Bent Stacker: Useless?

[Grug]

I've yet to find a practical use for the Bent Stacker. It would be way more helpful if we could get a stacker where the upper input is rotated 90 degrees.

[AaronLibra]

Honestly, I'm almost at 27 hours and still haven't unlocked it lol Personally, I didn't see the point either, but if they're a bit faster maybe I'll try them out. I've unlocked almost everything at this point so I would've gotten to it eventually but now I'm thinking I might've missed out... :D hahaha

[arrow]

Those are faster and take up less space than the straight ones. Only use the bent ones.

[Alex]

It's more efficient and compact than the normal stacker, it's better than the normal stacker, if you know how to use it.

[禾果子 Kakashi]

If you consider in theory a full belt can feed 8 machines without slow down and clog, a pair of full belt can output 2 full belts with bent stackers while straight stackers can only output 1 and 1/3 belts, and 6 straight stackers inline consumes the same space as 4 bent stackers inline.

[darkestkhan]

Publicado originalmente por AltaNaty926:

If you consider in theory a full belt can feed 8 machines without slow down and clog, a pair of full belt can output 2 full belts with bent stackers while straight stackers can only output 1 and 1/3 belts, and 6 straight stackers inline consumes the same space as 4 bent stackers inline.

A full belt feeds 6 normal stackers. They also take the same space when you add belt space into your consideration. The do have some niche applications.

[TheOrigin]

Here is a direct comparison of the space needed. Both are 3 layer stackers.

bottom shape - layer 1
middle shape - layer 2
top shape - layer 3

Both are on 1x1 plattforms with full saturation (180/min) per belt.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3312909478
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3312913354

The bent stacker needs waaaaay less space to do the same job.
And on top of that - the right one with straight stackers would even work because of lacking space (8x6 stackers), so i had to use 2 bent stackers in the design too.

[Draago]

I use it for removing the bottom quarter of a shape because it fits in really nicely with cutters (same ratio) but for normal stacking yes you use regular stacker 99% of the time

[cayreet]

Bent stackers are faster (you only need four to service a full belt) and you can put two opposite (obviously one flipped, outputting on the same belt). You get them on the same space as six stackers, but the output line is one in, so the design is more sleek.

[Grug]

Bent stackers are faster? That does change things. I'll investigate.

[Rasjel]

with the normal one to process a full belt you need 6 stacker per belt.
that makes a minimum blueprint of 6x3 with belts
with the bend version you only need 4 stacker per belt.
with a bit of tinkering aou can get this in a 5x3 with belts.

so there is realy no diskussion which one is better.

[DRayX]

You only need 4 bent stackers per belt instead of 6, so with a little creativity, you can create a more compact stacking array.

[Veladraen]

Wolf, your maths aren't quite correct there. The straights are 6x3 (18 units total). The arrangement you are suggesting is 4x3, but, your output is in the middle which can end up making it 4x4. Still smaller, but can be a bit awkward unless you have the 3rd tier.

Though, not going to lie, when you start trying to design things when you are filling all twelve input slots with one material (e.g. 24 belt designs), Due to the fact we do not have a 3x1 or 3x2 piece, the gloriously compact designs become practically impossible. The logistical challenge then is minimizing space belts and not any of this stuff.

[douglasduck]

Slightly niche use - both straights and bent stackers have a 6x3 arrangement, but with the bents you can use a belt launcher to shoot straight through the middle to get to the next row of stackers rather than having to go over or around the 6x3.

Helpful if you want to reserve the 3rd layer for wires, for example.

[Kage Goomba]

It's a more efficient stacker.

No more no less.

Pro - faster (by 2 buildings per line)

Con - you have to deal with the 90 Degree output.


Those who say its a niche - don't know what they are talking about - its a matter of design preference and how compact you want your platforms.
When in doubt - read the fine print.

[Vanderpaw]

They are basically the same? Just face 2 of the output stackers into each other with a belt in between (stacker output -> belt <- stacker output) and it literally takes the same amount of room (6 tiles) as the normal stackers while being useful in more compact builds.