Do you need the bottom two splitters in the standard four lane balancer?

[Hexafish]

I've heard people you do, and people say you don't. From what I can tell you don't need them, but I want to double-check.

[KatherineOfSky]

This is why you need them: http://imgur.com/pCwthNW

[Hexafish]

Ah Katherine. Thank you.

Nice YTube tutorials BTW

[KatherineOfSky]

Thanks! :-)

[Hexafish]

引用自 KatherineOfSky：

Thanks! :-)

I'd really like to do a Factorio playthrough with you if you have the time to spare.

[The Chaotic Coder]

引用自 KatherineOfSky：

This is why you need them: http://imgur.com/pCwthNW

The reason it looks like they aren't unbalanced in that pic is because outputs #1 and #4 were cut -- so of course they backed up, and appear to have twice as much on them as 2 and 3. If 1 and 4 were moving, then all would be equally filled, regardless of inputs.

This is the balancer I use:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=869457455

I balance 2 and 3, send them underground while balancing 1 and 4, and then balance 1-2 and 3-4. You can also do it the other way around, with 1-2 and 3-4 balanced first and then 2-3 and 1-4. Works the same either way.

I ran the above test several times, connecting to different inputs, putting all the plates on just one side of the belt, and doing everything else I could think of to unbalance it. After every test, the 4 chests at the output had the same amount in them.

[KatherineOfSky]

引用自 jchardin64：

引用自 KatherineOfSky：

This is why you need them: http://imgur.com/pCwthNW

The reason it looks like they aren't unbalanced in that pic is because outputs #1 and #4 were cut -- so of course they backed up, and appear to have twice as much on them as 2 and 3. If 1 and 4 were moving, then all would be equally filled, regardless of inputs.

The picture is representative of what happens in game. (I've tested it in a real factory setting.) There are definitely circumstances where you will not have full inputs or full use of outputs. (E.g. when you have insufficient furnaces to produce enough for 4 lanes, etc.) Therefore, all the splitters are needed.

The picture you posted won't balance properly because it is missing 2 splitters.

@Darkslayer -- I do play on my community map quite frequently :-) (Check out my discord).

[The Chaotic Coder]

引用自 KatherineOfSky：

引用自 jchardin64：

The reason it looks like they aren't unbalanced in that pic is because outputs #1 and #4 were cut -- so of course they backed up, and appear to have twice as much on them as 2 and 3. If 1 and 4 were moving, then all would be equally filled, regardless of inputs.

The picture is representative of what happens in game. (I've tested it in a real factory setting.) There are definitely circumstances where you will not have full inputs or full use of outputs. (E.g. when you have insufficient furnaces to produce enough for 4 lanes, etc.) Therefore, all the splitters are needed.

The picture you posted won't balance properly because it is missing 2 splitters.

Oh, I think I see what you're saying.

The 2 and 3 outputs in your picture only receive half a belt each.

Now I get it.

[KatherineOfSky]

:-)

For anyone wondering what the properly balancing version is:
http://imgur.com/opFc7Aq

[Ruges]

The only problem I have with the 4 belt balancer is it does not balance lanes. I add a section past the 4 lane balancer to provide overflow for lanes.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=869761482

With this setup if 1 lane ever becomes backed up it will then send its back up to another lane, and then another belt. Somthing like this is not needed on a line that consumes 100% of a belts max capacity, But if any line does not consume 100% it then sends the remaining % to another line.

[KatherineOfSky]

引用自 Ruges：

The only problem I have with the 4 belt balancer is it does not balance lanes. I add a section past the 4 lane balancer to provide overflow for lanes.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=869761482

With this setup if 1 lane ever becomes backed up it will then send its back up to another lane, and then another belt. Somthing like this is not needed on a line that consumes 100% of a belts max capacity, But if any line does not consume 100% it then sends the remaining % to another line.

When you do simple "balancing" like with the splitters that have a single turn and feed back into a lane, you end up with horrible mismatch in lanes that are uneven. Often, you will get 75% on one side of the belt and 25% on the other, (worst case, 100% on a single side).

For lane balancing, I usually balance at the source with one of the common splitter designs:

http://imgur.com/p8XTVSw
http://imgur.com/fKz8AOg

(There are other, more expensive designs as well).

[!?!]

引用自 Ruges：

The only problem I have with the 4 belt balancer is it does not balance lanes. I add a section past the 4 lane balancer to provide overflow for lanes.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=869761482

With this setup if 1 lane ever becomes backed up it will then send its back up to another lane, and then another belt. Somthing like this is not needed on a line that consumes 100% of a belts max capacity, But if any line does not consume 100% it then sends the remaining % to another line.

If your input lanes are balanced, which they should be, you wouldn't need to do that.

[Ruges]

I suppose you also have to look at what your balancing your lanes for. If your end goal is to get an equal number of items down those belts and the consumtion is equal to or greater then the max throughput of those belts. Then yea the simple balancer would work great. You would use that system for filling up train yards, and filling up provider chests. Basically its good when you want an equal number of items in each consumption area.

However for me when I send stuff into a factory, be it assembly machines or smelting using the simple balancer does not allow for max throughput when you have unequal input and output. by puting in the feed back lane if one lane ever consumes less then 100% of its product it sends its aditional production to another lane. Which is useful for situations where your production and consumption is varitable.

So I dont care if output belt 1 and 2 get more then output belt 3 and 4. I only care if output belt 1, 2, 3, 4 get as much as they can consume.

[Ruges]

引用自 chris：

If your input lanes are balanced, which they should be, you wouldn't need to do that.

I agree if your input lanes and output lanes always the same amount then you would not need to do that. You would not even need to do a balancer then. But my factory varies allot in production. Just changing research types results in greater demand of different science packs which result in a change in demand of producing those science packs. Puting in new solar fields results in a change of production in my factory.

[!?!]

引用自 Ruges：

引用自 chris：

If your input lanes are balanced, which they should be, you wouldn't need to do that.

I agree if your input lanes and output lanes always the same amount then you would not need to do that. You would not even need to do a balancer then.

Of course you would still need balancers. You don't run all 4 belts into every single station and you don't keep adding belts to the bus for every belt you split off.

[KatherineOfSky]

引用自 Ruges：

However for me when I send stuff into a factory, be it assembly machines or smelting using the simple balancer does not allow for max throughput when you have unequal input and output. by puting in the feed back lane if one lane ever consumes less then 100% of its product it sends its aditional production to another lane. Which is useful for situations where your production and consumption is varitable.

So I dont care if output belt 1 and 2 get more then output belt 3 and 4. I only care if output belt 1, 2, 3, 4 get as much as they can consume.

But it doesn't work the way you want it to work... Not only that, it will reduce throughput very severely at each of the splitter fold-ins., especially if it can only get a half a belt through at that point.