+30 votes
487 views
in Suggestion by (130 points)
I would like to see multiple changes to Mergers and Splitters.

1.  I would like to see mergers and splitters with all the Outputs in one direction and not out either side will make for cleaner building.

2.  I would like to see mergers and splitters be stackable and clip to foundations.

3.  I would like to see mergers have a priority so if I am merging 2 different types of materials I could prioritize one material over another.

4.  I would like to see splitters have split number I can adjust, so if I have 60 ore coming in I could split to a specific number 34 out one side 26 out the other etc....

5.  I would like to see different types of mergers and splitters, example 1 to 2, 1 to 3, 1 to 4, 1 to 6 as an example.

6.  I would like to see mergers and splitters be able to attach directly to the outputs and inputs of smelters/constructors/assemblers/forges.  so you dont have to have a space between the merger / splitters and device.
by (870 points)
+4
I'm not sure there is any benefit to #1 and #5.

For 1, the build won't be any cleaner because the merger/splitter has to make room for input/outputs. That would simply amount to exactly the same design layout as leaving it as it is now and just connecting a conveyor belt with a 90 degree turn.

In fact, I think that it would make builds harder and much less clean. The current mergers and splitters are simple boxes. It's very easy to squeeze them into small spots. However, if you have all of the outputs/inputs facing the same direction, then the shape of the merger/splitter needs to increased and elongated. This would make them much harder to place and consequently make them much harder to interact with.

In fact, I have a specific example in my build where I used 2 mergers, a splitter and a smart splitter to filter an assortment of oil products into a truck station. Basically, I wanted to sort fuel out of the line and put it into the fuel input of the truck station. But I only wanted it to do that while the station had room for fuel. I ran into an issue where the entire system would get clogged once the station filled with fuel because all of the fuel was trying to be split off the line, but the output was full. Therefore it held up the items behind it. The solution was to put a second splitter after the smart splitter that would then merge every 2nd fuel back onto the filling line. So, now once the truck station fills, all the fuel simply goes back onto the filling line. This would have been impossible build if all of the inputs and outputs where in the same direction because of the cramped space I built it in.

Now, it might be better for specific builds where you want all the inputs/outputs coming/going from one location, but for builds where they AREN'T coming/going from one direction, it becomes far more difficult.

As for #5, that also doesn't really make much sense to me because you can just build a chain of mergers/splitters to reach the desired number of inputs/outputs.

For a 1 to 2, just don't connect one belt.
We already have 1 to 3.
For 1 to 4, daisy chain two together, and leave one belt disconnected on the second. Connect it for 1 to 5.
Repeat the 1 to 4 method for 1 to 6.

The way that you would construct this would take up exactly the same amount of space as a specific 1 to X merger/splitter.


Everything else I agree with. For #4, I'd phrase it to be a ratio. Like for every 1 item going left, I want 2 going right. This should be an option on the smart splitter.
by (6.1k points)
+1
#6 would be really useful for bypassing higher tier belt requirements.. could fully utilize pure node mk1 miners with tier1 belts, feed 120/min assemblers, etc.
by (130 points)
+1
Yes I understand your point of view, I guess I should rephrase 1.  I dont want to get rid of the existing splitters and mergers but add another that would have all outputs in 1 direction.   As for #5 it does not take the same space, by the time you add multiple splitters and mergers and connect them with belts it takes a ton of space.
by (1.1k points)
@ambaire you are still limited to the belt speed at the  miners output.
by (1.1k points)
+1
@R315r4z0r Have to disagree on your points regarding #1 and #5.

I don't have an in-game image at hand right now, however, I have 3 belts (rods, screws and plates) that need to be split into 2, 3, 2 respectively in order to feed my assemblers.

Even poles to help maximise my space efficiently (instead of auto-generating a belt path), I still ended up with a lot of wasted space.

Expertly drawn layout: https://imgur.com/ef2zj15
The top drawing is my current layout. I don't like it; it's inefficient.
Using OP's proposed idea, in conjunction with their suggestion to clip the splitter/merger to a foundation, I believe space would be more efficiently utilised.
Welcome to Satisfactory Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers from other members of the community.
In order to keep this site accessible for everybody, please write your post in english :)
August 28th update: We've removed downvotes! One major reason is because we don't want to discourage folks from posting legitimate suggestions / reports / questions with fear of being mass downvoted (which has been happening a LOT). So we now allow you to upvote what you like, or ignore what you don't. Points have also been adjusted to account for this change.
Please use the search function before posting a new question and upvote existing ones to bring more attention to them, It will help us a lot. <3
Remember to mark resolved questions as answered by clicking on the check mark located under the upvotes of each answer.
...