Seeing you mess around with bent stackers inspired me to mess around with them. Making a C shaped design is very compact, though you have to split either the input or the output.
Yaaaaay 🥳 passed 1000 subscribers. I just noticed while watching this video 😁 congrats. What a crazy jurney. For those who was here when we were just a few hundred subs 😎 like this comment to show you are still here supporting 🎉 👇
I want to withdraw my previous comment saying studying your designs just helps me understand Nilaus crazy Factorio inspired designs. I like yours too as if in the same class and sophistication as his nowadays. Maybe your skill level has increased extremely fast, and/or I had dirt in my eyes making it hard to see what's in front of my face given the PTSD I gained from playing Factorio... there's complex and fun, and too complex to be fun, to me Factorio is in that class. If I wanted to work again, I'd have continue to play Factorio! Hopefully, that didn't just challenge you to play Factorio... ... ... Thanks for the shares.
@@DataEngineerPlays Idk if you know but making the distinction of "practicing right" is a big deal. Most ppl don't realize the time they waste practicing anything without attention, even if getting up to speed involves running out of errors first which is a chance to observe and learn something. Not for nothing but being a STEM guy in NYC is pretty lonely out here. Even my own grandma says, "I think too much." Like that is a bad thing! Thanks for giving me an opportunity to watch another STEM guy in another specialty attack problems even if it's just puzzles for a game. My mind needs to stay thinking thinking thinking.
If you thought of using routing and sorting platforms, you can fit 24 straight stackers on a 1x1 platform for a 3-level stacker without any problems, though you will need 3 of them per spacebelt, hence the need for sorting and routing platforms
@@DataEngineerPlays I have answered once, but my reply either didn't get posted or is currently hidden from me, its hard to tell sometimes, so you'll have to excuse me if I've answered a second time. Hopefully this time will be more concise. Routing platforms can be used whenever multiple space belts are required to share a a space. I use 2x1 platforms for things like belt swappers, which switch the positions of two belts without the need for tunnels increasing the size of the footprint. I use them for sorting platforms to group 2-3 space belts by level, so level one from each belt would go to the same output, same with levels two and three. I'll upload an image with an example of a belt swapper and a belt sorter to my profile shortly, like I did for a cutter that keeps both sides of irregular shapes
@@DataEngineerPlays I just uploaded a couple examples of my routing platforms, along with my irregular shape cutter and 1x1 3-level stacker. The stackers and sorting platforms above them I always use together, so I haven't felt the need to try and fit them all onto one platform... yet... They do become less useful for MAM builds, though
I used bent stackers to do this, feed 4 stackers from the sides then your output is one lane through the middle on the bottom. I sent all the outputs up to level 3 and out. On level 2 there's a lane between the stackers to help with routing the inputs.
Hint: you can move stackers on second layer and place them partially over the other stacker's output conserving space. Your current build seem to violate the rule of assotiation (inputs 1 from level n are stacked with inputs 2 from the same level. Try checking it by feeding it with only 1 level at a time and ensure it outputs to the same level as well.
@@DataEngineerPlays One of it. Helped me to build semi-symmetric 2-tile 12 stacker. For 1 tile you would have to get your hands dirty with heavy spaghetti.
3:05 From my experience neither is really better, but probably there are some cases when bent stacker is actually better instead of being equal. If you mirror every other bent stacker in that line design, the results will be the same 3×6 footprint (with belts above and below) when put in a line ( ╚┬╝╚┬╝ ), same as direct stackers. And you can wrap them around the same as direct stackers with the same 3×5 footprint (including with belts above and below). Basically, take the first segment and mirror it below: ╚┬╝ ░├─ ╔┴╗ Inputs are the same as in your design. In comparison, direct stackers layout: ║║║ ├┼┼ ║║║ However, unlike with direct stackers, you can fit a belt jumper starting block within the footprint! Note, there's no empty space anywhere in the design, with straight stackers on the left. That's not the case with bent stackers. Since all outputs are converged in the middle, you can output with a jumper in either direction, no matter is there any belts on either side. Alternatively, you can use these spaces to redirect output to another layer.
The 1x1 uses bent stackers and a boat-load of jumpers. I looked at it closely and got confused trying to figure out the belt routing. There are some really smart/talented designers out there. I am NOT one of them.
@@Dumascain if you ignore the fact that the space belt would be carrying all three levels, you can make a 1x1 3-level stacker with zero jumpers or bent stackers
@@Dumascain so you don't think that if 1 space belt was carrying three different shapes on three different levels it isn't accompanied by two more identical belts? I guess that would be the case if you dispose of the rest, but why would you do that? Why would you assume that I was even suggesting using 1/3 capacity?
There's several viable bent stacker orientations, here's a couple. Stealing Lainverse's symbol idea let's see if this works... ╔ ┳ ━ ┫ ╔ ┳ ╋ ╗ ┣ ╝╔ ┫ ┡ ╝╚ ┩ ┣ ━ ━ ╝
Stop moving your camera like a parkinson man it’s unwatchable. A fixed wide view without moving it’s more understanble. Do smooth transition with travelling to another view or plan.
Huurray. Thanks for continuing with the blueprints. I am amazed how you did it in a MK III -way :D
Congrats on 1K, I've enjoyed following along with every video.
You can mirror the bent stacker pressing F and change the output/imput orientarion
I am loving these videos!!
Seeing you mess around with bent stackers inspired me to mess around with them. Making a C shaped design is very compact, though you have to split either the input or the output.
Figuring out I could squeeze an entire array into a 2x4x2 box made building that part of my MAM so much easier.
congratulations on reaching 1k subs!
Thank you, this channel has an amazing audience!
Yaaaaay 🥳 passed 1000 subscribers.
I just noticed while watching this video
😁 congrats. What a crazy jurney.
For those who was here when we were just a few hundred subs 😎
like this comment to show you are still here supporting 🎉
👇
Thanks Rawer, my biggest advocate!
I want to withdraw my previous comment saying studying your designs just helps me understand Nilaus crazy Factorio inspired designs. I like yours too as if in the same class and sophistication as his nowadays. Maybe your skill level has increased extremely fast, and/or I had dirt in my eyes making it hard to see what's in front of my face given the PTSD I gained from playing Factorio... there's complex and fun, and too complex to be fun, to me Factorio is in that class. If I wanted to work again, I'd have continue to play Factorio!
Hopefully, that didn't just challenge you to play Factorio... ... ...
Thanks for the shares.
Aw thank you! I have been playing a lot while recording these videos. Skill directly proportional to time spent practicing right
@@DataEngineerPlays Idk if you know but making the distinction of "practicing right" is a big deal. Most ppl don't realize the time they waste practicing anything without attention, even if getting up to speed involves running out of errors first which is a chance to observe and learn something.
Not for nothing but being a STEM guy in NYC is pretty lonely out here. Even my own grandma says, "I think too much." Like that is a bad thing! Thanks for giving me an opportunity to watch another STEM guy in another specialty attack problems even if it's just puzzles for a game. My mind needs to stay thinking thinking thinking.
If you thought of using routing and sorting platforms, you can fit 24 straight stackers on a 1x1 platform for a 3-level stacker without any problems, though you will need 3 of them per spacebelt, hence the need for sorting and routing platforms
Routing and sorting platforms? What's that
@@DataEngineerPlays I have answered once, but my reply either didn't get posted or is currently hidden from me, its hard to tell sometimes, so you'll have to excuse me if I've answered a second time. Hopefully this time will be more concise.
Routing platforms can be used whenever multiple space belts are required to share a a space. I use 2x1 platforms for things like belt swappers, which switch the positions of two belts without the need for tunnels increasing the size of the footprint. I use them for sorting platforms to group 2-3 space belts by level, so level one from each belt would go to the same output, same with levels two and three.
I'll upload an image with an example of a belt swapper and a belt sorter to my profile shortly, like I did for a cutter that keeps both sides of irregular shapes
@@DataEngineerPlays I just uploaded a couple examples of my routing platforms, along with my irregular shape cutter and 1x1 3-level stacker. The stackers and sorting platforms above them I always use together, so I haven't felt the need to try and fit them all onto one platform... yet...
They do become less useful for MAM builds, though
I used bent stackers to do this, feed 4 stackers from the sides then your output is one lane through the middle on the bottom. I sent all the outputs up to level 3 and out. On level 2 there's a lane between the stackers to help with routing the inputs.
Hint: you can move stackers on second layer and place them partially over the other stacker's output conserving space. Your current build seem to violate the rule of assotiation (inputs 1 from level n are stacked with inputs 2 from the same level. Try checking it by feeding it with only 1 level at a time and ensure it outputs to the same level as well.
Is this the secret to the 1x1 stacker build?
@@DataEngineerPlays One of it. Helped me to build semi-symmetric 2-tile 12 stacker. For 1 tile you would have to get your hands dirty with heavy spaghetti.
Just pumping these videos out
I did commit to new videos every day!
Hi, i have a question :) how can i use your google drive files in game can you explain it ? thanks a lot
just copy the blueprint into your blueprints folder, it should be located in appdata/local low/tobspr
I build my 1x2 12 Stacker using the Bent Stackers. I've aranged them, so that the 4 outputs go on exactly 2 belts, like an U-Form.
thanks for the blueprints 🙂
3:05 From my experience neither is really better, but probably there are some cases when bent stacker is actually better instead of being equal.
If you mirror every other bent stacker in that line design, the results will be the same 3×6 footprint (with belts above and below) when put in a line ( ╚┬╝╚┬╝ ), same as direct stackers. And you can wrap them around the same as direct stackers with the same 3×5 footprint (including with belts above and below).
Basically, take the first segment and mirror it below:
╚┬╝
░├─
╔┴╗
Inputs are the same as in your design.
In comparison, direct stackers layout:
║║║
├┼┼
║║║
However, unlike with direct stackers, you can fit a belt jumper starting block within the footprint! Note, there's no empty space anywhere in the design, with straight stackers on the left. That's not the case with bent stackers. Since all outputs are converged in the middle, you can output with a jumper in either direction, no matter is there any belts on either side. Alternatively, you can use these spaces to redirect output to another layer.
Yes interesting, so a much more complicated build, however is slight smaller than the non bent stackers
that's a nice stacker design - however, it is not layer-safe. i did not manage to do this on a 2by1 platform, maybe you can do it?
layer safe as in if you dont have 3 layers it won't work?
@@DataEngineerPlays yeah. Layer 1 A should be merged with layer 1 B and so on
I really struggled to put it on a 2x1 platform and then I saw a design on the discord that is 1x1. 🤯
Amazing, I can't wait to check out some of these designs after my series is done!
The 1x1 uses bent stackers and a boat-load of jumpers. I looked at it closely and got confused trying to figure out the belt routing. There are some really smart/talented designers out there. I am NOT one of them.
@@Dumascain if you ignore the fact that the space belt would be carrying all three levels, you can make a 1x1 3-level stacker with zero jumpers or bent stackers
@@chojin6136 Why would I only use 1/3 of the capacity?
@@Dumascain so you don't think that if 1 space belt was carrying three different shapes on three different levels it isn't accompanied by two more identical belts? I guess that would be the case if you dispose of the rest, but why would you do that? Why would you assume that I was even suggesting using 1/3 capacity?
I’ve only seen one viable orientation using bent stackers, but it’s natively 3 floors tall.
There's several viable bent stacker orientations, here's a couple. Stealing Lainverse's symbol idea let's see if this works...
╔ ┳ ━ ┫ ╔ ┳ ╋ ╗
┣ ╝╔ ┫ ┡ ╝╚ ┩
┣ ━ ━ ╝
Hey DEL me watched all viedo for shapez 2 very nice work good and helping viedo so we request to one for all blueprints 👍
you haven't updated the google drive yet
thank you for reminding me! blueprints are in the link now
STOP MOVING THE CAM SO MUCH
Stop moving your camera like a parkinson man it’s unwatchable. A fixed wide view without moving it’s more understanble. Do smooth transition with travelling to another view or plan.
Thanks I'll try to keep that in mind!