Smart Splitter: Any->Other, Any=All for Overflow and Sushi-Bar Model

Question

I'm aware that the splitter is discussed and suggested in a lot of different suggestion already, but some people don't seem to know that there are two others Splitters in game and some made specific suggestions.

Problem

The thing people want from splitters are:

1) Split one input into 2 or more [Available]
2) A possibility to say which exit should filter which item [Available with Smart Splitter]
3) Combination of 1 and 2, Multiple Exists with same Filter [Not working]
4) Same as 3, but one of the exists should always be filled up first/prioritized thats the overflow scenario

EDIT: 5) A way of setting a ratio e.g. per minute, but thats a hole other topic which is not discussed here

Situation

As noted above. 1 and 2 works, but not 3. Setting multiple exits with the same filter only serves one of them. And 4 is no possible at all. It's even worse, the hole conveyor belt blocks, when the one filter exit is full.

Solution

1) In case multiple exits have the same filter the Smart Splitter should split the equally until one is blocked than all to the other exit or exits. This would solve requirement 3.

2a) Change the name of the current setting "Any" to "Other". Meaning all items, which are not filtered to other exists. Why? Because this is the current behaviour of it. This would make it clearer, that "Any" don't mean any it means all others.

This now opens up the real suggestion this post is about.

2b) After 2a, add a new setting called "Any" or if you prefer it more "All". Denoting that this really means all even the ones that are already filtered but only with secondary priority.

This would have the following effect:

If an exit have a filter and got full:

1) If the other exit is set to "Other" the hole belt would stuck like it currently does. This guarantees, that the filtered item is never sent to the exit with the "Other" label. An important scenario which is still needed and we don't want to loose it.

2) If the other exit is set to "Any" (the new "All") then even the filtered items would be sent to this exit but only if the dedicated exit is blocked/full. This way the main belt could be make sure to not block and continue. Allowing circling scenarios like in the Sushi-Bar Model. But it allows the highly sought after "Overflow" scenario as well. As the "Any"/"All" setting is 2nd in priority not 1st.

Pro / Cons

+ Mostly only programming changes necesarry.
+ No UI changes necesarry (one rename, one addition to the list, that is)
+ No new object splitter necesarry
+ Clearer representation what each selection is especiall the difference between "Other" and "Any"/"All".
+ Current behavour is still possible and would not change on game update if menu item is just relabeled

Comments

My problem is with the smart splitter, it is not smart at all.

1. It does not split, it only sorts. If I put an item to go left and right, it only goes right, never go left.

2. And once any item on the belt is full, the whole splitter jammed, it will not proceed to the next item.

---

I'm not sure if it was said but I'd like the smart splitter to behave like a normal one if I set any of the 2-3 outputs to "any" and bypass filtered outputs if that output is full and there is one set to any.

---

Yeah, would like this to be implemented so my resources don't get backed up.

---

It would be great if there would be a option "Destroy overflow", because this is the problem I have with smart/programmable spliters; if one output is full, it block all the others outputs.

---

I'm not your opinion. Splitters and Mergers should never loose/destroy items or in other words have more than one job to do. My suggestion would however solve your problem as it would provide an option that backuped filtered exits would not block the hole flow (by continuing through the "All" output in this case).

Destroying items is another suggestion on it's own, a new device/device with only one entry and it destroys anything that goes in there. Other games provide such an incinerator / deconstructor / void-stone device. It would allow players to get rid of unneeded items instead of building huge storages to keep the factory running. Maybe the space lift can be repurposed for this. It so nice and huge and has 6 ports, but it is hardly needed aside from unlocking 3 simple unlocks. Surplus items would be send to space so to speak. The space lift should work automatically of course without player interaction and send everything into space every now and then. Maybe the player can be rewarded with something in return some credits or so ... a lot of game extension possibilities would open up with this.

Answer 1

I agree, IF an exit is blocked because the container or the input to a machine it is feeding into is full , it SHOULD be 'clever'' enough to just pass the item through an 'any' filtered exit.

If you Look at it from a logic perspective, It should be clever enough to do this as the recipie is using a 'supercomputer' for bobs sake.

Answer 2

while you can currently implement this overflow system it is clunky and not efficient: 



                       ItemOut
                            ^
                       Splitter >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                            ^                                           ↓
                         Item                                        ↓
                            ^                                            ↓
LineIn>>>>>SmartSplitter>Other >>Merger >> lineOut          

Half of all sorted items end up going around the conveyor loop but at least it can prevent overflow messing up the entire system.

I Agree that they have to improve usability but from what i hear they are adressing this issue already.

Comments

This is exactly how I do it, I wish they would implement a more complex interface for at least the programmable splitter where you can do all of the above things  from 1 splitter.

Answer 3

I would also like to have "overflow mergers". They have one prioritized input and only take items from the other inputs if there are none available at the prioritized one. This would make storage systems much easier and efficient.

Answer 4

I first assumed this should already work, because you actually can select the same ressource on multiple outputs. So as long as they don't support this it's a misleading bug.

We really need this.