+7 votes
in Suggestion by (880 points)
Now there are tons of bugs reported about switches that make freight cars separated from their loco.

It seems the whole problem comes from a kind of misconception:

If players are allowed to set switches manually, then it makes no sense to program locos to go to a station. Or it might be so, but then the same loco should stop in front of a switch if it would direct it to the wrong track.

On the other hand, if locos are programmable (as they are), why is it allowed to set switches manually? Why can not the loco decide automatically which way to go and where to stop? And forget about switches for good, that are visualized in an awkward way anyhow..

For me the second approach is better, ie. to tell a loco which stations it should approach and which ones should not be considered as a station (just pass through). In this case players would not need to fidget with switches. Of course "collision" should be taken into consideration and some kind of traffic organizing rules should be set (which loco should take precedence in a "crossing"), but those are mainly technical issues.

Oh and some visual representation of a real switch would be welcome. I know it is a bit complicated in case of a monorail system, but everything is better than the current smudgy, obscure visual interpretation.

BTW: trains are one of the best parts of this game, and I have been waiting for sooo long for someone to implement a model railroad layout. Just a little bit more is needed to make this system perfect... Keep up guys! :)
by (160 points)
IMO switches are pointless (pun intended) and should be removed from the game to save engineering effort to be used on signals.  Just have automated trains go where they need to go and manually driven trains controlled with A & D.  Switches serve no gameplay purpose, provide no advantages, have multiple game breaking bugs and make any semi decent rail setup impossible at the moment.
by (120 points)
Switches have purpose from design point of view. As far as I know from observation, only loco calculate path and wagons are not really part of the train (it's probably designed that way to lighten calculations). They're only pulled/pushed and go when tracks leads. So loco have to set that switches for wagons or they won't know where to go. Right now trans have no collisions or any collision detection. That's why when more then one loco interact with one switch they, second one can chance direction and some wagon from firs one will go the wrong way. When devs add collisions and trains won't ghost each other it will eliminate that problem because only one loco will interact with switch in specific time.

1 Answer

+3 votes
by (2.2k points)
Automated Trains switch levers themselves no need for player interactions. And for manual driving there are multiple suggestions out there to control the next switch with the A and D keys (and probably S as well on 3-way switches).
by (880 points)
True and agreed; levers are not needed at all.
And as far as manual driving is concerned: only A+D would be enough, I would not allow to make a triple or x-iple forking, it is not realistic. If one wants to go 3 ways, that goal could be reached by 2 switches, laid  subsequently, like in real life...
Welcome to Satisfactory Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers from other members of the community.
In order to keep this site accessible for everybody, please write your post in english :)
August 28th update: We've removed downvotes! One major reason is because we don't want to discourage folks from posting legitimate suggestions / reports / questions with fear of being mass downvoted (which has been happening a LOT). So we now allow you to upvote what you like, or ignore what you don't. Points have also been adjusted to account for this change.
Please use the search function before posting a new question and upvote existing ones to bring more attention to them, It will help us a lot. <3
Remember to mark resolved questions as answered by clicking on the check mark located under the upvotes of each answer.