One belt, 2 lane balancer?

[Frost]

Hello, I searched on youtube and cannot find a quick balancer for one belt that remains on one belt, but balances the two lanes on the one belt so that one lane doesn't sit there while the other lane gets used.

If a lane is going left to right, and the bottom lane is not getting used, I can put a splitter so that a new belt shows up above the main belt, and then turn it down to merge with the belt.

That works to a decent degree, but it seems it ends up not being that balanced over time.

So just like they have multiple belt balancers (that I actually use as well and they work fine), can anyone point me to a one belt balancer that keeps both lanes as efficiently balanced as possible? I have yet to figure out one that is as smooth and reliable as any multiple belt balancer.

[Fletch]

Originally posted by Gordon✪Gekko:

In Satisfactory you just have Splitters and Smart Splitters and it works very well.

Satisfactory (and Dyson Sphere Program) belts only have 1 lane.
Factory belts have 2 lanes.

Invalid to compare simple games to a more complex game.

[Flash✪Gordon]

Originally posted by Fletch:

Originally posted by Gordon✪Gekko:

In Satisfactory you just have Splitters and Smart Splitters and it works very well.

Satisfactory (and Dyson Sphere Program) belts only have 1 lane.
Factory belts have 2 lanes.

Invalid to compare simple games to a more complex game.

True with the two lanes. That's why you call Satisfactory "simple"?

There are fine lines between complex and complicate and making a topic deliberately overly complicate.

Shady tricks like underground belts to balance belts rather seems to belong in the third category. If the game would require such shady tricks as regular solution for a given problem, then it would be sup-optimal programmed.

Luckily as many have pointed out: That doesn't seem to be the case and the problem rather lies somewhere else with more transparent and therefore better solutions.

Shady engineering isn't robust. In the long run it isn't good for a company.

[Defektiv]

This thread turned into the weirdest competition I have ever witnessed.

[Flash✪Gordon]

Originally posted by Defektiv:

This thread turned into the weirdest competition I have ever witnessed.

+1

[Fletch]

Originally posted by Gordon✪Gekko:

True with the two lanes. That's why you call Satisfactory "simple"?

There are fine lines between complex and complicate and making a topic deliberately overly complicate....

In a thread discussing the nuances of how to balance the two lanes on a single factorio belt, other "simple" games (such as Satisfactory and DSP) simply do not apply because those games only have a single lane on each belt -- it makes no sense to discuss lane balancing with games that only implement single-lane'd belts because a single lane is always balanced.

To compare those games to this concept, would require using 2 belts to emulate the 2 lanes on a factorio belt -- and at that point: all the same concepts apply.

You can read about the complexities with belt balancing on Satisfactory wiki here: https://satisfactory.fandom.com/wiki/Balancer

[Flash✪Gordon]

Originally posted by Fletch:

You can read about the complexities with belt balancing on Satisfactory wiki here: https://satisfactory.fandom.com/wiki/Balancer

Yes, this article is exactly from persons who like it overly complicate. People who have too much time and too much hypothetical interests. Nobody really does this.

[Fletch]

Originally posted by Gordon✪Gekko:

Originally posted by Fletch:

You can read about the complexities with belt balancing on Satisfactory wiki here: https://satisfactory.fandom.com/wiki/Balancer

Yes, this article is exactly from persons who like it overly complicate. People who have too much time and too much hypothetical interests. Nobody really does this. It's for the garbage can.

More likely: the typical Satisfactory player isn't scaling their base to the level of even a small/basic Factorio factory. If the typical Satisfactory base is fine with using only a single belt (which is just a single lane of a factorio belt) for items on their "bus", then I'd call that game "simple" as compared to Factorio. I'm not knocking Satisfactory, just calling it is what it is.

See: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3412627106

@knightemplar1960's screenshot shows 2 sets of 4 parallel belts -- that is 16 lanes total, and would require 16 parallel belts in Satisfactory to emulate (or 2 sets of 8 parallel belts to be exact).

[Flash✪Gordon]

The slowest belt in Satisfactory has the same throughput as 4 lanes of the yellow belt in Factorio. In my opinon this is aboslutely meaningless, random and trivial. But hey, whatever you mean!

Originally posted by Fletch:

If the typical Satisfactory base is fine with using only a single belt...

Now it gets a little bit weird. Not knocking on you. Just saying how that comes over.

[königplatzen]

Originally posted by Gordon✪Gekko:

Originally posted by Fletch:

Satisfactory (and Dyson Sphere Program) belts only have 1 lane.
Factory belts have 2 lanes.

Invalid to compare simple games to a more complex game.

True with the two lanes. That's why you call Satisfactory "simple"?

There are fine lines between complex and complicate and making a topic deliberately overly complicate.

Shady tricks like underground belts to balance belts rather seems to belong in the third category. If the game would require such shady tricks as regular solution for a given problem, then it would be sup-optimal programmed.

Luckily as many have pointed out: That doesn't seem to be the case and the problem rather lies somewhere else with more transparent and therefore better solutions.

Shady engineering isn't robust. In the long run it isn't good for a company.

Why is it shady? It's just the behavior to split off a lane, when you use an underground belt. If factorio devs didn't want that, they would simply change this. The ug belt reflects it graphically, that it behaves that way
It's not even super complicated, nor is it less robust. The belt mechanics have their quirks and it's completely fine.
Nobody is required to use those things, it's just about providing different solutions to the same problem.

Btw, what exactly does the T-Split off solve regarding lane balancing?
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3411884303

It simply pulls from one lane:
https://imgur.com/a/AEhhJmt

[Flash✪Gordon]

Originally posted by königplatzen:

Why is it shady? It's just the behavior to split off a lane, when you use an underground belt.

Let's say it's not obvious. Not what a person who doesn't read the forums and wikis would expect.

When a belt goes underground one would expect that both lanes would. Same when you drive along a highway and a tunnel comes. You would expect, unless indicated otherwise by a traffic sign, that all lanes go in and do not suddenly magically disappear.

Since OP didn't come back I am also signing off. Have a nice evening

[königplatzen]

Originally posted by Gordon✪Gekko:

Originally posted by königplatzen:

Why is it shady? It's just the behavior to split off a lane, when you use an underground belt.

Let's say it's not obvious. Not what a person who doesn't read the forums and wikis would expect.

That's for sure. One can forget, when you spent like 7 years with this game :P

[Fletch]

Originally posted by königplatzen:

Btw, what exactly does the T-Split off solve regarding lane balancing?

Screenshot helps show the comparison.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3414492768

Using the half-underground trick and it is truly limiting the split off to only use resources from that one lane -- no "filling the gap" from the second lane. When doing that trick twice, then each split off is getting 50% of that one lane's throughput, leaving the first lane 100% full/unused.

Using the "T" allows each split off to get a full lane of products -- which is leveraging 100% of the belt's capacity. If there is excess capacity in lane A to "fill the gap" in lane B, the "T" will do that for you.

[Chindraba]

Originally posted by Fletch:

Originally posted by königplatzen:

Btw, what exactly does the T-Split off solve regarding lane balancing?

Screenshot helps show the comparison.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3414492768

Using the half-underground trick and it is truly limiting the split off to only use resources from that one lane -- no "filling the gap" from the second lane. When doing that trick twice, then each split off is getting 50% of that one lane's throughput, leaving the first lane 100% full/unused.

Using the "T" allows each split off to get a full lane of products -- which is leveraging 100% of the belt's capacity. If there is excess capacity in lane A to "fill the gap" in lane B, the "T" will do that for you.

Oops. Nope.

Make a belt with mixed lanes and see what happens. Both with compacted lanes and with partially filled lanes. Experiments can be enlightening.

[Fletch]

Originally posted by Chindraba:

Oops. Nope.

Make a belt with mixed lanes and see what happens. Both with compacted lanes and with partially filled lanes. Experiments can be enlightening.

Perhaps you can share a screenshot of the point you're making? I'm not understanding what you are trying to say. Visuals help :)

My screenshot was just comparing underground vs "T" splits and the behavior differences between the two...

[königplatzen]

Originally posted by Fletch:

Originally posted by königplatzen:

Btw, what exactly does the T-Split off solve regarding lane balancing?

Screenshot helps show the comparison.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3414492768

Using the half-underground trick and it is truly limiting the split off to only use resources from that one lane -- no "filling the gap" from the second lane. When doing that trick twice, then each split off is getting 50% of that one lane's throughput, leaving the first lane 100% full/unused.

Using the "T" allows each split off to get a full lane of products -- which is leveraging 100% of the belt's capacity. If there is excess capacity in lane A to "fill the gap" in lane B, the "T" will do that for you.

OK, I get what you mean. The T-Split off helps to fill from both lanes.
But it prioritizes one lane, It doesn't equally pull from both lanes.
Your argument was just to speak against the ug-belt trick to split off one lane, which I can agree with.

The "complex" lane balancer fills the belt always equally from both lanes, no matter which side you consume. It's called input balanced, because the input is used up equally.
The ug-belt trick is used here to feed each lane on the same side of 2 separate belts to feed it into the splitter, so it can be distributed alternately and then sideload one lane back to the free side.