+1.3k votes
in Suggestion by (440 points) 1 flag
You can stack containers one on top of the other, Yet I have not found a way to stack splitters in a similar fashion. Is there any way to get splitters off the ground, so we can have multiple splitters on top of each other?
by (1.4k points)
–22
Why do that? It would look so ugly. Have you ever seen factories stacked on top of the other (unlike containers) ?

If you want stack, just build second floor.
by (190 points)
I agree, this is just for routing multiple lines of itemes in to things like a manufacturer. I am actually starting to use the vertical belts in the experimental version to just bring reasorces from another floor. This has already cleaned up my base allot.
by (340 points)
+1
I use the half height foundation method and it works fairly OK.  Severely offends my OCD as there is no way to make the stack perfect, but at least I can get 3 splitters or mergers on top of each other in a mostly straight line.
Basic/standard use case:  conveyor poles transporting multiple resources to places where some resource is needed and then said resource must continue on to next position via more conveyor poles.  Or belt balancing incoming raw resources en mass.
The foundation method, again, works, but is tedious at a minimum.
by (190 points)
There's already a stacked conveyor belt support, it makes sense to be able to split those stacked conveyors.
by (2k points)
this post is from pre early release but wanted to say I would love this right now I build to stack poles and run a belt then attach the splitter to the belt and then remove stack poles and the tiny belts, this works great for splitting into 3 assemblers other methods I have tried made it really hard to fix small issues cause you couldn't see them

8 Answers

+7 votes
by (630 points)

You can stack mergers and splitters on top of one another.

While you can't just place a stacker (or merger) on top of another directly, if you build your two or more layers of conveyor belt using the stackable conveyor pole and then place the splitter or merger on the existing conveyor, it will allow it to be on top of another stacker/merger.

Example Screenshot

by (630 points)
edited by
+2
I tried this, andy. But for me it was like the conveyor belts are going through the splitters/mergers if I place them like you described. Like they aren't really connected to the splitter and ignore its function. The thing is, if I want to fix this by removing the conveyor belts and replace them to connect them to the splitter, I'm always "Encroaching other's Clearance". I think it's the clearance of the upper/lower splitter or something because they're overlapping vertically a little bit (look at your own screenshot).

Do you know what I mean? Did I do it wrong?
by (450 points)
I think if you place the top one first and then connect everything up before placing one directly underneath it, you'll be fine.
by (1.4k points)
+2
That only works because splitters do not have collision. Notice in the screenshop that they overlap. It would be good to have them stack naturally, as we build them, and to stack mergers AND splitters, so I can have a tower of merger - merger - splitter - merger - splitter - splitter if I wanted to.
by (900 points)
edited by
+1
that picture is a joke: you can't place conveyors on the both splitter's third way. so it's useless.

the only way to stack splitters this way is to separate them with a two conveyor pole stackables height.
it's what I do : here's a picture : https://postimg.cc/rzRZfBDt
Just a snap on the conveyor pole conveyor would help a lot to do something cleaner.
by (440 points)
+1
while possible, it is annoying. once you placed a splitter, you cannot connect belts to it if it has another splitter in the belt below due to object encroachment.
you have to remove the splitter below, probably belts connecting to it as well, place the top splitter, connect belts, then bottom splitter and connect belts.

and dont get me started on mergers as well....

this could all be resolved with a simple stackable splitter/merger.
+4 votes
by (140 points)
edited by

Workarounds will always remain workarounds and be unnecesarily tidious and sometimes, as in this case, may not always work. For the workaround variant, where you put the splitter/merger onto a belt, will cause it not being aligned to the foundation. I'd suggest adding a special stacking pole, that could be used as if you would have 4 stacked poles for a simple belt throughtput or used as a position where you could build the single elevated splitter/merger while those 4 snap points for belts will be replaced by the IO belt link points from the splitter/merger.

Exmaple screenshot

The splitter/merger could be a little bit less tall, so they don't clip into each other when stacking and making them stackable would also be nice of course.

+2 votes
by (690 points)
I believe this has now been added to the game. Maybe this question could be hidden or something? :)
+1 vote
by
They are stackable in the most recent experimental build!
by (280 points)
I hadn't tried it since update until now, and you are right, now I must destroy my entire base! I dont know how to feel
+1 vote
by
As per the recent Experimental build (100692) splitters and mergers are now directly stackable!
They snap to eachother and belts don't have encroaching clearance issues.
0 votes
by (450 points)
Found a workaround for this by building half-height foundations up to the level where I wanted the top splitter, placed the top splitter first and connected all its conveyor belts, then removed the foundation underneath and placed the next splitter and its conveyors, and so on.  Unfortunately you'll get the Encroaching Other's Clearance message if you try to place a conveyor on a splitter that already has another splitter directly underneath it.
0 votes
by (320 points)
I agree.  I'd like the full logistical line of mergers, splitters, and belt poles to not only stack nicely on each other but also let you place power poles on top of them.
0 votes
by (12.4k points)
I'm thinking of fixing this but just 991 upvotes, is it really worth it?
by (1.4k points)
Will you just get to work man? ;-)
by (12.4k points)
+5
So I worked a bit on it, this seems kinda what you're looking for right?

https://pasteboard.co/IeVLpkY.png
by (730 points)
Hey, I have that same configuration in my main factory!
Welcome to Satisfactory Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers from other members of the community.
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.
...