Difference of active provider chest and passive provider chest

[PPsh-441]

Now after 100hr I have finally able to deploy robots,from what I see passive and active provider chest do the same job!what is their differences?

[Clonefarmer]

Provider chests allow bots to take from them. Active provider chest the bots will remove items automatically and take them to storage containers.

For example. I use active provider chests for the empty barrels coming from barrel emptying assemblers. That way the empty barrels get taken to storage instead of filling up the chest. This keeps the system from getting clogged with empty barrels.

[serker31]

Passive provider is "feel free to take items from there". Active provider is "take whatever it is there to anywhere else".

[The Chaotic Coder]

I use passive providers for just about everything. For example I have a furnace setup making steel, and each pair of furnaces feeds into a passive provider. Steel sits there until it's requested somewhere.

The reason I use passive providers is because the things only have to be moved once instead of twice, directly from the passive provider to the requester that needs them. Active provider chests will usually force items to be taken to storage first, and then to the requester chest. This means using twice as many robots for a given amount of production/consumption, which means using more power, and significantly increasing the CPU load as well.

Robots also tend to be kind of random when choosing which storage chest to move stuff into from an active provider. If there's a half-full chest of iron, they'll try to fill it up the rest of the way before starting a new chest, but when it's time to start filling the new one it may be way on the other side of the factory (even when there are empty storages much closer. I'm not 100% sure, but I think it has to do with what order you built the chests in. Anyway, it's quite inefficient.

That said, I do use active providers for omni-train stations. A single station for unloading iron, copper, coal, and uranium. It has its own logistic network that's as small as possible, and all the storage chests are right there next to the active providers. This means the station chests will be unloaded immediately to make room for the next train load.

If I used passive providers in the omni station, then for example if I'm delivering in a little more copper than I'm using, it would collect over time in the provider chests and eventually jam the system so the other resources couldn't be unloaded.

[Killcreek2]

+ Passive providers allow items to be taken from them as Last Priority.
+ Active providers force items to be taken from them as Highest Priority.
+ Storage chests sit in between (Medium Priority).

Whenever a logi bot is looking to fulfill an item request, it checks all the local network active providers first, then storage chests, then passive providers until it finds that item.


To better understand the differences, it may help to look from both ends of the delivery:

1> Buffer: When items are manufactured, where should they be put? Do they need to be used up first before any other sources of that item (active), or should they be left until last (passive)?

2> Pickup: When items are needed somewhere, where should they be collected from? Long-term storage for trash / construction / recycling (storage), on-demand production line (active), or backup production (passive)?

Choosing the right mix of passive / active / storage chests for the job, can make a big difference in efficiency & overall throughput.


ProTip: Always control what is placed into Active providers.
If you do not do this then you may as well be using storage chests instead, as anything put into an active provider is shoved into storage anyway (it may help to think of them as infinite-capacity teleporters linked to your storage array).
- This is a common mistake that some players seem to often fall into, (& then complain that "it's not working" or "actives are useless").

It is super easy to set a limit on active providers: just connect the inserter loading them to the local logi net, with a condition to only activate when "item X" is less than "wanted amount". This simple step prevents the storage array filling up with that item. (There is a button at top right of the inserter UI popup for this purpose, but it is easily overlooked.)


If in doubt or unsure about how the different chest types function, then stick to passives for now (easier to debug). If you want to boost production / efficiency and have a good grasp of how the virtual bot network functions, you may find it beneficial to switch to / redesign for active providers.


(For reference, my current factory is using ~4100 active, 99 passive, ~500 storage, 13 buffer, & ~3500 requester chests. Not trying to boast, but to show that actives have a lot more use than it may appear at first glance.)

[Killcreek2]

I know this is a double-post, but it seemed a sensible idea to separate the replies.

Originally posted by jchardin64:

The reason I use passive providers is because the things only have to be moved once instead of twice, directly from the passive provider to the requester that needs them. Active provider chests will usually force items to be taken to storage first, and then to the requester chest. This means using twice as many robots for a given amount of production/consumption, which means using more power, and significantly increasing the CPU load as well.

I have found that a well-designed system does not increase the CPU load at all, as items tend to be moved directly from active to requestor >90% of the time (assuming a consistant factory throughput), locating the storage chests between active provider & requestor results also helps (so the items travel the same total distance), & this results in: similar bot flight times; power use; & number of bots needed, compared to a passive setup.

Active systems can often be more compact than passive systems due to requiring much smaller buffers, allowing higher throughput-per-kW & shorter bot journeys overall (reducing the UPS cost), which usually more than offsets the slight increase in UPS cost due to items occasionally making 2 short trips rather than 1 long trip.

Robots also tend to be kind of random when choosing which storage chest to move stuff into from an active provider. If there's a half-full chest of iron, they'll try to fill it up the rest of the way before starting a new chest, but when it's time to start filling the new one it may be way on the other side of the factory (even when there are empty storages much closer. I'm not 100% sure, but I think it has to do with what order you built the chests in. Anyway, it's quite inefficient.

There is nothing random about it: they will add items to a chest that already contains that item (or has a pending delivery of that item), & if there is none available then they will place the items in the closest storage chest instead.
Storage chests can now be filtered, and buffer chests have been added, to provide better control over where the items are stockpiled.

A giant whole-factory mono-network is an inefficent design regardless if you are using active or passive providers: delivery latency skyrockets (requiring huge item buffers &/or request amounts to compensate, though the new storage filters & buffer chests help to reduce this if setup well), as does power cost & number of bots required.
Logi bots work much better / more efficiently when used in smaller dedicated networks, though a giant mono-network is rather good for construction purposes.