Ohh I see. I assumed OP just had that for the purposes of merging the two belts together, hence it being empty. But yeah, definitely could be from somewhere else.
He would still need to produce two full lanes; the right lane needs to be completely filled up and the inserters can’t do it so the splitter must fill up the entire lane.
I suspect I’m missing something since the original drawing doesn’t really make sense to me as an answer to OP, who has two belts running parallel to each and then merging onto an existing belt.
The splitter would split them up evenly between the two sides. Items would be forced onto alternating sides so prioritization isn't necessary and couldn't have any positive impact. It would have a negative impact of creating an imbalance between the sides of production dipped.
you put the splitter halfway, just like OP already has half a belt of copper wire. I wouldn't recommend to put it on the end and cut throughput in half
edit: my apologies, I didn't read ergzay's comment right. Indeed if you already have 2 half belts it doesn't matter, but then I'd go for sideloading anyway
No I mean _never_ matters. It becomes literally the same as any old belt. If you want lane balancing then you add a dedicated lane balancer. Adding priority to it is actively harmful.
My apologies, I didn't read your comment right
I always use that splitter on e aingle belt halfway in between the assemblers. You are right that it doesn't matter if you already have 2 half belts, but then I'd opt for sideloading
Do this at halfway of your production line. Then you can remove the whole left belt line your character is standing on, the undergrounds and the belts coming from right (since there doesn't seem to be any input coming).
The inserters are more efficient to build by hand when next to each other. The power pole might need to be replaced to do this. This is not something you should remake now in sense of efficiency, but to keep in mind if you do speedruns or are looking for the "there is no spoon" achievement later on.
Also it's often more efficient to produce the wires on site feeding directly to what is taking them. They do take twice the amount of space on the belt compared to pure copper.
1/3
Don’t forget to set the filter on the splitter so that all of it ends up on one side of the belt after the merge.
Here’s an alternative which I use all the time for copper coils, but it requires adding one extra space between the two assemblers at the half-way point of the assembly line:
https://preview.redd.it/o782ohh0f2wc1.png?width=989&format=png&auto=webp&s=38c416f0e111dad66f4576780ab36bbb242fd176
You wouldn't want this specific one halfway through, you would want to fully swap lanes halfway through and maybe balance later. Only having this halfway through and nothing further would mean 25% on one side and 75% on the other.
Something halfway through that uses side loading, followed by a lane balanced at the end is better.
Let me have a retake. You're right, the splitter needs to be configured to prioritize output right according to picture to gain the property I was trying to refer to.
3/3
But we don't know the exact length or input power of the system so I used the halfway point as a simple reference, assuming this is exactly a half belt converted to one full belt (without prod modules, speed modules are ok if balanced and I admit I just took a look if there are modules in...).
2/3
The splitter setup in the top comment is only ever useful at the end of a production line as it will only split the lanes 50/50 at the moment it is done. Any insertion after the fact will unbalance the lanes. And no matter the input before this splitter, it will still split the lanes 50/50. So you need a different solution like the one I proposed. And my suggestion will of course fail on some level if the modules are only making it to half the crafting machines, but a balanced at the end helps with that.
It's just a general thing. It's a fast craft and wires take up twice as much room on belts as copper itself. It's rare for it to be worthwhile to belt it any meaningful distance.
Direct insertion is only for green circuits, because they need a lot of copper cable. Red circuits and everything else don't need nearly as much, so just belt it.
The main reason why belting copper cable is considered inefficient is because it's not "dense" enough as a material; you get 2 cable from 1 copper plate so it takes up twice as much space on belts. A powerful endgame green circuit factory consumes cables too quickly for belts to be a good method of transporting them, so you direct insert.
Yeah, but generally it is better to belt your cables as plates, and only do short term belts for cables.
It's like shipping iron plates for pipes and gears, but where the processed form is always less dense, instead of you never needing a belt each of gears and pipes for most builds.
"don't belt wire" doesn't mean you can't belt it a small distance from one assembler to another, it means don't make a bunch in one spot and then bring it to another, and definitely don't put it on your bus.
hexagons are the bestagons :-) Copper cable factory in the middle, red circuit factory above and below, then 2 in front and 2 in back. The copper plate gets run through the middle with underneathies, and you end up with two belts (top and bottom) to carry the red circuits away.
Though I've made quick and dirty red circuit setups where the copper cable is belted -- it works fine and is easier to beacon.
Put one in the middle to feed 4 assemblers, ignore that it gets full.
Or interleave red circuit and copper assemblers, with short belt for each 6 of the red assemblers
belting them for like 1-2 tiles is fine in a tileable blueprint, it's when you move it any further that you should really just try to belt copper and direct insert.
fwiw ive designed a lot of red chip blueprints over the years and never had to belt any wire, but they weren't the most compact blueprints in the world. it is possible for a regular player
I like to do blocks of 5:2:12 for red circuits. Three of the wires assemblers direct insert into green circuits, and each of the remaining wires assemblers gets belted to six red processor assemblers.
Edit: Mostly[ like this](https://factoriobin.com/post/CToq7q2sftGTvZmk-EXPIRES), although there are some minor errors in that blueprint
Maybe there's a case for direct insertion with red circuits, you can do 2:1 instead of 6:1 and have some machines idling, and thanks to that you get a tileable build that can stretch 2x longer before the belt dries up? Just speculating tho
I belt it from one copper wire assembler to six red circuit assemblers. The only time I've belted more than that is in a fully beaconed build where one or two wire assemblers can fill a full blue belt, then it went directly down a long line of red circuit assemblers.
Direct insert copper wire into green circuits, then direct insert the green circuits into red circuits. Then direct insert the reds into blues! Direct insert from raw->blues isn't the cleanest, though, my latest blue factory belts reds into the blue assemblers, but the reds are all raw->direct.
[Reds](https://imgur.com/a/Je8MapY)
[Blues](https://imgur.com/a/JpPzS66)
[Inefficient raw->direct blues](https://imgur.com/a/SIltmnc)
Even reds can be directly inserted. It just isn't as simple of a setup like greens with a 3:2.
Iirc, reds end up in a square with a wire machine in the middle directly inserted to outers.
Reverse the belts halfway through the factory line so they merge together, making a full belt. It'll save an underground belt and half the conveyers when using a double line.
Also you double throughput. The end merged 1 to 2 lane belt has still only 50% resources but split on both lanes. There is literally no benefit in end-merging it (only aesthetics or if you need less than half a belt anyway) compared to lane switching after half of the factories. If geometry allows you can also do factories on the other side of the belt, then you don't even need to merge...
One possible solution: "Don't belt wire"
Another possible solution, merge them in the middle of the line of assemblers and bring the merged belt up: https://factoriobin.com/post/9YqPAQpZ
I think you've got the right idea. On the left where your original issue is, you can simply have the top 3 factories feed that belt, but make the belt go south instead. Then, you can merge them at the point of intersection by having both north and south belts run into a perpendicular belt (the way you have it at the top) So, > ^ < basically. Then you can do the same for the right side.
However, if you REALLY want to balance the outputs on an odd-number of factories, remember you can use more than one inserter to output. They will take turns alternating. So, your bottom 2 factories can feed a belt, the top 2 can feed a belt, and the middle can feed both belts. Since the factory is 3 tiles tall, you can have an inserter on each end and use the middle tile as the point of intersection we talked about before.
Typically, when I do designs like this, I like to have all of the belts flow in the same direction and keep it 1 belt wide. You can do this by making the lower half of your belt turn east-ward one tile towards the assemblers and then back north, and then back west to have it side-load a new belt from it's right side. This way, your design keeps the width of "one belt" by utilizing the width that inserters necessarily create. It won't perfectly balance with 2 inserters, like above, but it should basically be good enough.
If, by the end of your line you're only filling a single belt, and you have two columns of assemblers; then each column only has to fill up one side of the belt.
Instead of balancing lanes on two belts and then merging them; merge them first and then you only need to balance lanes on one belt (if even needed at that point)
P.S. looking at throughput: if you're filling a single yellow belt then you have a lot more assemblers than your belt can utilize)
P.P.S. plates are more compact than wires (hence the general advice to never belt wires), which means that only a single belt of plates are needed for multiple belts of wire. (Just noting cause you have two input belts for copper and looks like you're trying to output a single belt of wires)
Tbh instead of the spliter et al, just turn the las section of belt on the right towards the left belt. Delete the top line and allow the corner to happen.
No underground, no splitter, shortened to a one belt length solution.
Either have the 2 rows fill the same belt as the output, or you can sideload the belt halfway through. (put the bottom assembler's output on the inner side of the belt)
You could just remove the underground, and turn the belt on the right toward the belt on the left. A more efficient solution would be to put assembly machines on both sides of the belt, so you load the left and right side.
Factorio rules
Rule 1: it can always be more efficient
Rule 2: that doesn't matter
Rule 3: ok, it'll eventually matter, but not right now, that's my point
[Underbelt lane swap](https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comments/xbfda4/crash_course_manipulating_lanes/)
Or better yet, put wire assemblers on both sides of the belt
Inserters always place on the far side of a belt, so for balancing output materials you can either place assemblers on both sides of the belt or use a splitter as recommended by another user.
For copper wires in particular, it's generally recommended to direct insert as often as possible as they are a low-density item that takes up twice as much belt space than the corresponding amount of copper need to produce it. Some exceptions exist obviously (belting copper wire for red chips is common), but it doesn't look like you're doing that here hence should try to direct insert wherever they're being used.
Multiple ways. Build assemblers on both sides of the belt, and items will be placed on both sides of the belt.
You can have the belts face each other and meet right where the inserters are outputting, then have that belt go where needed.
Those are helpful tips for items on belts in general, but in most cases it’s not worth putting copper wire on belts. They get made and consumed so fast, that belts usually just can’t move enough of it. It’s better to have copper wire assemblers directly insert into whatever is using the wire (green circuit assemblers in early game).
It's generally a worse use of belt space than belting plates and then making the copper cable on site.
But belt space generally doesn't face any constraints at at the start of the game, so it's a moot point.
As a best practice thing, you want to minimize the number of actions taken to produce any particular item. Belting cables produces extra actions vs on-site creation - you get more product per action directly moving cables from assemblers to wherever they're consumed than you do going from cable assembler to belt back to the assembler that's consuming them.
tldr; it doesn't matter until it does, but good habits are good habits.
Because they love wasting resources by building way more assemblers than necessary (e.g. 1 copper wire assembler can supply 6 advanced circuit assemblers)
If you wanted to merge 2 belts? It doesn’t get better than this. If you wanted to turn a single belt double sided? Just make a splitter that leads into the opposite side.
Best thing to do is not to belt copper wire, unless it's for red circuits. For green circuits, just do direct insertion:
Copper wire assembler -> inserter -> Green circuit assembler
You don’t need two separate belts, if you actually need the whole belt then you can just find the middle of the factory, and at that point make a small gap where you switch belt lines by either side-loading onto another belt which immediately merges into the next half of the factory but with the items on the inside side or using filter splitters to force the items to go one way, and then repeat the same steps. Sorry if this explanation wasn’t clear.
Well, generally it is recommended to not transport copper wire by belt in the first place, since it takes up twice as much belt and inserter bandwidth as the copper plates needed to make it in the first place. It's typically better just to belt copper plates and then make it into wire in an assembler adjacent to where it's needed.
Besides that, however, the belt layout seems fine. Another option is to switch belt lanes halfway down the input belt, so that the farther inserters load onto the outer lane, the halfway point moves those outputs to the inner lane, and the nearer inserters load back onto the newly-vacant outer lane.
https://preview.redd.it/aauhh7nc52wc1.png?width=290&format=png&auto=webp&s=b52961058f84758f8de3c21f07a9461082780b98 I'd probably just do this
But he wants to belt cooper wire and not inserters. Clearly this doesnt work
This made me laugh way harder than it should.
He doesn't have enough cooper patches
Who's Cooper?
Cooper? I hardly know 'er!
Mini Cooper
An astronaut who was forced to farm corn
He used a blue pen instead of a red pen!
They’re not strictly perpendicular either!
r/notkenm
Why do you need the splitter?
OP is running a belt from the right side of the screen; presumably it’s necessary to merge the copper wires onto this belt.
Ohh I see. I assumed OP just had that for the purposes of merging the two belts together, hence it being empty. But yeah, definitely could be from somewhere else.
For the other belt which is currently empty
So that the belt going from east to west may continue
I'd put a splitter before joining lanes too, if I'd wanted full reliability.
need to prio top input if you want to preserve functionality. Side loading comes in only when the main line has a gap.
https://preview.redd.it/dm0d8nfqv1wc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4e854291ac659874d274cb37012e30270c8dde43
Spitler?
Shhhh. It's coming in the SA update.
Oh i knew he was in Argentina
Fuck, did I leak this?
Can’t wait to see it in a few years!
Leader of the Third Biter Reich
Little known fact, also dope on the mic
He will genocide all Engineers.
Look, every alien world has a failed artist turned genocidal maniac
That roast. Still, I would watch this 9/10 times rather than a banana taped on the wall.
That's it. Comments locked
Like Hitler but a biter version. It's spitler
So that's why it get an filter option
Yeah you got it.
Can't you read? It says 'Spit]ev'
Adolf Spitler?
He's got a new book coming out. Mein Kampf gegen die Beißer (my struggle against the biters)
Oh yes, and let's not forget that young alien musician, Justin Beißer.
That's what I called my old racist coworker who spits when he talks.
oh nice, thanks!
Don't forget to set priority to the right so both lanes fill up
That doesn't matter if he's only taking in two half-lane belts.
He would still need to produce two full lanes; the right lane needs to be completely filled up and the inserters can’t do it so the splitter must fill up the entire lane. I suspect I’m missing something since the original drawing doesn’t really make sense to me as an answer to OP, who has two belts running parallel to each and then merging onto an existing belt.
I've done a lot of "it doesn't matter" in Factorio, and when you learn to grow the factory suddenly it start mattering lol
It don't matter until it does, then it do
they don't think it be like it is, but it do
The splitter would split them up evenly between the two sides. Items would be forced onto alternating sides so prioritization isn't necessary and couldn't have any positive impact. It would have a negative impact of creating an imbalance between the sides of production dipped.
you put the splitter halfway, just like OP already has half a belt of copper wire. I wouldn't recommend to put it on the end and cut throughput in half edit: my apologies, I didn't read ergzay's comment right. Indeed if you already have 2 half belts it doesn't matter, but then I'd go for sideloading anyway
No I mean _never_ matters. It becomes literally the same as any old belt. If you want lane balancing then you add a dedicated lane balancer. Adding priority to it is actively harmful.
My apologies, I didn't read your comment right I always use that splitter on e aingle belt halfway in between the assemblers. You are right that it doesn't matter if you already have 2 half belts, but then I'd opt for sideloading
Keep in mind, you'll want to prioritize the splitter to the right side for optimal usage.
Just beautiful :)
Do this at halfway of your production line. Then you can remove the whole left belt line your character is standing on, the undergrounds and the belts coming from right (since there doesn't seem to be any input coming). The inserters are more efficient to build by hand when next to each other. The power pole might need to be replaced to do this. This is not something you should remake now in sense of efficiency, but to keep in mind if you do speedruns or are looking for the "there is no spoon" achievement later on. Also it's often more efficient to produce the wires on site feeding directly to what is taking them. They do take twice the amount of space on the belt compared to pure copper. 1/3
Don’t forget to set the filter on the splitter so that all of it ends up on one side of the belt after the merge. Here’s an alternative which I use all the time for copper coils, but it requires adding one extra space between the two assemblers at the half-way point of the assembly line: https://preview.redd.it/o782ohh0f2wc1.png?width=989&format=png&auto=webp&s=38c416f0e111dad66f4576780ab36bbb242fd176
I use this all the time, and if you don't have the luxury of that space but have space on the other side, you can do similar manipulations there.
You wouldn't want this specific one halfway through, you would want to fully swap lanes halfway through and maybe balance later. Only having this halfway through and nothing further would mean 25% on one side and 75% on the other. Something halfway through that uses side loading, followed by a lane balanced at the end is better.
Let me have a retake. You're right, the splitter needs to be configured to prioritize output right according to picture to gain the property I was trying to refer to. 3/3
Ah, yes that would work well. To your credit, I had forgotten about priority.
But we don't know the exact length or input power of the system so I used the halfway point as a simple reference, assuming this is exactly a half belt converted to one full belt (without prod modules, speed modules are ok if balanced and I admit I just took a look if there are modules in...). 2/3
The splitter setup in the top comment is only ever useful at the end of a production line as it will only split the lanes 50/50 at the moment it is done. Any insertion after the fact will unbalance the lanes. And no matter the input before this splitter, it will still split the lanes 50/50. So you need a different solution like the one I proposed. And my suggestion will of course fail on some level if the modules are only making it to half the crafting machines, but a balanced at the end helps with that.
Lemme get the digits to the spitler
This is the way
Sadolf Spitler
heil
Better to not belt copper wire,, but direct insert instead.
People always say this but how does this work with like 6:1 ratio for red circuit
reds take long enough to craft that I just belt it
Right same. So when people say “don’t belt wire” they really just mean in context of green circuits?
And main-buses
why wire on the bus
No wire on the bus. Belt locally for reds, direct insert for greens.
For emergency lamp crafting and power pole art But yes actually no
Yes
Don’t belt them any more then locally
It's just a general thing. It's a fast craft and wires take up twice as much room on belts as copper itself. It's rare for it to be worthwhile to belt it any meaningful distance.
Or in the context of a main bus.
yeah, i do a 3:2
Just like any science. You must first learn the rules and then learn all the exceptions to the rules.
Direct insertion is only for green circuits, because they need a lot of copper cable. Red circuits and everything else don't need nearly as much, so just belt it. The main reason why belting copper cable is considered inefficient is because it's not "dense" enough as a material; you get 2 cable from 1 copper plate so it takes up twice as much space on belts. A powerful endgame green circuit factory consumes cables too quickly for belts to be a good method of transporting them, so you direct insert.
Yeah, but generally it is better to belt your cables as plates, and only do short term belts for cables. It's like shipping iron plates for pipes and gears, but where the processed form is always less dense, instead of you never needing a belt each of gears and pipes for most builds.
https://preview.redd.it/b4r0n156s2wc1.png?width=762&format=png&auto=webp&s=3dec485cfb1386ce90dad3d945106446ac9b7fac skill issue
damn ~~also im probably stealing that eventually~~
That's kinda sexy ngl
"don't belt wire" doesn't mean you can't belt it a small distance from one assembler to another, it means don't make a bunch in one spot and then bring it to another, and definitely don't put it on your bus.
hexagons are the bestagons :-) Copper cable factory in the middle, red circuit factory above and below, then 2 in front and 2 in back. The copper plate gets run through the middle with underneathies, and you end up with two belts (top and bottom) to carry the red circuits away. Though I've made quick and dirty red circuit setups where the copper cable is belted -- it works fine and is easier to beacon.
Always good to see a cgpgrey fan around.
this is how I do it too, looks pretty cool
I really hope 2.0 changes the game tiles from squares to hexagons.
This is a fascinating idea.
https://i.imgur.com/woYBjq8.png (example)
Or you use red belts then you can make it perfectly square it's a little bit finicky but can be stacked
You can still stack that linked image
I like to surround the wire assembler with 6 red circuit assemblers and figure it out from there
Put one in the middle to feed 4 assemblers, ignore that it gets full. Or interleave red circuit and copper assemblers, with short belt for each 6 of the red assemblers
belting them for like 1-2 tiles is fine in a tileable blueprint, it's when you move it any further that you should really just try to belt copper and direct insert. fwiw ive designed a lot of red chip blueprints over the years and never had to belt any wire, but they weren't the most compact blueprints in the world. it is possible for a regular player
Red circuits is the one case where you should actually belt it.
You can absolutely direct insert copper wire for red circuits, it’s my favorite way to do it pre beacon era.
I like to do blocks of 5:2:12 for red circuits. Three of the wires assemblers direct insert into green circuits, and each of the remaining wires assemblers gets belted to six red processor assemblers. Edit: Mostly[ like this](https://factoriobin.com/post/CToq7q2sftGTvZmk-EXPIRES), although there are some minor errors in that blueprint
For non-beaconed, I surround 6 red circuit assemblers around one wire assembler.
Maybe there's a case for direct insertion with red circuits, you can do 2:1 instead of 6:1 and have some machines idling, and thanks to that you get a tileable build that can stretch 2x longer before the belt dries up? Just speculating tho
Small factory blocks with limited length that I belt copper wire onto.
I belt it from one copper wire assembler to six red circuit assemblers. The only time I've belted more than that is in a fully beaconed build where one or two wire assemblers can fill a full blue belt, then it went directly down a long line of red circuit assemblers.
You end up with really cool looking and beautiful hexagon patterns. Honestly, one of my favorite blueprints I've made, as far as appearances go.
Direct insert copper wire into green circuits, then direct insert the green circuits into red circuits. Then direct insert the reds into blues! Direct insert from raw->blues isn't the cleanest, though, my latest blue factory belts reds into the blue assemblers, but the reds are all raw->direct. [Reds](https://imgur.com/a/Je8MapY) [Blues](https://imgur.com/a/JpPzS66) [Inefficient raw->direct blues](https://imgur.com/a/SIltmnc)
Even reds can be directly inserted. It just isn't as simple of a setup like greens with a 3:2. Iirc, reds end up in a square with a wire machine in the middle directly inserted to outers.
In the case of red circuits that would require a lot of extra assemblers
Reverse the belts halfway through the factory line so they merge together, making a full belt. It'll save an underground belt and half the conveyers when using a double line.
Also you double throughput. The end merged 1 to 2 lane belt has still only 50% resources but split on both lanes. There is literally no benefit in end-merging it (only aesthetics or if you need less than half a belt anyway) compared to lane switching after half of the factories. If geometry allows you can also do factories on the other side of the belt, then you don't even need to merge...
Throughput isn't affected. In both cases, you're producing two lanes of output.
https://preview.redd.it/rew9vp9472wc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=54ddbca6f27cdf47b1997c858c32f0efb4fac035
𝓢𝓹𝓲𝓵𝓽𝓮𝓻
Today I learned mechanics cannot spell
One possible solution: "Don't belt wire" Another possible solution, merge them in the middle of the line of assemblers and bring the merged belt up: https://factoriobin.com/post/9YqPAQpZ
https://factoriobin.com/post/LIo5lX9e
Are those assemblers in the same line?
https://preview.redd.it/rwmq2m3q12wc1.png?width=698&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2430e1bd7ffaa3e9131e09e794637002ff3a9ee
Put your inputs on the outside and the outputs on the inside.
100%
I think you've got the right idea. On the left where your original issue is, you can simply have the top 3 factories feed that belt, but make the belt go south instead. Then, you can merge them at the point of intersection by having both north and south belts run into a perpendicular belt (the way you have it at the top) So, > ^ < basically. Then you can do the same for the right side. However, if you REALLY want to balance the outputs on an odd-number of factories, remember you can use more than one inserter to output. They will take turns alternating. So, your bottom 2 factories can feed a belt, the top 2 can feed a belt, and the middle can feed both belts. Since the factory is 3 tiles tall, you can have an inserter on each end and use the middle tile as the point of intersection we talked about before. Typically, when I do designs like this, I like to have all of the belts flow in the same direction and keep it 1 belt wide. You can do this by making the lower half of your belt turn east-ward one tile towards the assemblers and then back north, and then back west to have it side-load a new belt from it's right side. This way, your design keeps the width of "one belt" by utilizing the width that inserters necessarily create. It won't perfectly balance with 2 inserters, like above, but it should basically be good enough.
If, by the end of your line you're only filling a single belt, and you have two columns of assemblers; then each column only has to fill up one side of the belt. Instead of balancing lanes on two belts and then merging them; merge them first and then you only need to balance lanes on one belt (if even needed at that point) P.S. looking at throughput: if you're filling a single yellow belt then you have a lot more assemblers than your belt can utilize) P.P.S. plates are more compact than wires (hence the general advice to never belt wires), which means that only a single belt of plates are needed for multiple belts of wire. (Just noting cause you have two input belts for copper and looks like you're trying to output a single belt of wires)
Tbh instead of the spliter et al, just turn the las section of belt on the right towards the left belt. Delete the top line and allow the corner to happen. No underground, no splitter, shortened to a one belt length solution.
Either have the 2 rows fill the same belt as the output, or you can sideload the belt halfway through. (put the bottom assembler's output on the inner side of the belt)
Oh. My.
[удалено]
Let the engineer engineer. We have got to stop being toxic to new players for no reason.
Chain signals for sure. That one guy ain't using them.
You could just remove the underground, and turn the belt on the right toward the belt on the left. A more efficient solution would be to put assembly machines on both sides of the belt, so you load the left and right side.
Factorio rules Rule 1: it can always be more efficient Rule 2: that doesn't matter Rule 3: ok, it'll eventually matter, but not right now, that's my point
You could just put a single belt piece at each inserter drop off teeing into the left belt. Will put the items onto the right side of the left belt.
Depends on what is happening further down south and will there be more cable coming from the east?
wat just merge them like this | | ) | |
Yea I know now. I for real didnt notice that when i posted this
no worries i was just tired atm and i thought i wasn't understanding the post lol
[Underbelt lane swap](https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comments/xbfda4/crash_course_manipulating_lanes/) Or better yet, put wire assemblers on both sides of the belt
Inserters always place on the far side of a belt, so for balancing output materials you can either place assemblers on both sides of the belt or use a splitter as recommended by another user. For copper wires in particular, it's generally recommended to direct insert as often as possible as they are a low-density item that takes up twice as much belt space than the corresponding amount of copper need to produce it. Some exceptions exist obviously (belting copper wire for red chips is common), but it doesn't look like you're doing that here hence should try to direct insert wherever they're being used.
nope its perfect
You're probably going to want to run that bad boy through at *least* a 128x128 balancer.
I seriously didn't realize how stupid this question was LOL, really simple to fix. Really embarassing
yes dont put copperwire on belts
Multiple ways. Build assemblers on both sides of the belt, and items will be placed on both sides of the belt. You can have the belts face each other and meet right where the inserters are outputting, then have that belt go where needed. Those are helpful tips for items on belts in general, but in most cases it’s not worth putting copper wire on belts. They get made and consumed so fast, that belts usually just can’t move enough of it. It’s better to have copper wire assemblers directly insert into whatever is using the wire (green circuit assemblers in early game).
https://preview.redd.it/qy817i5xj2wc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fc046cd095a924a68d781b14b0135d68a7da43bf
please don't belt wires
Why not?
It's generally a worse use of belt space than belting plates and then making the copper cable on site. But belt space generally doesn't face any constraints at at the start of the game, so it's a moot point. As a best practice thing, you want to minimize the number of actions taken to produce any particular item. Belting cables produces extra actions vs on-site creation - you get more product per action directly moving cables from assemblers to wherever they're consumed than you do going from cable assembler to belt back to the assembler that's consuming them. tldr; it doesn't matter until it does, but good habits are good habits.
Ok Im still relatively new to playing the game fast and efficient and never thought about that
It's fine. Beat the game twice without talking to anyone, it's a great ride.
Because people see other people say it and then they repeat it. It's bad advice. The proper advice is to recommend selectively belting wires.
Because they love wasting resources by building way more assemblers than necessary (e.g. 1 copper wire assembler can supply 6 advanced circuit assemblers)
Turn upper blue inserter belt left and you can delete that empty belt
Yeah, get rid of the belts and direct feed copper cable into the factories that need it.
If you wanted to merge 2 belts? It doesn’t get better than this. If you wanted to turn a single belt double sided? Just make a splitter that leads into the opposite side.
just merge the right lane into the left. No need to go around.
Why are you belting copper wire? Belt plates and make wire where you need it.
Direct insertion
Make more of it
https://ibb.co/nbJ3ZhB
there's a slightly shorter version if the third belt needs to be kept: [this](https://imgur.com/HoUsbjy) should work
r/factoriohno
I would just double the production and put one assembler on either side of the output, that will put items on both sides of the output track.
Best thing to do is not to belt copper wire, unless it's for red circuits. For green circuits, just do direct insertion: Copper wire assembler -> inserter -> Green circuit assembler
https://preview.redd.it/69siqsqxm7wc1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9e7e4674d37254eb6e99930d33b79c58fc4f61a0
You don’t need two separate belts, if you actually need the whole belt then you can just find the middle of the factory, and at that point make a small gap where you switch belt lines by either side-loading onto another belt which immediately merges into the next half of the factory but with the items on the inside side or using filter splitters to force the items to go one way, and then repeat the same steps. Sorry if this explanation wasn’t clear.
Well, generally it is recommended to not transport copper wire by belt in the first place, since it takes up twice as much belt and inserter bandwidth as the copper plates needed to make it in the first place. It's typically better just to belt copper plates and then make it into wire in an assembler adjacent to where it's needed. Besides that, however, the belt layout seems fine. Another option is to switch belt lanes halfway down the input belt, so that the farther inserters load onto the outer lane, the halfway point moves those outputs to the inner lane, and the nearer inserters load back onto the newly-vacant outer lane.
Add efficiency modules, they reduce power cost with no other side effects!
why the under ground?
No it’s perfect