Before you can ask a question, you must first gain reputation by for example voting on a existing question
+1.1k votes
in Suggestion by (440 points)
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 (190 points)
There are allot of work arounds to this stackable splitters and mergers, but having stackers that stack like storage containers would simplify allot of building issues. They need to each be the height of a stacking conveyor pole so you can match a stacked belt line as they come in.

I don't think there is a wrong way for work arounds, but stacking splitters and mergers would help allot of us in allot of our building solutions. I personally have started building belts side by side and taking a split belt over the other belts next to it.

Also there was one idea of splitting up and down from Shadowwalker above that I have my own version of.  At the moment the merger is a bad option for balancing belt items as it accepts items in a one side then the other order. I think this works as intended and doesn't need to go away. It may be nice to add an additional merger like a Smart Merger that can give priorities to each input.

My idea is a little different though. I would like a single splitter/merger where you can bring in two lines and take out two lines at full speed and can give priorities or make it sort items like a smart splitter, I would be OK if it being like a smart splitter doesn't happen, but I would use it. Yes I am thinking of the splitters like in Factorio, and yes I am sorry for the comparison as both games are different games. The new industrial storage that is in the experimental build actually does this and gave me this idea. I would want a vertical and a horizontal version of the splitter/merger, and it should be the height that you can add to two belts stacked already on the stackable poles and the width of two lines as close as they can be to each other on the foundations without clipping.

Maybe like Shadowwalker said about having them be able to take four lines in and out but then have a specific item that will merge and split all inputs that are stacked ether vertically or horizontally. You would actually have to attach them to each other and not just put them next to each other so the game knows what is part of that "single entity" for splitting/merging. I think this could cause problems with programming it out and the load it could have on the game, and so may be better to just have splitter/mergers that are pre-built for two lines of items and we can just take the output of one and put it into the input of two others in order to get a similar affect. Again, Factorio players know where I am going with this one, and sorry about the comparison again. I know the developers don't like pipes and I get it. I actually don't like the pipes ether, but I do think this idea has relevance to Satisfactory unlike pipes.
by (900 points)
–6
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 (320 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.
ago by (190 points)
There's already a stacked conveyor belt support, it makes sense to be able to split those stacked conveyors.

5 Answers

+1 vote
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 (850 points)
edited by
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)
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.
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.
+2 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.

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 (11.1k points)
I'm thinking of fixing this but just 991 upvotes, is it really worth it?
by (1.2k points)
Will you just get to work man? ;-)
by (11.1k points)
+1
So I worked a bit on it, this seems kinda what you're looking for right?

https://pasteboard.co/IeVLpkY.png
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.
...