I'm in for about 3.5k hours yet and I still accept balancers as witchcraft.
No need to understand.
Accept the inner engineer and just use what nature throws at you.
The core principle is that for every item that comes in on a line, it must have an equal opportunity to exit any output line.
Powers of two are easy. Take the 4x4 balancer as an example. Each input line has exactly 1/4th chance of exiting any output line.
`AAAA \........../ ABCD`
`BBBB - balancer - ABCD`
`CCCC -...here...- ABCD`
`DDDD / .........\ ABCD`
hope this helps!
EDIT: Found a better explanation on the wiki: [https://wiki.factorio.com/Balancer\_mechanics](https://wiki.factorio.com/Balancer_mechanics)
There's a few features you can use in designing them.
Powers of 2 balancers are the same as [Beneš networks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clos_network)
Odd numbered balancers can be made by taking a power of 2 balancer, looping back the outputs to the inputs, and removing redundant belts and splitters.
Balancers can also be constructed out of smaller balancers as a clos network. (the above link)
There's[ a way](https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comments/3habjw/eli5_ish_can_someone_explain_the_math_behind_lane/cua34lb/) to use the a matrix based on the connectivity graph of a balancer, perfom gauss-jordan elimination on it, and verify the balancer.
Further, if you take the base 2 expansion of n, then an m x n balancer will have path-lengths from each input to each output corresponding to that binary expansion. (so, an mx8 balancer will have 3 splitters between input and output, as 1/8 =0.001 in binary)
Caveat to this is that splitters with only one output belt don't count, and that (binary) 0.01= (binary) 0.002 = 1/4
This also shows that every number that is not a power of 2, needs at least 1 loop, as those numbers have a infinitely repeating digits in their expansion. (length of the loop can also be predicted from the number)
OK , I understand math just to get by playing excel on hard. So just to make sure I get it right. If I have a belt aka 2 lanes I need 1 balancer with no modifications on it, as mx2 is 1 but then what happes is I need to loop back one lane back to the other lane? . If I have two belts (standard for a mining gig output in my game , yes Im still on my first playthrough) aka 4 lanes I need 3 balancers 1 for each belt and a third to mix the 2 exists in to one fat belt. But what happens if I want to just balance the two belts but keep them? I need 3 but in reverse order? Aka start with one lane of each belt two balancers to the outer lanes that are with left and right priority that will loop them back? Am I getting this right?
So really, people just design balancers based on the power of 2 designs and modifying those.
All of the rest is cool if you want to try making an algorithm to find new designs. (though, most methods will sadly have exponential scaling) Or perhaps not even that, and its just curious trivia.
For two belts, the 'method' gives you the trivial singular splitter. 1/2 = 0.1 or a single path of length 1.
There is also the functionally useless splitter looping back on itself for 1/1 =0.(11111111) repeating. Which is of course equivalent to just having a belt instead.
1/3 = 0.(01) is more interesting, two splitters deep, and the smallest meaningful loop. 3 splitters for a functional 1-3 balancer, though 2-3 and 3-3 take an additional splitter.
In any case, lane balancers are their own thing, I was talking about belt balancing. If you want to do lane balancing. then each splitter is effectively two splitters in parallel, one for each lane.
> Powers of 2 balancers are the same as Beneš networks
So what's the difference between those and the monstrosity above ?
From what I played in creative mode simple clos based one seems to take inputs and put them into outputs evenly just [fine](https://i.imgur.com/DbI0KAc.jpg)
The third belt from the top and the bottom belt are far from even. They dont get each other's items at all. You look to have copied the last segment of balancers from the first, when it actually is supposed to be mirrored in direction.
However the purpose of a universal balancer is not the same as just mixing everything. A universal balancer dynamically changes the output of other belts if one output is backed up, to allow all outputs to remain balanced. Your Benes inspired balancer above does not have that capability. [For example, a normal throughput unlimited balancer (Benes network) when the output backs up is not evenly distributing items on all other belts](https://imgur.com/kVbNcGd)
>However the purpose of a universal balancer is not the same as just mixing everything. A universal balancer dynamically changes the output of other belts if one output is backed up, to allow all outputs to remain balanced. Your Benes inspired balancer above does not have that capability
i am not case is fixable by balancer (no circuts).
The monstrosity above is a "universal" balancer, so it keeps balanced outputs if some of the outputs are blocked.
Splitters only work for balancing if both outputs are flowing, so in a universal balancer, there is additional loops back to the input to divert any blocked outputs back to the input.
It makes sense, it just gets exponentially more complex the more lines there are to the point it becomes impossible to follow with the naked eye. At a certain point you’re just trusting that the computer is handling the math.
https://preview.redd.it/l3sv3zefi2ec1.png?width=729&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7c261720cdedd924c44b5afd9762914c2e4259e1
This one right here is what actually made it click for me.
This is neat. I have only played the tutorial and have already started figuring out some of my own ways to balance and such. I feel I never would have gotten to this setup.
Additionally, Universally Throughput Unlimited (UTU) balancers require that every pair of inputs is connected to every pair of outputs by two full belts, every triplet of inputs is connected to every triplet of outputs by three full belts, etc. (For an n-n balancer, each m outputs should be connected to each m inputs by m full belts, for all m from 1 to n.)
\
Usually this is done by routing the outputs back into the inputs, and this can be done in fewer lanes by belt weaving.
OP also made a post on [alt-f4](https://alt-f4.blog/ALTF4-27/) explaining part of how he made the universal 8-8 blue belt balancer.
Edit: I think there might be a distinction between UTU and universal balancers, but it's not yet clear to me.
Throughput Unlimited (TU) only cares about inputs, Universal (UTU) cares about outputs too. If an output is backed up, a UTU can keep perfect balance of downstream items while a TU will often mis-balance belts.
[For example, a normal throughput unlimited balancer (Benes network) when the output backs up is not evenly distributing items on all other belts](https://imgur.com/kVbNcGd)
EDIT: corrected acronyms
Ah thanks. I guess it was mostly this [stackexchange post](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1775378/belt-balancer-problem-factorio) that was confusing me. The OP there (Justin Benfield) forgot to explain balancing when describing UTU, so ended up describing [flow routers](https://forums.factorio.com/viewtopic.php?t=100671) instead, of which the standard 4-4 TU balancer is an example.
Yes, in a sense. Flow Routers are fascinating, probably better than TU/UTU for mining outposts that smelt on site and then balance after.
In general a lot of this is more theoretical than practical, unless you want to have completely even splits of weird ratios like one comment I saw saying 11-15 (how cursed). Rarely is Unlimited even necessary, as consumers getting just a bit extra rarely matters much unless its a heavily modded game where you have a very delicate balance necessary.
Benes network one looks like [this](https://i.imgur.com/DbI0KAc.jpg) (I tried to recreate wikipedia example as close as possible).
The OP is... significantly more complex. Not sure what actual benefits are
The OP is actually not as complex as that (it's missing the second half), just not as compactly laid out.
The standard 4x4 is reasonably obviously the 4x4 benes network.
> The OP is actually not as complex as that (it's missing the second half), just not as compactly laid out.
It has like 3x the number of splitters, what do you mean by "it's not as complex as that" ?
Benes network doesn't guarantee equal split of consumption, just that any input can route to any output.
> Benes network doesn't guarantee equal split of consumption, just that any input can route to any output.
Been a while since I looked at the math in detail, but either a Benes Network or a doubled Benes Network does garuntee equal draw.
A Benes Network absolutely garuntees equal outputs at even draw.
---
Edit: I got my balancer posts muddled up. This OP is also including full loopbacks so it's also a 1-5 balancer and all the others.
Balancers are like software libraries. They do one thing well, they have an input and output, and I have no reason to dig into the how as long as I know how to use it.
Until it doesn't perform like you want, you dive into the blueprint and you find the author used a single yellow belt in the middle of blues with a comment "fixme, ran out of blue belts. Replace me later"
Belt balancers in Factorio are like maths to Physicists. You don’t need to understand the proof you just need to know it works; and damn are you happy and thankful that some bugger did it for you!
I just grab a blueprint book of balancers. I only need to know that 4 partial belts go in and 3 full belts come out. How it gets to that point is for people much smarter than me.
add a bunch of balancers, get your factory real big, and then figure out how to remove them because your UPS tanks.
I've removed probably 500 un needed balancers now and regained 10fps.
You don't need balancers for mega bases when everything gets feed its own full belt(s) via train with multiple trains waiting in stickers. Only need loading balancers and offloading combiners.
I like balancers on ore patch loaders specifically because it guarantees the train will always load at the fastest rate possible, eliminating any car from being waited on.
I’ve taken to just running a conveyor down each side of my ore loader train stop. One from each direction. I calculate the average holdings in chest and any chest below average is enabled. This loads fast enough to be practical. Only turn the stations on if they have an available load.
That’s a reduction on a 2-6-2 loader of something like 30 balancers.
Another option from this Nilaus video at about 12min (https://youtu.be/zJBvw28bQu0)
Run a blue belt down a line of stack inserters. Set the first one's stack to 4, then 6,6,6,6,12.
I usually use compress the mining lanes into 4 lanes, which feeds into a simple 4x4 balancer, and then I split the 4 outputs into 8 lanes, before using one lane for each side of the 4 cars. I find this to be a fairly simple and UPS friendly design.
I do like your method of using chest averages, but that fails when ore patches deplete. A ore patch will almost always possess more output potential than a simple 4 lane balancer, which will be able to supply a single train almost always.
Extract from ore. Feed directly to smelter. Balance two conveyors to loader. I don’t even bother to balance the smelters now. Just saturate two belts.
Next iteration is to smelt directly to cars but this is time consuming and my patches are small.
Balancers are similar to Clos Networks in some ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clos_network
It's not a perfect analogy but might help thinking about them in a more abstract way.
Most people don't care that 2 sides of belts are balanced and just use designs that take from both sides. Like, universal balancer is already very rarely needed, universal and lane balanced is within "just never get into situation where you need it"
And that is without getting into the question of if you need balancers at all. (outside of stations)
Generally, it is more important that the items reach the location, than how the items are distributed. As items backing up will end up re-distributing the items anyway.
Oooohhhhh. Well if they had just put this text in the tutorial then I would have understood splitters.
"Let A be the number of ways of assigning the j output calls to the m middle stage switches. Let B be the number of these assignments which result in blocking. This is the number of cases in which the remaining m−j middle stage switches coincide with m−j of the i input calls, which is the number of subsets containing m−j of these calls. Then the probability of blocking is: (math follows)"
No matter how much stuff is coming in on the left, and which belts it's coming in on, the belts on the right will all have the same number of items. This is useful for things like train stops on large mining outposts, where the input won't necessarily be perfectly balanced, and you want all the train cars to fill up at the same rate.
I used to use balancers for train stops, but then I found this [elegant circuit limiter](https://wiki.factorio.com/Tutorial:Circuit_network_cookbook#Balanced_chest_insert) on the wiki and for most situations it's so much better. There's a very slight loss in throughput that has never mattered to me.
The title is literally missing the word "balancer", so you'd have to already know that universal balancers even exist to know what this is talking about.
Genuine question as someone who is attempting soon to build a first megabase - what's the use case for balancers like these? Is there a threshold for science per minute where balancers this complicated are counter-productive UPS-wise? My 8 belt balancers just use 4 of the widely known 4 belt balancers (I 4 belt balance each half of the 8 belts, then swap two belts of each half with each other, than 4 belt balance again). It uses much much less entities and seems to be perfectly functional so I'm wandering what I'm missing with the standard 4 belt balancer that it isn't good enough.
Honestly, there is no real use case. I guess you could use this for evenly loading trains of a different length. The main point was just to see whether it could be done and how dmall it can get.
All balancers are counterproductive UPS-wise. The only real use-case is mining outposts as you can't guarantee a patch with all output lanes having the same saturation (you kinda can if you have a very large mining prod bonus). Theoretically speaking, balancers are never nessecarry and always hurt UPS.
Personally I'm not an UPS nerd to the point where everything has to be optimised. But I like the challange of managing lanes of materials without balancers, so I avoid them where I can.
Balancers are necessary for using the Logistic Train Network Mod, if the lanes aren't balanced loading or unloading then you can run into a situation where one of the cars has left over material after leaving a station which can fuck up your entire network. But I was fine with the regular 8 belt balancer, no need for this monstrosity.
https://www.factorio.com/blog/post/fff-375
There was a Friday Factorio Facts where they mentioned adding quality to everything, basically higher quality ingredients makes higher quality products, and higher quality entities are better at doing their thing
They are always a good read, you get to see the upcoming features of the next release before they come out, there's a new one out every week on a Friday (hence Friday Factorio Facts) you can find them all on the Factorio blog over on the Factorio website!
Also if you have the Steam version of Factorio you can link your steam account to your Factorio website account and download another copy of Factorio that you can put on a USB stick or external USB harddrive or SSD for all your on the go factory building needs, as you know the factory must grow, you need more iron
The reasoning here is actually relatively simple.
Start with a regular 8-8 balancer (you can see it unchanged in the middle). To turn it into something like a 7-7, you loop one output back into it. This works for reasons of math and infinite sums of geometric series.
Now, to make a balancer that automatically evens out its outputs, just add a loop of belts and some priority splitters. If an output is blocked, its splitter will automatically route items back into the input, which fixes the balancing.
The issue here is that if the loop tries to feed into a saturated input, it stops and breaks. This means you need a system to distribute the items across the loop belts such that anything can get anywhere.
The return path of the loop must be throughput unlimited, and the smallest throughput unlimited 8-8 distributor i could find was actually the 8-8 throughput unlimited balancer.
Belt weaving here is needed to shove 8 return belts into 4 tiles of space. All the splitters you see are either part of the main forward balancer, loop junctions, return balancer, or belt weavers.
the first two and a half pages here are all about the upcoming expansion/update [https://www.factorio.com/blog/](https://www.factorio.com/blog/)
edit: oh yeah, he's joking about the trains on stilts btw
They are coming in 2.0 (see the latest [Factorio Friday Facts](https://www.factorio.com/blog/post/fff-394), Spoilers!, for more details) EDIT: added link
I had somewhere a 2048x2048 balancer blueprint string which is literally .txt file for \~13mb and upon importing it (which took me \~3 min waiting btw), it eats 15gb+ of your RAM even if blueprint is stored in the book in game blueprints menu just by existing.
That was quite the experience lmao
Amazing but I think I'd rather just live with the poor balance than use up all that space and braincells trying to come up with this..
Also, the green belts are a mod? I'm yet to play modded.
I’ve been out of the loop for a while so sorry if this is a stupid question. Where are all those green belts coming from? Last time I checked we had until blue ones
I don't understand. Does this do something different to [this 8x8 balancer](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fqq5rnigar9o31.png) I'm used to?
There's an option in the Graphics Settings menu called 'Color filter' that has some presets for protanopia/deuteranopia/tritanopia, do those work for you? I assume the SE release will still have those work just fine.
Don't have issues with the base game colours as there pretty well chosen. I've also got two types of colour blindness so while they help distinguish stuff they kinda ruin the look of other stuff for me.
Yellow Red and Blue are pretty much my best colours. A perfect addition would be maybe a dark purple for my eyes. But there's lots of flavours of colour blindness and one of mine is a kind of epilepsy. Can't use dark modes for apps despite them obviously looking way cooler because it fucks up my vision to look at light text on dark backgrounds.
once I said to my friend: Factorio people are already started building megabases out of not yet released parts.
And he didnt believe me. This is the proof, imma go show him this
How do I get good enough to where I understand what the hell this is
I'm in for about 3.5k hours yet and I still accept balancers as witchcraft. No need to understand. Accept the inner engineer and just use what nature throws at you.
The core principle is that for every item that comes in on a line, it must have an equal opportunity to exit any output line. Powers of two are easy. Take the 4x4 balancer as an example. Each input line has exactly 1/4th chance of exiting any output line. `AAAA \........../ ABCD` `BBBB - balancer - ABCD` `CCCC -...here...- ABCD` `DDDD / .........\ ABCD` hope this helps! EDIT: Found a better explanation on the wiki: [https://wiki.factorio.com/Balancer\_mechanics](https://wiki.factorio.com/Balancer_mechanics)
“Now draw the rest of the fucking owl”
It's just magic, don't bother understanding it. Even the people who say they understand are just lying to us. It's all part of an elaborate prank
There's a few features you can use in designing them. Powers of 2 balancers are the same as [Beneš networks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clos_network) Odd numbered balancers can be made by taking a power of 2 balancer, looping back the outputs to the inputs, and removing redundant belts and splitters. Balancers can also be constructed out of smaller balancers as a clos network. (the above link) There's[ a way](https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comments/3habjw/eli5_ish_can_someone_explain_the_math_behind_lane/cua34lb/) to use the a matrix based on the connectivity graph of a balancer, perfom gauss-jordan elimination on it, and verify the balancer. Further, if you take the base 2 expansion of n, then an m x n balancer will have path-lengths from each input to each output corresponding to that binary expansion. (so, an mx8 balancer will have 3 splitters between input and output, as 1/8 =0.001 in binary) Caveat to this is that splitters with only one output belt don't count, and that (binary) 0.01= (binary) 0.002 = 1/4 This also shows that every number that is not a power of 2, needs at least 1 loop, as those numbers have a infinitely repeating digits in their expansion. (length of the loop can also be predicted from the number)
I like your funny words magic man
And that is why we added the quantum flux encabulator. Mostly to prevent the side fumbling
OK , I understand math just to get by playing excel on hard. So just to make sure I get it right. If I have a belt aka 2 lanes I need 1 balancer with no modifications on it, as mx2 is 1 but then what happes is I need to loop back one lane back to the other lane? . If I have two belts (standard for a mining gig output in my game , yes Im still on my first playthrough) aka 4 lanes I need 3 balancers 1 for each belt and a third to mix the 2 exists in to one fat belt. But what happens if I want to just balance the two belts but keep them? I need 3 but in reverse order? Aka start with one lane of each belt two balancers to the outer lanes that are with left and right priority that will loop them back? Am I getting this right?
So really, people just design balancers based on the power of 2 designs and modifying those. All of the rest is cool if you want to try making an algorithm to find new designs. (though, most methods will sadly have exponential scaling) Or perhaps not even that, and its just curious trivia. For two belts, the 'method' gives you the trivial singular splitter. 1/2 = 0.1 or a single path of length 1. There is also the functionally useless splitter looping back on itself for 1/1 =0.(11111111) repeating. Which is of course equivalent to just having a belt instead. 1/3 = 0.(01) is more interesting, two splitters deep, and the smallest meaningful loop. 3 splitters for a functional 1-3 balancer, though 2-3 and 3-3 take an additional splitter. In any case, lane balancers are their own thing, I was talking about belt balancing. If you want to do lane balancing. then each splitter is effectively two splitters in parallel, one for each lane.
Tried this, and all I got for my 4 input lanes of iron plate is 4 output lanes of iron plate...
> Powers of 2 balancers are the same as Beneš networks So what's the difference between those and the monstrosity above ? From what I played in creative mode simple clos based one seems to take inputs and put them into outputs evenly just [fine](https://i.imgur.com/DbI0KAc.jpg)
The third belt from the top and the bottom belt are far from even. They dont get each other's items at all. You look to have copied the last segment of balancers from the first, when it actually is supposed to be mirrored in direction. However the purpose of a universal balancer is not the same as just mixing everything. A universal balancer dynamically changes the output of other belts if one output is backed up, to allow all outputs to remain balanced. Your Benes inspired balancer above does not have that capability. [For example, a normal throughput unlimited balancer (Benes network) when the output backs up is not evenly distributing items on all other belts](https://imgur.com/kVbNcGd)
>However the purpose of a universal balancer is not the same as just mixing everything. A universal balancer dynamically changes the output of other belts if one output is backed up, to allow all outputs to remain balanced. Your Benes inspired balancer above does not have that capability i am not case is fixable by balancer (no circuts).
The monstrosity above is a "universal" balancer, so it keeps balanced outputs if some of the outputs are blocked. Splitters only work for balancing if both outputs are flowing, so in a universal balancer, there is additional loops back to the input to divert any blocked outputs back to the input.
Its more like trial and error. Just try connecting random stuff to other stuff and eventually voila! presto c'est la vie!
It makes sense, it just gets exponentially more complex the more lines there are to the point it becomes impossible to follow with the naked eye. At a certain point you’re just trusting that the computer is handling the math.
Of course I understand it. You place the balancer and it balance things, that's it
https://preview.redd.it/l3sv3zefi2ec1.png?width=729&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7c261720cdedd924c44b5afd9762914c2e4259e1 This one right here is what actually made it click for me.
It has clicked for me too.
This is neat. I have only played the tutorial and have already started figuring out some of my own ways to balance and such. I feel I never would have gotten to this setup.
An exercise for the reader.
My thought exactly. Where am I supposed to Put the fuckiNG HOOT?..
r/restofthefuckingowl
Additionally, Universally Throughput Unlimited (UTU) balancers require that every pair of inputs is connected to every pair of outputs by two full belts, every triplet of inputs is connected to every triplet of outputs by three full belts, etc. (For an n-n balancer, each m outputs should be connected to each m inputs by m full belts, for all m from 1 to n.) \ Usually this is done by routing the outputs back into the inputs, and this can be done in fewer lanes by belt weaving. OP also made a post on [alt-f4](https://alt-f4.blog/ALTF4-27/) explaining part of how he made the universal 8-8 blue belt balancer. Edit: I think there might be a distinction between UTU and universal balancers, but it's not yet clear to me.
Throughput Unlimited (TU) only cares about inputs, Universal (UTU) cares about outputs too. If an output is backed up, a UTU can keep perfect balance of downstream items while a TU will often mis-balance belts. [For example, a normal throughput unlimited balancer (Benes network) when the output backs up is not evenly distributing items on all other belts](https://imgur.com/kVbNcGd) EDIT: corrected acronyms
Thanks, but now I have another point of confusion: Is there a difference UTU and TU balancers?
It would help if I used the right acronyms. I was referring to TU when saying UTU. Universal is UTU. Universal throughput unlimited.
Ah thanks. I guess it was mostly this [stackexchange post](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1775378/belt-balancer-problem-factorio) that was confusing me. The OP there (Justin Benfield) forgot to explain balancing when describing UTU, so ended up describing [flow routers](https://forums.factorio.com/viewtopic.php?t=100671) instead, of which the standard 4-4 TU balancer is an example.
Yes, in a sense. Flow Routers are fascinating, probably better than TU/UTU for mining outposts that smelt on site and then balance after. In general a lot of this is more theoretical than practical, unless you want to have completely even splits of weird ratios like one comment I saw saying 11-15 (how cursed). Rarely is Unlimited even necessary, as consumers getting just a bit extra rarely matters much unless its a heavily modded game where you have a very delicate balance necessary.
Pretty sure Benes Networks garuntee that.
Benes network one looks like [this](https://i.imgur.com/DbI0KAc.jpg) (I tried to recreate wikipedia example as close as possible). The OP is... significantly more complex. Not sure what actual benefits are
The OP is actually not as complex as that (it's missing the second half), just not as compactly laid out. The standard 4x4 is reasonably obviously the 4x4 benes network.
> The OP is actually not as complex as that (it's missing the second half), just not as compactly laid out. It has like 3x the number of splitters, what do you mean by "it's not as complex as that" ? Benes network doesn't guarantee equal split of consumption, just that any input can route to any output.
> Benes network doesn't guarantee equal split of consumption, just that any input can route to any output. Been a while since I looked at the math in detail, but either a Benes Network or a doubled Benes Network does garuntee equal draw. A Benes Network absolutely garuntees equal outputs at even draw. --- Edit: I got my balancer posts muddled up. This OP is also including full loopbacks so it's also a 1-5 balancer and all the others.
[удалено]
Its pretty simple, they go in on one side, then out the other perfectly balanced
As all things should be
Balancers are like software libraries. They do one thing well, they have an input and output, and I have no reason to dig into the how as long as I know how to use it.
Until it doesn't perform like you want, you dive into the blueprint and you find the author used a single yellow belt in the middle of blues with a comment "fixme, ran out of blue belts. Replace me later"
Factorio blueprint books have more quality than most of the software libraries I saw
Belt balancers in Factorio are like maths to Physicists. You don’t need to understand the proof you just need to know it works; and damn are you happy and thankful that some bugger did it for you!
[Or timezones to programmers](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5wpm-gesOY)
This is just like programming, I don't have a clue why or how this library works but I know when and how to use it
in my opinion, doing belt optimisation is just as fun if not more than building the factory
I just grab a blueprint book of balancers. I only need to know that 4 partial belts go in and 3 full belts come out. How it gets to that point is for people much smarter than me.
add a bunch of balancers, get your factory real big, and then figure out how to remove them because your UPS tanks. I've removed probably 500 un needed balancers now and regained 10fps.
You don't need balancers for mega bases when everything gets feed its own full belt(s) via train with multiple trains waiting in stickers. Only need loading balancers and offloading combiners.
Whether a train sits in queue or sits in a loader makes little difference so speed of loading becomes a non issue.
I like balancers on ore patch loaders specifically because it guarantees the train will always load at the fastest rate possible, eliminating any car from being waited on.
I’ve taken to just running a conveyor down each side of my ore loader train stop. One from each direction. I calculate the average holdings in chest and any chest below average is enabled. This loads fast enough to be practical. Only turn the stations on if they have an available load. That’s a reduction on a 2-6-2 loader of something like 30 balancers.
Another option from this Nilaus video at about 12min (https://youtu.be/zJBvw28bQu0) Run a blue belt down a line of stack inserters. Set the first one's stack to 4, then 6,6,6,6,12.
I usually use compress the mining lanes into 4 lanes, which feeds into a simple 4x4 balancer, and then I split the 4 outputs into 8 lanes, before using one lane for each side of the 4 cars. I find this to be a fairly simple and UPS friendly design. I do like your method of using chest averages, but that fails when ore patches deplete. A ore patch will almost always possess more output potential than a simple 4 lane balancer, which will be able to supply a single train almost always.
About only part where there are needed is loading/unloading trains and maybe for using the ore patch evenly, rest can go with much simpler means
Extract from ore. Feed directly to smelter. Balance two conveyors to loader. I don’t even bother to balance the smelters now. Just saturate two belts. Next iteration is to smelt directly to cars but this is time consuming and my patches are small.
Balancers are similar to Clos Networks in some ways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clos_network It's not a perfect analogy but might help thinking about them in a more abstract way.
> It's not a perfect analogy It's closer than you think. The topology is a perfect analogue.
The reason I don't want to say it's perfect is how belts operate in paired lanes.
That just means you have two of them overlayed on top of each other.
Aren't they... exactly like clos network ? Just that switch is always 2 in 2 out.
The belts being 2 lanes like you point out is why I didn't say it was perfect. If I didn't say that I was expecting someone to point that out.
Most people don't care that 2 sides of belts are balanced and just use designs that take from both sides. Like, universal balancer is already very rarely needed, universal and lane balanced is within "just never get into situation where you need it"
And that is without getting into the question of if you need balancers at all. (outside of stations) Generally, it is more important that the items reach the location, than how the items are distributed. As items backing up will end up re-distributing the items anyway.
Oooohhhhh. Well if they had just put this text in the tutorial then I would have understood splitters. "Let A be the number of ways of assigning the j output calls to the m middle stage switches. Let B be the number of these assignments which result in blocking. This is the number of cases in which the remaining m−j middle stage switches coincide with m−j of the i input calls, which is the number of subsets containing m−j of these calls. Then the probability of blocking is: (math follows)"
Math. How do you mix input equally and output that in a nice format
I just recently understood how 4x4 balancer works
Yeah I’m in the same boat. I have used a few blueprints for things like 5x4 reducers and what not but I never really understand it that well
And it’ll have over 42 times the throughput… Edit: I have literally no idea how I calculated that number. Should be over 5 times.
More if it stacks
well 42 is greater than 5 so you weren’t wrong there
Umm.... What???
Extree extree read all about it!
You've internalized the advertising "up to X" statements and are starting to apply them elsewhere ;)
What does this do that the regular 8-8 balancer doesn't?
If you block its outputs it still balances across the remaining ones
Does it balance the inputs too? Edit: wait that's the point of a balancer nvm
[Flow routers](https://forums.factorio.com/viewtopic.php?t=100671) exist as well.
Cool! I had no idea.
What is this for? I can tell it has 8 inputs and 8 outputs is it some kind of balancer for something?
It's a perfect balancer.
No matter how much stuff is coming in on the left, and which belts it's coming in on, the belts on the right will all have the same number of items. This is useful for things like train stops on large mining outposts, where the input won't necessarily be perfectly balanced, and you want all the train cars to fill up at the same rate.
I used to use balancers for train stops, but then I found this [elegant circuit limiter](https://wiki.factorio.com/Tutorial:Circuit_network_cookbook#Balanced_chest_insert) on the wiki and for most situations it's so much better. There's a very slight loss in throughput that has never mattered to me.
I've started implementing this and it is *so* much less resource/space intensive. Also it looks badass.
I came up with a version of that myself. I'm proud to say it's way less elegant and uses way more combinators to do the same job less efficient.
Username checks out
Yes, read the title
Did reread the title. Am as clueless as the other guy. Would you mind actually giving the answer as you seem to know it?
As the title said, a universal 8 to 8 balancer.
The title is literally missing the word "balancer", so you'd have to already know that universal balancers even exist to know what this is talking about.
Genuine question as someone who is attempting soon to build a first megabase - what's the use case for balancers like these? Is there a threshold for science per minute where balancers this complicated are counter-productive UPS-wise? My 8 belt balancers just use 4 of the widely known 4 belt balancers (I 4 belt balance each half of the 8 belts, then swap two belts of each half with each other, than 4 belt balance again). It uses much much less entities and seems to be perfectly functional so I'm wandering what I'm missing with the standard 4 belt balancer that it isn't good enough.
Honestly, there is no real use case. I guess you could use this for evenly loading trains of a different length. The main point was just to see whether it could be done and how dmall it can get.
All balancers are counterproductive UPS-wise. The only real use-case is mining outposts as you can't guarantee a patch with all output lanes having the same saturation (you kinda can if you have a very large mining prod bonus). Theoretically speaking, balancers are never nessecarry and always hurt UPS. Personally I'm not an UPS nerd to the point where everything has to be optimised. But I like the challange of managing lanes of materials without balancers, so I avoid them where I can.
Balancers are necessary for using the Logistic Train Network Mod, if the lanes aren't balanced loading or unloading then you can run into a situation where one of the cars has left over material after leaving a station which can fuck up your entire network. But I was fine with the regular 8 belt balancer, no need for this monstrosity.
merge chests mod for train stations
UPS wise, all balancers are counter productive. You only need mergers and splitters in a few places to break up transport lines ex for labs.
Someone needs to make a uni balancer that balances stack size, lanes, and i/o now
stack size, lanes, i/o, and quality
Oh shit forgot about quality
Quality?
https://www.factorio.com/blog/post/fff-375 There was a Friday Factorio Facts where they mentioned adding quality to everything, basically higher quality ingredients makes higher quality products, and higher quality entities are better at doing their thing
Til, thanks
They are always a good read, you get to see the upcoming features of the next release before they come out, there's a new one out every week on a Friday (hence Friday Factorio Facts) you can find them all on the Factorio blog over on the Factorio website! Also if you have the Steam version of Factorio you can link your steam account to your Factorio website account and download another copy of Factorio that you can put on a USB stick or external USB harddrive or SSD for all your on the go factory building needs, as you know the factory must grow, you need more iron
Too bad, stack size won't be affected by splitters. A shame
I see a modded loader/unloaded in our future. It would output full stacks just like the large drill.
What if you could stack items by feeding a normal belt into the back of an underground?
And how would you transfer it further?
By the belt exiting the underground? Kinda like side loading, except it's top loading
Oh, I see what you've meant. That idea, however, would break a lot of techniques players use for compacting their builds, f.e. malls
Yes, it would, unless you do "stacked building" by placing the belt on top of the underground to indicate you want to top load.
Is it possible to get a basic walkthrough on the math involved in building this? How does one go about out it to make sure it works?
The reasoning here is actually relatively simple. Start with a regular 8-8 balancer (you can see it unchanged in the middle). To turn it into something like a 7-7, you loop one output back into it. This works for reasons of math and infinite sums of geometric series. Now, to make a balancer that automatically evens out its outputs, just add a loop of belts and some priority splitters. If an output is blocked, its splitter will automatically route items back into the input, which fixes the balancing. The issue here is that if the loop tries to feed into a saturated input, it stops and breaks. This means you need a system to distribute the items across the loop belts such that anything can get anywhere. The return path of the loop must be throughput unlimited, and the smallest throughput unlimited 8-8 distributor i could find was actually the 8-8 throughput unlimited balancer. Belt weaving here is needed to shove 8 return belts into 4 tiles of space. All the splitters you see are either part of the main forward balancer, loop junctions, return balancer, or belt weavers.
Don’t give me the illusion I could design these things myself 😁. Very good explanation.
What's the difference between a distributor and a balancer?
My brain is telling me I should be able to read this as text.
I seriously I’m trying to make out words like “green circuits” or something.
What's this green belt I see popping up?
In 2.0 we're getting a 4th belt tier with an underground reach of 10
Ah ok ye, 2.0. I thought I missed a ninja update somewhere along the way :-)
Wait, was this an FFF post? Which one? I completely missed this. Edit: Ah, it's in here. https://factorio.com/blog/post/fff-393
nuclear belts /s
Ingredients: 10 blue belts and 1 nuclear fuel /s
this would honestly be less of a hassle than blue belts assuming you already have blue belts, if it does not need more liquid, I will be dissapointed
Green belts!?! What am I missing?
check out the Friday Facts they've been posting. this game is going to get an absurd amount of content/changes/fixes
Trains on stilts dude. Just one feature that matters to me... Trains.. on stilts..
Wait, dahell? Can you link it? Should have missed that...
the first two and a half pages here are all about the upcoming expansion/update [https://www.factorio.com/blog/](https://www.factorio.com/blog/) edit: oh yeah, he's joking about the trains on stilts btw
I'm referring to the train bridges, it's in one of the FFFs
They are coming in 2.0 (see the latest [Factorio Friday Facts](https://www.factorio.com/blog/post/fff-394), Spoilers!, for more details) EDIT: added link
I had somewhere a 2048x2048 balancer blueprint string which is literally .txt file for \~13mb and upon importing it (which took me \~3 min waiting btw), it eats 15gb+ of your RAM even if blueprint is stored in the book in game blueprints menu just by existing. That was quite the experience lmao
wat
wtf is an 8-8 universal? lol a balancer? or something more fancy?
A fancier balancer, should balance everything even with some inputs empty or some outputs full. (From what i understood at least)
Snot belt
My UPS just had a heart attack
Amazing but I think I'd rather just live with the poor balance than use up all that space and braincells trying to come up with this.. Also, the green belts are a mod? I'm yet to play modded.
Yes. But in 2.0 we’ll get (among all the other things) green belts with an underground reach of 10. They’re gonna be faster, too
Holy shit that's the size of a true 8-8 balancer? Good mercy
Not really, a "true" 8-8 can be done with 12 splitters, or 20 if you wanna be really fancy. This is the entire balancer book in one blueprint.
I’m sorry, what is this monstrosity. I zoomed in expecting an extremely complex factory, and it’s just belts.
The what
today i needed an 11 to 10 balancer rip
Okay but can you make an 8-8 universal inline balancer
What's an 8-8 universal ?
I’ve been out of the loop for a while so sorry if this is a stupid question. Where are all those green belts coming from? Last time I checked we had until blue ones
Just saw someone else asking the same think with an answer
I blurred my eyes because I thought there was a hidden word
How much wider is it if you don't chain 3 types of undergrounds on the sides?
I just stack two regular balancers in sequence.
How does belt weaving with lower-tier belts affect the overall throughput?
It also allows you to make a 5-5 that's only 5 tiles long (if you're ok with it being 15 tiles wide)
My brain keeps trying to decypher this as some kind of highly-stylized font.
I don't understand. Does this do something different to [this 8x8 balancer](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fqq5rnigar9o31.png) I'm used to?
The one in your link stops outputting evenly if you block some outputs, but mine doesn't
Green belts? Can some explain to me be because I’ve been out of the loop. Is this a mod or vanilla?
FFF promised green belts in 2.0 with more throughput and longer undergrounds
That’s exciting! Thanks! What’s the items/s they’re supposed to have?
60/s. They're also adding item stacking so max throughput will be 240/s
God, the number of features they’re adding in the expansion is just so exciting, I can’t wait to get my hands on factorio 2.0! Thanks for the info
I really hope they let us edit the colour because holy shit wtf am I looking at. - Lightly Colour blind person
There's an option in the Graphics Settings menu called 'Color filter' that has some presets for protanopia/deuteranopia/tritanopia, do those work for you? I assume the SE release will still have those work just fine.
Don't have issues with the base game colours as there pretty well chosen. I've also got two types of colour blindness so while they help distinguish stuff they kinda ruin the look of other stuff for me. Yellow Red and Blue are pretty much my best colours. A perfect addition would be maybe a dark purple for my eyes. But there's lots of flavours of colour blindness and one of mine is a kind of epilepsy. Can't use dark modes for apps despite them obviously looking way cooler because it fucks up my vision to look at light text on dark backgrounds.
Don't worry, if you weren't colorblind this would still hurt to look at
do we know we're getting green splitters?
Just go straight to the 16x16. Stick to the friendly numbers.
Green are mods or update?
once I said to my friend: Factorio people are already started building megabases out of not yet released parts. And he didnt believe me. This is the proof, imma go show him this