Throughput of stacked items on belts?

[CentreMetre]

Ive been trying to calculate the throughput of stacked items on belts, but i dont think im doing it right.
On a reddit post i saw says its the throughput of the belt (e.g. 60/s for green) and then times that by the amount of stacks, which would be 8 for a full belt, but i only get the throughput for 4 stacks on a belt. Am i just misunderstanding something? (With the highest stack research done)

[Chindraba]

I think the source of you data is slightly misleading. Either that or how it's written is being understood incorrectly.

The speed of a belt in items/sec is how many items would fall off the end every second if it was possible to do so. That you can have 8 items in a tile-worth of belt length is not part of that. So, for the green belts, 60 items would fall off every second. Stacking makes each item count for the stack height. At the vanilla max of 4 high, each of the 60 would be 4 rather than one, so 240 would fall off every second. Or, since things don't fall off, the throughput of a fully stacked green belt is 240/sec.

[Khagan]

The maximum stack size is 4. So the maximum throughput with stacking is 4 times the maximum without stacking.

[CentreMetre]

Originally posted by Chindraba:

I think the source of you data is slightly misleading. Either that or how it's written is being understood incorrectly.

The speed of a belt in items/sec is how many items would fall off the end every second if it was possible to do so. That you can have 8 items in a tile-worth of belt length is not part of that. So, for the green belts, 60 items would fall off every second. Stacking makes each item count for the stack height. At the vanilla max of 4 high, each of the 60 would be 4 rather than one, so 240 would fall off every second. Or, since things don't fall off, the throughput of a fully stacked green belt is 240/sec.

Originally posted by Khagan:

The maximum stack size is 4. So the maximum throughput with stacking is 4 times the maximum without stacking.

Oh ok, i think i get it now, especially with "So the maximum throughput with stacking is 4 times the maximum without stacking.". I think i understand why aswell, i think i was add a *8 in mine, but thats already accounted for in the items per second of a belt, e.g. i was doing 60 * 8 * 4, but its just 60*4 since that 8 already exists. Thanks!

[Nico]

From what I understand the 8 you mentioned is the amount of items that can sit on a single belt tile? I don't think that that would have any impact on the throughput, since throughput is only defined by how many items can move over the belt in a specific time frame, not how many items can be on a belt.

Those 8 would only be relevant for wanting to know how many items a belt can store. Which I guess would be 8*4=32 items per belt tile? Pretty useful for space, since it has no chests.