+12 votes
in Bug Report by (580 points)
closed by

Placing a splitter or a merger next to another belt attach point results in the belt not being able to connect reliably. 




Placing a splitter and merger together closely results in the belt not being able to connect at all.

Ref: https://pasteboard.co/IewMwwC.png

by (580 points)
edited by
designing compact belt balancers for one - where you may want to place a merger and splitter next to eachother. i.e https://pasteboard.co/IewRw4M.png

alternatively, designing compact layouts with any factory component - my smelter layout is now effectively un-buildable now: https://pasteboard.co/IewTBju.png
by (15.2k points)
Thanks for the added images and use cases! I'll look into it and see what can be done :)
by (670 points)
its amazing how often i do this TBH.
but a simplifed example of a use case would be even distribution of resources with an odd ratio, like 3:2  where 2 factories require 3 factories worth of materials.

IF you have belts fast enough to handle the complete output of all 3 suppliers, then simply feeding them into a [M]erger, and then a [S]pliter.

[Supply] \           / [Consumer]
[Supply] /           \ [Consumer]

if you dont, then you would add a [M]erger to the outside 2 suppliers, and a [S]pliter to the central supplier feeding the [M]ergers.

[Supply] - [M] - - [Consumer]
[Supply]  - [S]
[Supply] - [M] - - [Consumer]

I should also note, you can kinda work around it if you are persistent enough.  as noted i do this kind of thing a LOT so i have had to explore ways to do what i need in the face of this issue.      Usually i do it by pre placing the belt, building the splitter on the belt, and then trimming off the extra belt.

That will let you place them as close as you need, without trying to fight this connection issue.    it does take some creative thinking and placement orders sometimes though so its not ideal lol
by (230 points)
Another example use-case that is no longer possible: https://pasteboard.co/IeApyPo.png

It's frustrating that I can't use the same layout anymore, but I think the most infuriating thing about this issue is that it's not intuitive whatsoever. There is nothing to indicate to me that I shouldn't be able to do this, or why. It's similar to how you can attach a conveyor lift to a splitter/merger without a belt by placing it right next to it, but you can't do the same in reverse by placing the splitter/merger right next to an existing lift. There is nothing to even imply it should only work one way, and I end up wasting my time trying to figure out what is wrong.

I've found that in some cases it's sometimes possible to get it to work by aiming at juuuuuust the right spot, but that doesn't seem to be super consistent.
by (2.2k points)
Since the latest patch, I had to relay belts twice over many places. First belt I put down is not registred

1 Answer

+5 votes
by (15.2k points)
Best answer
This is now fixed internally and will be patched in the next hotfix, probably later this week.

But taking some of your use cases further, what do you guys think of this in the future:

Instead of building this 2 meter conveyor piece manually, allow splitters/mergers to snap to each other and possibly to factories and those would connect visually using the rubber bellow we use to connect lifts to buildings?
by (1.1k points)
OK with snapping to each other; I don’t think they should snap to buildings. Right now you are limited by your fastest belt speed. If I can snap a splitter to straight to a miner, for instance, I could get 600 ore/s from a pure node
by (670 points)
I actually prefer that method TBH, as long as its snap distance is close enough that it does not prevent the tight packed spacing as noted.  

I would personally love to see the ability to cover belts as a whole with the bellow (for the sake of performance).
by (580 points)
edited by
Snapping to each other and to buildings is a good solution.
The issue mentioned with belt speed is somewhat irrelevant as everything is already rate limited by the speed of production. i.e. Mk2 miners on pure nodes are only 240 ore/min. If someone wanted to daisy chain splitters between multiple factories, it'll cost more than using a belt. Trying to hook up multiple constructors to a single merger chain, while possible would still effectively rate limit to the consuming machines. If that requires more balancing, one possible way could be to rate limit the splitters/mergers based on the highest unlocked logistics level.
by (1.1k points)
That's not true TekspaR: Pure Node, MK2 miner, 250% overclocked, can output 600 resources per minute. Current belt limit is 450.
by (580 points)
edited by
If someone really wanted to invest the time and resources into daisy chaining splitters into enough constructors to make that work, I don't really see a huge problem. They would have already had to invest in upgrading to steel production, and would be (once they come out) well on their way to pushing Mk 5 belts at 660 items/min anyways. But, as I mentioned, there are many ways to implement rate limiting.
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.