haha, those comments made me chuckle. Glad I'm not the only one thinking Nilaus' style of videos is veeery random and unstructured.. (edit: for what they claim to be, that is.)
You received a follow right here. Simply because you gave us up front the answer, without making us wait forever until you got to the point. Thank you.
On the other hand when you are more proficient with wires. you can also have station disabled or otherwise limited that train will not come into the station until there is enough ore(or any other item) in the chests, so that you minimize train waiting time, and thus limit the amount of trains in the network. Now you dont need that big stackers, train throughput suddenly is alleviated and UPS in bigger bases will also thank you. Which means you than want 12 chests per wagon to load said wagon as quickly as possible.
But a train waiting at a station is a good thing because it will not further congest other trains that are moving while maintaining maximum throughout of the station. Only allow the train to dock when there is enough input/output only reduces total number of trains need to be crafted, which is insignificant.
yh I had the same, short, informative and to the point. I bought the game a week ago, and since yesterday, I have watched all his vids about it and they are really good. He has a new sub :)
This is fantastic advice! I'm new to Factorio and literally just started utilising trains. Thank you so much for making such a clear and helpful video.
Unloading brought me here, and I was satisfied. Haven't gotten stack inserters yet, but never occurred to me to use splitters like that. Definitely will be an improvement to my systems
I agree on the 1-to-6 *loader* not being very useful. It's _usually_ (*) better to just use "4-chest loaders". And where that's not enough duplicate them on _both_ sides of the train; Or just double the number of stations; Or both. But for the *unloader,* I don't think there's one _optimal_ design. What's optimal will depend _heavily_ on how many items you need (...per second. And no, knowing that rounded to full _belts_ is usually not enough). Having a *compact* design as your go-to solution will usually (*) serve you best (and again where necessary you repeat it on the other side of the wagons or in a second station). Especially since in some cases, the optimum _will_ be "build two stations/sides that can each handle half of your demand." And _especially especially_ since you'd want that go-to design to not be massively wasteful in a low-throughput station. With that in mind, I think something where the inserters are controlled by circuit logic would be the best go-to design (...for me. Obvious exceptions apply.) (*) "Usually" meaning that if you _know_ that there is a better solution for _your specific_ situation, then use it. If you aren't sure, then go with the solution that is better in most situations, rather than the one that could eek out ever so slightly more performance in a minimal number of situations.
I tend to use a simple 6 chest loader - one blue splitting into two red belts feeding into 3 chests each - for mining outposts on Nauvis. Simply because I'd rather have more miners working as long as possible once the output drops due to corners running out. This way the the mines work more constant. But that is more of a preference than anything else. I do like the unloader design a lot, gonna take that with me for sure. Mostly because I think it looks neat.
worth noting that if youre shooting for megabased scales you should probably ditch train buffers all together, they tend to be a pretty decent cause of UPS problems and dont actually do anything for throughput beyond delaying you noticing problems
Without buffers throughput is temporarily 0 while a new train is coming in. But yeah you're right: if UPS is the main concern throughput has less priority.
@@AVADIIStrategy alternatively you can use a chest limited to just 1 slot, just long enough for the next train to pull in, as the UPS cost of buffers goes up dramatically with number of storage slots, its not as good as bufferless but preferred over just full buffers, and it makes throughput problems more noticable earlier
@@ivanlagayacrus1891The more buffers the worse the lag?? Why do I hear it for the first time now?? I really do love my buffers, but my ups are also bad. How do I look it up how much performance it cost? F4 and under which point?
I use 1 train per loading station because there's no stacker required so I prefer the 6 buffer chest design and in that case the usual bottleneck is the train loading/unloading time.
Sometimes simpler is better. You can factor in time to place, space it takes, range of uses. You can usually spend more in cost and time for the near perfect alternative. But if you can work with something that is adequate and gets you moving to the next project quicker. It's a better choice.
I usually have one train servicing each outpost and only one depot station without train stacking. It takes a long time to travel to the depot and return, so by the time the train gets back, there is often a full load waiting for it. At the depot station depending on demand, I might be having many outpost trains delivering at the same or similar times, to prevent the trains backing up onto the main line, they need to be unloaded quickly. This is why I end up using six chest, sometimes on both sides of the track, to load and unload my trains, because that quick load and unload are huge for getting trains in and out quickly. I also use circuit conditions to ensure the chests fill up at load stations evenly and empty at unload stations evenly, so all load/unload inserters can work and do their job as quickly as possible when a train comes. Since circuit wires are free, the only cost for doing it this way is the extra chests and inserters and an arithmetic combinator, while barely using any splitters. It then saves space and complexity in the train network.
Personally, I just send out 4 belts per side with load balancing so that, once the chests fill up, the train is still unloaded evenly. Before I did that, I would consistently see a train parked for *FAR* too long with only a single car still not empty and the belts leading away containing barely a trickle. (Rather than turning inserters off and on--which introduced *FAR* too much delay--I simply turn the belt for each section on and off. As I'm always unloading more belts than I am sending to the main bus, this gives me completely balanced, compressed belts leaving the station.)
Im sold. Ive been using something that works well but takes up far more of a footprint and is unnecessary. I may not rip everything down but new builds and new game.. its ON!
The time taken to unload a train becomes critical if you’re going for mega base scale. 12 stack inserters per wagon is basically mandatory when you’re producing a full blue belt of blue circuits.
I think most of us would eventually come up with something similar by trial and error. But perfectionists need the most efficient system right from the start. I am glad someone is thinking about this stuff. But, I prefer trial and error because it wastes more time. Signed: Time Waster Extraordinaire.
I love that you are using my blueprint for unloading. Thanks for the math on the loader side. 6 chests is always a pain to route. What's your opinion on skipping splitters on the loader side and just letting the chests at the loader fill unevenly? Its technically inferior as chests load unevenly, but it makes the station thinner, easier to build, and still consumes a full belt (at least with 6 chests, I'll be trying it with 4 next session). Also another unload design to try: Unload both sides of the train, and merge using an underground. Top chest will unload more than Bottom, unloads unevenly but it's still 2 belts throughput, albeit with slightly longer train unload times.
This guide is still relevant and this loader/unloader still great even though i made it pre 2.0. If I come up with a simpler and more efficient design i might make a new video in the future. Skipping splitters? As long as there are no throughput issues go ahead.
I like using logic on my loading stations so that trains don't come to load unless they can be fully loaded from chests. This way more chests are better -- faster loading. On unloading I prefer to have a leeway in my chests until the next train comes. But on unloading I usually try to have backpressure, so, it's not as critical. And for more than 4 belts a train is unloaded too fast -- I'd rather have more unloading stations than trains emptied faster and running for supply much longer than they were unloading.
I perfer A 6 loader due to the speed the stackers allow. Not sure if it really matters but its the only real advantage I see. I do use the 4 unloader with spliters as it seems to be the fastest unload option. Great points tho fo sho!
I'm surprised loading/unloading on splitters works. When I first tried this sort of thing (years ago now) I found the inserters would insert after the split not before, and didn't pick up things after the split. To that end, I'd always have a belt after the splitter. It would make my load/unload builds far larger.
It only works when inserting from the side perpendicular to the direction of the belts. If you insert from "behind" the splitter it will behave like you just described.
I think space age DLC has already overridden the unloading into splitters type of setup. This along with the ability for 2 belts meeting up in the middle with an underground entity, it will only make the outer side of the underground direction to be able to continue, even though the outer side is already empty, the inner side won't move. CMIIW.
Or, hear me out, just 6 chests per wagon filled and emptied by bots. No belts. Oooor, megafactory style, just load to/unload from train directly to assemblers. No belts, no bots. Max UPS. Actually with legendary inserters and assemblers throughput is still almost maxed out. Other than that you can just have more trains and more tracks/stations.
Just curious, since from what I understand the major UPS penalty as you scale up is now (as of Factorio 2.0) the computing of collisions, especially when it comes to splitters. At LARGE scale (I never got there, but I am SO curious 😀), did you find this approach limiting in any way? On my current setup, based on MadZuri's averaged chest content (each inserter picks up only when the content of its chest is >= the average content of the chests servicing the train stop, in order to avoid emptying some chests before others) I find out that the belts end up unbalanced on the sides. Now, I get that there's no easy fix for unbalanced use, but... is there a way to fix it? 🙂 Thanks for a very good video!
Unless you want to build a massive multiple thousand spm megabase it wasn't necessary to care about UPS. I made the video for the 95% of the playerbase that doesn't care about that. If you're a megabase builder you don't need this video and you probably avoid inserting into and from chests altogether and use direct insertion. Unbalanced sides don't really matter. If you overproduce just a little bit these issues usually go away. You can also use a lane balancer or make it so that your factory consumes items evenly.
You didn't mention anything about inserter stack upgrades.imo it would have been useful to know about more early vs late game designs, I assume that late game it may matter less than early game, even if player likely uses weaker belts.
That's the point. This design works for every stage of the game. No matter what your current inserter stack size is. No need for different designs for early/late.
Not for my blueprint. The one i dislike and don't recommend has the need for stacksize shenanigans. The thing is: it seems that 2.0 changed inserter timings so i don't know if and how that one works now.
This is great till you're looking at a fully saturated green belt with max item stacking in space age... Trains feel far less efficient compared "eh it's only 400 blocks, just belt it in for a gaurenteed 14400 items per minute"
How do you deal with situations where one side of the belt is used less than the other? I always go with a design that balances the belt sides so that I never have to worry about uneven chests
In most situations it doesn't matter. When it does though you can either build a lane balancer or design the factory in a way that will draw evenly from both sides.
@@AVADIIStrategyor you can just ignore that, because the moment you need more than 0.5 of a belt you will start drawing from the other side, its just for aesthetics to lane balance (train unloading might be slower, but at the end of the day material coming through is all that matters, if you needed that train to do something else just add more trains)
Of course it's company policy never to, imply ownership in the event of a blueprint... always use the indefinite article a blueprint, never your blueprint.
Yes, something changed with 2.0. Inserter timings are different now. The 4 wagons to 6 belts design mentioned later in the video doesn't work anymore as well (the one i didn't recommend anyway). If you still want the same throughput unload into green splitters or higher quality inserters. The rest of the belts can stay blue. My unloader is still doing very well and i would still recommend it. Will do an updated video someday.
Yes, I've noticed as well. Not sure if this is a bug. Inserters have a weird slower cadence now even though the rotation degree numbers didn't change. This unloader still works very well though.
@@JKnight been a while since I've played it so I'm surprised that they changed that....funny tho, since making that comment I've done about 200 hrs hahhaha To be fair, got a broken leg and can't do much else 😅
OK, I did not like your video, but obviously, you think you're right and I should just leave. Fair. I did delete my large verbal complaint to just leave this. Bye.
bro forgot about the massive amount of space whatever this is takes up and the increase in loading and unloading speed this mindset of complicated == inferior is completely false. with that logic why use trains if you have belts, smh
Recently I found this amazing method. Using circuit network to control inserter by calculating item average of the box. Therefore, I refactoring all my blueprints nowadays. seePyou - Factorio - Train Unloading Methods ua-cam.com/video/XY873RTarlk/v-deo.html
I'm gonna call it my blueprint now.
Our blueprint ⚒️
@@hi_im_julian_kirsch The royal we.
Our factory must grow comrade @@hi_im_julian_kirsch
@@hi_im_julian_kirsch COMMUNISM
MY PRECIOUSSSSSSS!
Thank you so much! I hate it when others take 45min to explain something that can be explained in 5min.
*cough* *cough* Nilaus
@@googoogaagaayt "HOW TO BUILD PERFECT BASE ON GLEBA"
1.5 h video of him visiting for the first time gleba e trying stuff out
haha, those comments made me chuckle. Glad I'm not the only one thinking Nilaus' style of videos is veeery random and unstructured..
(edit: for what they claim to be, that is.)
You received a follow right here. Simply because you gave us up front the answer, without making us wait forever until you got to the point. Thank you.
I want add that your blueprint also looks way cooler then other unloaders.
Thank you :)
On the other hand when you are more proficient with wires. you can also have station disabled or otherwise limited that train will not come into the station until there is enough ore(or any other item) in the chests, so that you minimize train waiting time, and thus limit the amount of trains in the network. Now you dont need that big stackers, train throughput suddenly is alleviated and UPS in bigger bases will also thank you. Which means you than want 12 chests per wagon to load said wagon as quickly as possible.
But a train waiting at a station is a good thing because it will not further congest other trains that are moving while maintaining maximum throughout of the station. Only allow the train to dock when there is enough input/output only reduces total number of trains need to be crafted, which is insignificant.
I cannot conceive of a better UA-cam video at this out of the night.
yh I had the same, short, informative and to the point. I bought the game a week ago, and since yesterday, I have watched all his vids about it and they are really good.
He has a new sub :)
This was perfect! as a new player i appreciate the shorter to the point format instead of 45 min of rambling that i see other places.
That's just amazing. Thank you! The blueprint for the Nuclear Reactor without heatpipes is also excellent. Need to watch all your videos now.
This is fantastic advice! I'm new to Factorio and literally just started utilising trains. Thank you so much for making such a clear and helpful video.
Going to the point in less than 5min. I wish more of UA-cam was like this :)
Unloading brought me here, and I was satisfied. Haven't gotten stack inserters yet, but never occurred to me to use splitters like that. Definitely will be an improvement to my systems
I agree on the 1-to-6 *loader* not being very useful. It's _usually_ (*) better to just use "4-chest loaders". And where that's not enough duplicate them on _both_ sides of the train; Or just double the number of stations; Or both.
But for the *unloader,* I don't think there's one _optimal_ design. What's optimal will depend _heavily_ on how many items you need (...per second. And no, knowing that rounded to full _belts_ is usually not enough). Having a *compact* design as your go-to solution will usually (*) serve you best (and again where necessary you repeat it on the other side of the wagons or in a second station). Especially since in some cases, the optimum _will_ be "build two stations/sides that can each handle half of your demand." And _especially especially_ since you'd want that go-to design to not be massively wasteful in a low-throughput station.
With that in mind, I think something where the inserters are controlled by circuit logic would be the best go-to design (...for me. Obvious exceptions apply.)
(*) "Usually" meaning that if you _know_ that there is a better solution for _your specific_ situation, then use it. If you aren't sure, then go with the solution that is better in most situations, rather than the one that could eek out ever so slightly more performance in a minimal number of situations.
I tend to use a simple 6 chest loader - one blue splitting into two red belts feeding into 3 chests each - for mining outposts on Nauvis. Simply because I'd rather have more miners working as long as possible once the output drops due to corners running out. This way the the mines work more constant. But that is more of a preference than anything else.
I do like the unloader design a lot, gonna take that with me for sure. Mostly because I think it looks neat.
I had to watch it 3 times, 2 times I got distracted by the doggo haha, he sits there so sweet and nice.
If you set splitters output priority to side, closest to inserter, this would give even more performance.
worth noting that if youre shooting for megabased scales you should probably ditch train buffers all together, they tend to be a pretty decent cause of UPS problems and dont actually do anything for throughput beyond delaying you noticing problems
Without buffers throughput is temporarily 0 while a new train is coming in.
But yeah you're right: if UPS is the main concern throughput has less priority.
@@AVADIIStrategy alternatively you can use a chest limited to just 1 slot, just long enough for the next train to pull in, as the UPS cost of buffers goes up dramatically with number of storage slots, its not as good as bufferless but preferred over just full buffers, and it makes throughput problems more noticable earlier
Or use cursed wagon to wagon unloading. Better than unloading into ovens directly, I guess.
@@mytiliss682if it works - it is not cursed 😂
@@ivanlagayacrus1891The more buffers the worse the lag?? Why do I hear it for the first time now?? I really do love my buffers, but my ups are also bad. How do I look it up how much performance it cost? F4 and under which point?
I use 1 train per loading station because there's no stacker required so I prefer the 6 buffer chest design and in that case the usual bottleneck is the train loading/unloading time.
Sometimes simpler is better. You can factor in time to place, space it takes, range of uses.
You can usually spend more in cost and time for the near perfect alternative. But if you can work with something that is adequate and gets you moving to the next project quicker. It's a better choice.
I usually have one train servicing each outpost and only one depot station without train stacking. It takes a long time to travel to the depot and return, so by the time the train gets back, there is often a full load waiting for it. At the depot station depending on demand, I might be having many outpost trains delivering at the same or similar times, to prevent the trains backing up onto the main line, they need to be unloaded quickly. This is why I end up using six chest, sometimes on both sides of the track, to load and unload my trains, because that quick load and unload are huge for getting trains in and out quickly. I also use circuit conditions to ensure the chests fill up at load stations evenly and empty at unload stations evenly, so all load/unload inserters can work and do their job as quickly as possible when a train comes. Since circuit wires are free, the only cost for doing it this way is the extra chests and inserters and an arithmetic combinator, while barely using any splitters. It then saves space and complexity in the train network.
Personally, I just send out 4 belts per side with load balancing so that, once the chests fill up, the train is still unloaded evenly. Before I did that, I would consistently see a train parked for *FAR* too long with only a single car still not empty and the belts leading away containing barely a trickle. (Rather than turning inserters off and on--which introduced *FAR* too much delay--I simply turn the belt for each section on and off. As I'm always unloading more belts than I am sending to the main bus, this gives me completely balanced, compressed belts leaving the station.)
came for learning a little more about trains, the great enigma, stayed for the doggo as to not disappoint them.
Fantastisch, danke. Mit genug Zeit um rumprobieren, hätte man vielleicht darauf kommen können. Aber: Ain't nobody got time for that...
That was the video I needed a few months ago, but didn't find the answer till now, thank you.
Thanks for the Training.
Wow. I’ve never thought about dropping items onto a splitter to essentially double the unload rate. That’s crazy.
Im sold. Ive been using something that works well but takes up far more of a footprint and is unnecessary. I may not rip everything down but new builds and new game.. its ON!
Nice idea to showcase gaps in the belt throughput with the sulphur splitter.
Thanks! 👍
Smart and simple. I'm going to use this when I start playing again!!
The time taken to unload a train becomes critical if you’re going for mega base scale. 12 stack inserters per wagon is basically mandatory when you’re producing a full blue belt of blue circuits.
subbed. that was a 4 minute video packed full with exactly the content I wanted. awesome video.
Beautiful dog!
Very much appreciated, says Floki.
I think most of us would eventually come up with something similar by trial and error. But perfectionists need the most efficient system right from the start. I am glad someone is thinking about this stuff. But, I prefer trial and error because it wastes more time.
Signed: Time Waster Extraordinaire.
Well I'm convinced, will be using this from now on. Earned a Sub 👍
I love that you are using my blueprint for unloading.
Thanks for the math on the loader side. 6 chests is always a pain to route.
What's your opinion on skipping splitters on the loader side and just letting the chests at the loader fill unevenly?
Its technically inferior as chests load unevenly, but it makes the station thinner, easier to build, and still consumes a full belt (at least with 6 chests, I'll be trying it with 4 next session).
Also another unload design to try: Unload both sides of the train, and merge using an underground. Top chest will unload more than Bottom, unloads unevenly but it's still 2 belts throughput, albeit with slightly longer train unload times.
This guide is still relevant and this loader/unloader still great even though i made it pre 2.0.
If I come up with a simpler and more efficient design i might make a new video in the future.
Skipping splitters? As long as there are no throughput issues go ahead.
I like using logic on my loading stations so that trains don't come to load unless they can be fully loaded from chests. This way more chests are better -- faster loading. On unloading I prefer to have a leeway in my chests until the next train comes. But on unloading I usually try to have backpressure, so, it's not as critical. And for more than 4 belts a train is unloaded too fast -- I'd rather have more unloading stations than trains emptied faster and running for supply much longer than they were unloading.
I perfer A 6 loader due to the speed the stackers allow. Not sure if it really matters but its the only real advantage I see. I do use the 4 unloader with spliters as it seems to be the fastest unload option. Great points tho fo sho!
Gorgeous dog!
Thank you for the guide
finally I can stop using Nilaus' overcomplicated midwit blueprints, thank you
Floki is looking like smart one
love your dog ❤️
The dlc will probably change a lot about this, no? Faster belts and quality loaders?
Probably. It might still be the way to go until late game.
I'm surprised loading/unloading on splitters works. When I first tried this sort of thing (years ago now) I found the inserters would insert after the split not before, and didn't pick up things after the split. To that end, I'd always have a belt after the splitter. It would make my load/unload builds far larger.
It only works when inserting from the side perpendicular to the direction of the belts.
If you insert from "behind" the splitter it will behave like you just described.
Lovely video
“Thus inferior” ❤
Я ставлю 6 сундуков и настраиваю чтобы поезд отправлялся по полному заполнению поезда и сундуков, так больше времени выпить водки
I think space age DLC has already overridden the unloading into splitters type of setup. This along with the ability for 2 belts meeting up in the middle with an underground entity, it will only make the outer side of the underground direction to be able to continue, even though the outer side is already empty, the inner side won't move. CMIIW.
Lol i didn’t know that, good job!!
Thanks for the video
where can i find your blue prints ?
Or, hear me out, just 6 chests per wagon filled and emptied by bots. No belts.
Oooor, megafactory style, just load to/unload from train directly to assemblers. No belts, no bots. Max UPS.
Actually with legendary inserters and assemblers throughput is still almost maxed out. Other than that you can just have more trains and more tracks/stations.
Just curious, since from what I understand the major UPS penalty as you scale up is now (as of Factorio 2.0) the computing of collisions, especially when it comes to splitters. At LARGE scale (I never got there, but I am SO curious 😀), did you find this approach limiting in any way?
On my current setup, based on MadZuri's averaged chest content (each inserter picks up only when the content of its chest is >= the average content of the chests servicing the train stop, in order to avoid emptying some chests before others) I find out that the belts end up unbalanced on the sides. Now, I get that there's no easy fix for unbalanced use, but... is there a way to fix it? 🙂
Thanks for a very good video!
Unless you want to build a massive multiple thousand spm megabase it wasn't necessary to care about UPS. I made the video for the 95% of the playerbase that doesn't care about that. If you're a megabase builder you don't need this video and you probably avoid inserting into and from chests altogether and use direct insertion.
Unbalanced sides don't really matter. If you overproduce just a little bit these issues usually go away.
You can also use a lane balancer or make it so that your factory consumes items evenly.
@@AVADIIStrategy Vielen Dank!
You didn't mention anything about inserter stack upgrades.imo it would have been useful to know about more early vs late game designs, I assume that late game it may matter less than early game, even if player likely uses weaker belts.
That's the point. This design works for every stage of the game. No matter what your current inserter stack size is. No need for different designs for early/late.
Excellent, thanks!
So you said that we have to override some of the inserter stack sizes. Is it some specific number or we have to figure it out experimentally?
Not for my blueprint. The one i dislike and don't recommend has the need for stacksize shenanigans.
The thing is: it seems that 2.0 changed inserter timings so i don't know if and how that one works now.
This is great till you're looking at a fully saturated green belt with max item stacking in space age... Trains feel far less efficient compared "eh it's only 400 blocks, just belt it in for a gaurenteed 14400 items per minute"
but what if my belts are green? :D
Awesome! I used to use 6 storage chests per wagon but with your setup 4 should work better. It will save me a good amount of materials.
How do you deal with situations where one side of the belt is used less than the other? I always go with a design that balances the belt sides so that I never have to worry about uneven chests
In most situations it doesn't matter. When it does though you can either build a lane balancer or design the factory in a way that will draw evenly from both sides.
@@AVADIIStrategyor you can just ignore that, because the moment you need more than 0.5 of a belt you will start drawing from the other side, its just for aesthetics to lane balance (train unloading might be slower, but at the end of the day material coming through is all that matters, if you needed that train to do something else just add more trains)
How did you know I wanted to know the dog breed? :D This dog has character
I also have a shiba poodle mix. Except mine is grey and white!
It is possible to load and unload two full blue belts per train side, so four blue belts per wagon. However, it is unbalanced
Flooooki ❤
3 weeks later: low density structure stacks for 50
anyways thanks for the tip that I should insert into splitters
Glad to help! I like the stack size change for LDS.
Me running 1 belt per wagon through a balancer with no additional splitters and chest balancing circuited inserters.
Of course it's company policy never to, imply ownership in the event of a blueprint... always use the indefinite article a blueprint, never your blueprint.
Я использую логику в манипуляторах, которая распределяет груз равномерно между буферными сундуками.
The Most Important thing allways: KISS (keep it simple stupid). You can make it more complicated by choice but normaly only what is realy needet.
Yeah, im too new to this game for this. Ill be back in 300 hours game time.
the 8 to 6 doesnt seem to be fully saturated when i try this
Yes, something changed with 2.0. Inserter timings are different now. The 4 wagons to 6 belts design mentioned later in the video doesn't work anymore as well (the one i didn't recommend anyway).
If you still want the same throughput unload into green splitters or higher quality inserters. The rest of the belts can stay blue.
My unloader is still doing very well and i would still recommend it. Will do an updated video someday.
@ yeah I think I’m going to replace my stations with your design
It's mine now.
So who's blueprint is it then? 🤔
code for the blueprint?
Wow that's good ro know
Good explanation, but what’s about the freaking dog?!
What about him? He wanted to be in the video apparently :D
Looks like in 2.0 this cannot saturate blue+red anymore
Yes, I've noticed as well. Not sure if this is a bug.
Inserters have a weird slower cadence now even though the rotation degree numbers didn't change.
This unloader still works very well though.
where is blueprint link?
@0:35 The point of this video is: it's so simple that you don't need one
@@AVADIIStrategy i eventually copied yeah thanks anyway
It is not your blueprint... But it is out blueprint...
yoink
Changes in 2.0 means that this isn't up to date anymore :(
Is that actually true?
@@Tqoratsos666 yh
@@JKnight been a while since I've played it so I'm surprised that they changed that....funny tho, since making that comment I've done about 200 hrs hahhaha
To be fair, got a broken leg and can't do much else 😅
OK, I did not like your video, but obviously, you think you're right and I should just leave. Fair. I did delete my large verbal complaint to just leave this. Bye.
bro forgot about the massive amount of space whatever this is takes up and the increase in loading and unloading speed
this mindset of complicated == inferior is completely false. with that logic why use trains if you have belts, smh
Recently I found this amazing method. Using circuit network to control inserter by calculating item average of the box. Therefore, I refactoring all my blueprints nowadays.
seePyou - Factorio - Train Unloading Methods
ua-cam.com/video/XY873RTarlk/v-deo.html
0:48
tbh, that was the most important part of the video. The rest is just filler.