安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
Design is based on your belt speeds.
If you want to try to create a buffer system for Express Belts, for example, you need a total of 18 Fast Inserters (9 per side) and Chests to create a buffer system. That's just for putting the stuff into the buffer chests-- you need double that number of inserters for the output. (And of course, you need fewer inserters for slower belts.)
I think that buffer designs for a main bus is a bad idea-- especially for a 4-belt main bus... you're going to have to split-out/layout your bus to support 72 inserters and 72 chests (and all associated splitters and belts).
At a rough guess, you have to have X*18 fast inserters to unload from the chests back to the belt, and X*42 Express Belts, and At least two splitters for each Main Bus line (X*2 Splitters).
This equates to ~ 384 entities in your layout, not including power poles to power inserters. You will certainly need more to align the buffer layout with the rest of the main bus. (Or, if you use slower belts, you'll need fewer inserters, chests and belts.)
I've never seen any such designs and wouldn't use them myself because, as noted above, I think it's a bad idea.
Good luck.
I feel a sudden need to science the ♥♥♥♥ out of this.