. Unload will be balanced.

P.P.S Still chests are uloaded not evenly... somehow. Much more evenly than without circuits, but still quite unevenly.

...full belts. Easily done if you have a faster belt type at the buffer chests for a few tiles. Nope. Just checked it. It's NOT because of belts speed. It's because inserters wait for each other, synchronously load their contents and synchronously unload. Thus there is a moment when noone inserter ...