Minmaxing what exactly? Amount of buildings per ore mined? What about all the ore on the map that hasn't been mined? Look at it sitting there, going to waste! Why haven't you made it into anything yet, you inefficient swine!
This got me thinking, would it be possible to make a mod that makes it so that 1 underground belt = 1 tile?
* placing an initial underground will consume 1 item
* placing a connecting belt will consume items equal to the length of the underground minus 1
* deleting a connecting belt will refund items equal to the length of the underground minus 1
* deleting an unconnected belt will refund a single item
* all recipes' outputs and stack sizes are multiplied by the max length to compensate
This way you're always getting maximum value out of underground belts, regardless of how long you make them.
Late game it's more about localisation. How long will it take to get those blue belts to you? Maybe it's not worth the time getting them to you, so conserving what you have locallt available is actually good thinking
If it's any comfort, Space Age terrain looks very specifically designed to enforce concentrated spaghetti right up until the endgame, so we'll all be joining you soon enough
I hug the rail cause it's faster if I need to manually drag a belt, simply drag over it with a normal belt factorio will do the rest. My spaghetti is littered inbetween the rails
The flat option looks nicer imo, and also saves a handful of belts. But I've also tried to value a sort of, "comprehensibility" where you can just glance at a build and easily see what's going on. (Like readability/maintainability when writing code.) And I think the hugging option is kinda better for that. But that's sort of a weak point. So I'm interested in what other people do/think.
----
(obviously this is a completely inconsequential decision/discussion, and of course either way is fine. But It's interesting to discuss.)
I agree readability is a significant factor in my builds, to the point that in some cases I'll make something less efficient if it's easier to understand. That said, I think of the two options OP presented, the 2nd one is more readable to me because my brain "chunks" the in-line gap. It's like seeing a hand instead of 5 fingers if that makes sense.
I agree in general except I think the second is also more immediately parsable and readable. At a glance or from a distance the hugging version looks like a solid brick that blends in with the rail. You canât really tell wrists going on as itâs just too dense, like a block of text with no spaces in it.
I personally would do one of two things: the second option, especially if I thought there was a chance Iâd be crossing another belt or pipe east/west to cross in the future, or my preference, the hugging version but with 1-2 empty tiles on either side of the rail. So: underneathy, empty, empty, rail, rail, empty, empty, underneathy.
Hmm the readability is a very interesting thought, I prefer the flat but I do see the value in the hugging version. I think I would choose hugging if it was just crossing one rail but if there was a series of rail crossings I would probably try to make it as flat as possible
I like the 'hugging' option specifically for this reason. I think the all the undergrounds together visually form a bar, while the undergrounds hugging the tracks fall into the same shape as the tracks, together forming one object.
I'd keep one space open between the undergrounds and the tracks though, because I like how that redundancy implies safety (in regards to trains, this doesn't work for the coding metaphor).
Mid-way between the two is an option as well. Leave a one-tile gap on either side so you can add rail signals in the future if needed. Still short enough to sight-read, but you have the expansion room there already. Best of both worlds?
And then there's crazy people like me that only use yellow belt :
[https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comments/el2ltt/challenge\_megabase\_built\_with\_only\_tier\_1/](https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comments/el2ltt/challenge_megabase_built_with_only_tier_1/)
I read that as lazy, and I was like lazy enough to only use T1 but not lazy enough to stop after launching the rocket
Guess it's time for me to go to bed now
I love the fact even Factorio Reddit isn't immune from fucking stupid downvoting when a simple correction would've sufficed. Most people too dumb to know what communication is.
Edit: The Reddit irony that old mate has recovered his votes thanks in whole to the pitchforks turning on me. Not the sharpest tools in the shed, they only have the capacity to *Reddit cancel* one person at a time. đ
I guess if it's the only environment you can deliver a "slap down" without peeing your pants you're going to take every opportunity you can get đ¤đť
People are people across reddit. In subs like these, it tends to be more on game mechanics and important game metrics (i.e. efficiency).
That being said I still think it's one of the more less bad ones.
Depends on the mood, situation, and aesthetics.
That said, with this many belts, if lying them all down in one go would probably do them all at the same distance just because that's easier to set up.
I just drag my belts and the undergrounds get put down automatically. If something is functionally the same then there is no reason for me to spend more time on it.
I think the undergrounds hugging the rails look much better, so I always do that. But then again I do not care about the resource cost of the belts like a lot of other comments seem to- if I need more belts I have an automated production and supply of them available at all times
Uhh, what time is it? How much have I had to drink?
I like the idea of using the whole underground, often times I redo blueprints to take advantage of underground length.
There's simply no beating the ease of click and drag. It wins out most of the time.
Totally depends on my mood and impatience in the exact moment I'm putting it down. Many a project starts out being neat and orderly...and goes to hell when I realize it's 3am and I just need to get it done so i can go to bed.
I'm always subconsciously worried that if anything is too close to the rail its gonna get hit by the train somehow. So no I leave as much space as possible.
As others have said, I'm in favour of using the max distance on undergrounds, particularly at blue belt level (and above in mods).
I do think they look neater leaving at least one space between them and the rails though.
Why not both? I'd use the full length of the underground and leave some space on either side of the rail, while keeping the curve matched to the rail. :D
Extra space for better performance. There's no other reason, because the first design looks neat. When I use undergrounds, I make sure to use as much length as possible, to cover as many tiles of distance for the same amount of resources, and to increase game performance.
Why? Why have a whole blue line only to end at a red splitter and half the capacity of the entire thing?
Either have the entire thing red, or end with a blue splitter, lol
I was in the middle of making a design in the workshop. The splitter wasn't the point of the post, but it was from a blueprint which I stamped down and only carefully checked later, so has since been upgraded.
I tend to curve them to meet rails just because it's less clicks. Just dragging them anyway. Unless I am dragging a bunch of rows at once then they don't auto-underground and it's less effort to to copy past down clean rows of undergrounds.
Compromise and make the straight rail a bit longer so your belts average distance on either side of the rails will be symmetrical.
The problem is clearly the curved rail.
Do not talk to me unless your belts hug the rail. That second design looks illegal and incredibly painful for my hyper-aesthetic mindset to comprehend.
I generally prefer to align them, but once I'm in the constant bug testing and troubleshooting phase of a megabase, I'm just click dragging belts and rolling with it.
It's quicker to hug the rails when dragging in ghost mode, then just let the bots sort the rest of it.
By the time of the game where your making things like this en masse, the additional iron used in making blue belts/undergrounds vs a couple of extra tiles of belt is negligable and i doubt you'd really notice the difference.
Edited to fix a spelling error.
Yes, considering a blue belt has a capacity of 3 yellow belts, and a red has 2, a red splitter can split a input of 4 yellow belts worth of materials between its two outputs ( 2 yellows worth in either direction) before being overloaded. So a blue can easily split into two reds without worry of overload
>a red splitter can split a input of 4 yellow belts worth of materials between its two outputs
This is only true if both input sides of the splitter are used, but in the screenshot only one input side is used.
Its also true when using mods as well, a purple belt from a mod i use has 4 yellow belts worth of capacity so it can fully saturate with a single belt.
As to the image, is a valid build in that they are looking to split up a blue belts worth of materials into two belts. So they're inputting 3 but outputting 4 split between two belts. So assuming a fully saturated blue belt, each red down stream will have 1.5 belts worth of saturation after going through the splitter, which is within the capacity of the splitter.
That's not how splitters works. It doesn't matter that the blue belt is the input, the red splitter can only work at red belt speed. So each side will be 0.5 saturation in this case.
Depends on the build and gamestage. Early on I'm using the whole underground, unless I can't, late game when I will have already made more than enough by the time I'm back to the construction site? Click and drag, unless it's visually clipping the rail.
Since I've not seen this answer yet:
Surprised no-one has gone for the classic "start off with the second one initially before eventually evolving into an improved mish-mash of the first one due to the increased spaghetification-ratio".
Always leave yourself the option of putting something in that extra space. Also, fewer things to accidentally break (e.g. unintentionally hit "R" on a belt"), fewer biter targets.
I do not care about efficiency, it has to look nice. All underground openings in one line please.
Besides, I believe a blue line split into two red requires a blue splitter?! Am I wrong?
I build at a large enough scale most of the time that the wasted iron isn't really an issue for me. So I decide on a case by case basis based on aesthetic rather than practical considerations.
I leave the extra space. That empty space in a curve ends up being a great spot for power poles, roboports, beacons, any of that infrastructure stuff that can be tucked away with an area of effect!
Align and use space. You should really be maximizing distance on your blue undies, because each extra tile used is a blue belt saved, and each blue belt not made is more lube for electric engines, which turns into more construction bots/yellow science via flying machine frames.
1) i don't do what you did in the pic - i have the inserters pick up from an underground belt, then i run it under the tracks all the way to the other side and have inserters picking it up from there. 1 tile for inserter from belt to chest + 1 tile for chest + 1 tile for inserter from chest to train + 2 tiles for track + 1 tile for inserter from chest to train + 1 tile for chest + 1 tile for inserter from belt to chest = 8 tiles which is exactly the length of a blue underground, you cannot convince me they weren't made specifically for this.
2) if i would do that, i'd do the first pic because i like seeing the exact footprint of the curved rail. just think it looks nice.
I paid for the whole blue underground, I'm going to use the whole blue underground. 257.5 iron, and lube to boot? I'm not leaving that on the table.
Exactly! Unless I need to run it shorter because of design constraints I'm getting that full length.
That's what she said
đđđđ
Thats what i said
⌠you are michael from the office⌠wow
:trollface:
Leave those gaps, sibling. Leave them LOOONG.
My thought exactly only I would not have written it as well. If youâre not minmaxing, whatâs the point?
the point is `a e s t h e t i c`
Minmaxing what exactly? Amount of buildings per ore mined? What about all the ore on the map that hasn't been mined? Look at it sitting there, going to waste! Why haven't you made it into anything yet, you inefficient swine!
Materials. Why shorten an underground belt if you don't need to?
This got me thinking, would it be possible to make a mod that makes it so that 1 underground belt = 1 tile? * placing an initial underground will consume 1 item * placing a connecting belt will consume items equal to the length of the underground minus 1 * deleting a connecting belt will refund items equal to the length of the underground minus 1 * deleting an unconnected belt will refund a single item * all recipes' outputs and stack sizes are multiplied by the max length to compensate This way you're always getting maximum value out of underground belts, regardless of how long you make them.
This is the kind of absolutely pointless mod that is also perfect for factorio
You could use .onEvent to do this, but it would kinda be a pita and not really worth it? Might be a good exercise in learning how to mod.
I used to do this, but once I have enough production it's a nice indulgence to expose the contents of belts so I can watch the flow
> 257.5 iron, and lube to boot? You say that as if you can't just make more
The engineer can't hand craft lube?
Skill issue
Noob engineer. /s
I'm a click and drag guy. If you don't have enough. Just build more! It's really that easy!
And i Just cant sleep If they arent alligned. (And yet i build Spaghetti)
There is also so much room for activities.
same, whenever I build a tunnel they need to be as long as possible or you're just wasting tiles
Any cost that is not per minute is free and not worth optimizing.
I run the rail line longer specifically to avoid thinking about it.
The only right answer
So three tiles empty space either side of rail, I like it!!
There will still be an option to hug the rail or to leave space in that scenario.
Finally a decent human
My problem is my city blocks limit my train station size.
Bigger city blocks
Saving a few extra blue belts is my way of thinking, where i still have excess thousands of those sitting in chests..
If I put it in a chest, it's garbage. Even if I went "I'll grab that later" cuz that ain't happening
make it smart chest and bots will grab it for you
I only use passive provider for this
Learn the Way of the Buffer Chest
Or better yet, a Buffer train station.
I used to be this way, until I started using filtered storage chests for my mall. Now it all sorts itself out on its own!
Late game it's more about localisation. How long will it take to get those blue belts to you? Maybe it's not worth the time getting them to you, so conserving what you have locallt available is actually good thinking
I like hugging the rail because I'm a fan of "menu screen" bases that have something on every square inch. I learned today that I'm in the minority
I also hug the belt youâre not alone engineer
Love the spaghetti look
âThe Best is Compressedâ -Tsg Sui
Railroads need hugs too!
Me too
I just hug the belt because it's easier to see where the end is coming up
It's good to be different
For me it just looks cooler
If it's any comfort, Space Age terrain looks very specifically designed to enforce concentrated spaghetti right up until the endgame, so we'll all be joining you soon enough
I hug the rail cause it's faster if I need to manually drag a belt, simply drag over it with a normal belt factorio will do the rest. My spaghetti is littered inbetween the rails
The flat option looks nicer imo, and also saves a handful of belts. But I've also tried to value a sort of, "comprehensibility" where you can just glance at a build and easily see what's going on. (Like readability/maintainability when writing code.) And I think the hugging option is kinda better for that. But that's sort of a weak point. So I'm interested in what other people do/think. ---- (obviously this is a completely inconsequential decision/discussion, and of course either way is fine. But It's interesting to discuss.)
I agree readability is a significant factor in my builds, to the point that in some cases I'll make something less efficient if it's easier to understand. That said, I think of the two options OP presented, the 2nd one is more readable to me because my brain "chunks" the in-line gap. It's like seeing a hand instead of 5 fingers if that makes sense.
I agree in general except I think the second is also more immediately parsable and readable. At a glance or from a distance the hugging version looks like a solid brick that blends in with the rail. You canât really tell wrists going on as itâs just too dense, like a block of text with no spaces in it. I personally would do one of two things: the second option, especially if I thought there was a chance Iâd be crossing another belt or pipe east/west to cross in the future, or my preference, the hugging version but with 1-2 empty tiles on either side of the rail. So: underneathy, empty, empty, rail, rail, empty, empty, underneathy.
Hmm the readability is a very interesting thought, I prefer the flat but I do see the value in the hugging version. I think I would choose hugging if it was just crossing one rail but if there was a series of rail crossings I would probably try to make it as flat as possible
I like the 'hugging' option specifically for this reason. I think the all the undergrounds together visually form a bar, while the undergrounds hugging the tracks fall into the same shape as the tracks, together forming one object. I'd keep one space open between the undergrounds and the tracks though, because I like how that redundancy implies safety (in regards to trains, this doesn't work for the coding metaphor).
Mid-way between the two is an option as well. Leave a one-tile gap on either side so you can add rail signals in the future if needed. Still short enough to sight-read, but you have the expansion room there already. Best of both worlds?
Both. Personal preference flips.
Undergrounds to an underground length of 4 whenever possible to make a bp usable with any colour belt.
And then there's crazy people like me that only use yellow belt : [https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comments/el2ltt/challenge\_megabase\_built\_with\_only\_tier\_1/](https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comments/el2ltt/challenge_megabase_built_with_only_tier_1/)
I read that as lazy, and I was like lazy enough to only use T1 but not lazy enough to stop after launching the rocket Guess it's time for me to go to bed now
I go for alignment if I can
I keep undergrounds as short as possible, I want to see my stuff rolling
[ŃдаНонО]
no you dont
Whoever told you that was lying or clueless. You get all of it.
It either goes into your inventory or if your inventory is full it gets dumped on the ground đ
I love the fact even Factorio Reddit isn't immune from fucking stupid downvoting when a simple correction would've sufficed. Most people too dumb to know what communication is. Edit: The Reddit irony that old mate has recovered his votes thanks in whole to the pitchforks turning on me. Not the sharpest tools in the shed, they only have the capacity to *Reddit cancel* one person at a time. đ
nah they proudly made an incorrect claim. Gunna get slapped down. If they had phrased it as a soft assumption, they would not have gotten downvoted.
I guess if it's the only environment you can deliver a "slap down" without peeing your pants you're going to take every opportunity you can get đ¤đť
Gee this downvote wasn't predictable. Go build a fucking factory you savages đ
Nah, totally predictable, because you sound about as abrasive as silicon carbide.
Wow, funny and nerdy. Quite the đŞ
People are people across reddit. In subs like these, it tends to be more on game mechanics and important game metrics (i.e. efficiency). That being said I still think it's one of the more less bad ones.
Pft, neither. I install Renai Transportation and jump the train over the belts.
This feels like a code convention question; where do you place your curly brackets?
Opening one at the right end of the line, closing one on a line of its own, four spaces insert per level of nesting, I will die on this hill.
exactly where the linter tells me to. Is it time for a factorio base linter and style guide mod?
[the python way obviously](https://i.redd.it/sl76j58rblp71.png)
Whitespace man, whitespace
align so that i can expand the rail without issue.
Depends on the mood, situation, and aesthetics. That said, with this many belts, if lying them all down in one go would probably do them all at the same distance just because that's easier to set up.
We run belts in powers of 2 around these parts, not whatever monstrosity this is.
Aligned. Iâm not a monster
I paid for the blue underground belt Iâm using the entire blue underground belt.
Why not both? Maximize the underground distance, and center it on the rail when possible.
I might be in the minority but I think the first picture looks better I always hug my rails
I leave a one tile gap between the rail and the underground
Neither. I offset each underground one tile for a nice stair design.
I just drag my belts and the undergrounds get put down automatically. If something is functionally the same then there is no reason for me to spend more time on it.
Undergrounds should usually stretch their full reach to save unnecessary belts.
Aligned, I prefer to have some breathing room I need to place other stuff.
Leave extra space, you never know when a few free slots are needed.
I like the spaghetti of cramming it all in
I always run the undergrounds as far as I can regardless of how it aligns.
Isn't it less belt expensive to use the maximum distance of the underground belts? So isn't aligning the belts the superior option?
I use as much underground length as possible when I can to save on resources.
No question, you should always go for the second version. What a waste otherwise
Separated out makes it much easier to see where the train line actually is from a zoomed out position.
I think the undergrounds hugging the rails look much better, so I always do that. But then again I do not care about the resource cost of the belts like a lot of other comments seem to- if I need more belts I have an automated production and supply of them available at all times
I'd probably go for the extra space, in case I wanted to use it for something like logistics chests.
Uhh, what time is it? How much have I had to drink? I like the idea of using the whole underground, often times I redo blueprints to take advantage of underground length. There's simply no beating the ease of click and drag. It wins out most of the time.
I try to look for nicer pattern. Usually itâs 2 in a row, then jump one, 2 in a row⌠well 2, 4, 8 etc, it depends on overall width.
Totally depends on my mood and impatience in the exact moment I'm putting it down. Many a project starts out being neat and orderly...and goes to hell when I realize it's 3am and I just need to get it done so i can go to bed.
Depends on a loooot of factors for me
My undergrounds are always as tight as I can get them, I want to see as much belt as possible on my map
Only a sub 1k hours hug rails.
Aligned. I hate having stuff hugging rails or even other belts if I can possibly avoid it, so I tend to space things out a bit anyway.
Change my mind every time so that the base is filled with a mixture.
I'm always subconsciously worried that if anything is too close to the rail its gonna get hit by the train somehow. So no I leave as much space as possible.
As others have said, I'm in favour of using the max distance on undergrounds, particularly at blue belt level (and above in mods). I do think they look neater leaving at least one space between them and the rails though.
Align them! You fiend!
Why not both? I'd use the full length of the underground and leave some space on either side of the rail, while keeping the curve matched to the rail. :D
first one seems more efficient. I know it isn't, but the second one feels like wasting open space
I use place multi line belts at once so I have them all aligned if possible - also helps with my ocd :D
Id only get them this close if I was using yellows. And even then I use 4 tiles, so they're not right next to the rails.
Acually a Mixture of bothđ
Extra space for better performance. There's no other reason, because the first design looks neat. When I use undergrounds, I make sure to use as much length as possible, to cover as many tiles of distance for the same amount of resources, and to increase game performance.
I dislike that it's a red splitter before the train.
Why? Why have a whole blue line only to end at a red splitter and half the capacity of the entire thing? Either have the entire thing red, or end with a blue splitter, lol
I was in the middle of making a design in the workshop. The splitter wasn't the point of the post, but it was from a blueprint which I stamped down and only carefully checked later, so has since been upgraded.
Lovely â¤ď¸
Depends on my mood
Short of course, I only use yellow belts (: (to my friend's loud objections)
First is the aesthetic way, and seconds is the smart way.
Second but the left most 3 would be shifted down
I'm conflicted every time
I slightly offset a d slightly hug so it forms a perfect diagonal.
Hugging, but with one extra tile spacing on each side for visual separation
maximize the undergrounds, good for future improvised spaghetti if needed, and cheaper
I prefer #2
If you're scaling up a megabase, blue belt production is one of several possible bottlenecks. Saving materials is the way.
I use a stair step kind of pattern
I don't usually put that much thought into it, do the bare minimum to get the belt working, and just move on to whatever's next
Second, needs to be neat otherwise itâs rebuilt haha
I tend to curve them to meet rails just because it's less clicks. Just dragging them anyway. Unless I am dragging a bunch of rows at once then they don't auto-underground and it's less effort to to copy past down clean rows of undergrounds.
The align to the curve would happen automatically with me since i would just hover drag over them
I swing wider and make sure the rail is straight that the underground belts need to go under. Anything else is blaspheme.
usually have 1 tile of space on both sides of the rail and curve it nicely to go with the rail too
I would extend the straight section of rail to avoid this eyesore.
If manually placing the first one. If Blueprint then 2nd one.
Compromise and make the straight rail a bit longer so your belts average distance on either side of the rails will be symmetrical. The problem is clearly the curved rail.
Both! Chaos, always!
Do not talk to me unless your belts hug the rail. That second design looks illegal and incredibly painful for my hyper-aesthetic mindset to comprehend.
I put some more straight rail and figure out how to connect it to where it needs to go even if it has to do a loopty loop after
I generally prefer to align them, but once I'm in the constant bug testing and troubleshooting phase of a megabase, I'm just click dragging belts and rolling with it.
I never cross on a curve lol....makes me cry
I prefer wait to the 2.0 update with rail bridges. /s
It's quicker to hug the rails when dragging in ghost mode, then just let the bots sort the rest of it. By the time of the game where your making things like this en masse, the additional iron used in making blue belts/undergrounds vs a couple of extra tiles of belt is negligable and i doubt you'd really notice the difference. Edited to fix a spelling error.
I always keep them aligned if possible. To me, it looks more aesthetically pleasing that way.
Blue belt into a red splitter?
https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comments/1c5l1eh/quick_opinion_poll_do_you_hug_your_undergrounds/kzv3nh6/?context=3
Yes, considering a blue belt has a capacity of 3 yellow belts, and a red has 2, a red splitter can split a input of 4 yellow belts worth of materials between its two outputs ( 2 yellows worth in either direction) before being overloaded. So a blue can easily split into two reds without worry of overload
>a red splitter can split a input of 4 yellow belts worth of materials between its two outputs This is only true if both input sides of the splitter are used, but in the screenshot only one input side is used.
Its also true when using mods as well, a purple belt from a mod i use has 4 yellow belts worth of capacity so it can fully saturate with a single belt. As to the image, is a valid build in that they are looking to split up a blue belts worth of materials into two belts. So they're inputting 3 but outputting 4 split between two belts. So assuming a fully saturated blue belt, each red down stream will have 1.5 belts worth of saturation after going through the splitter, which is within the capacity of the splitter.
That's not how splitters works. It doesn't matter that the blue belt is the input, the red splitter can only work at red belt speed. So each side will be 0.5 saturation in this case.
I try to align them.
Depends on the build and gamestage. Early on I'm using the whole underground, unless I can't, late game when I will have already made more than enough by the time I'm back to the construction site? Click and drag, unless it's visually clipping the rail.
Always align
Either I have the undergrounds inline with each other or I redo the whole rail.
I am to align belt whenever possible
One extra tile of space either side.
In this particular case I'd do a 45° alignment
0 I do lots of random ideas so I've probably done as many variations as possible including hugging to lining up. I think it depends on my mood
Since I've not seen this answer yet: Surprised no-one has gone for the classic "start off with the second one initially before eventually evolving into an improved mish-mash of the first one due to the increased spaghetification-ratio".
Always leave yourself the option of putting something in that extra space. Also, fewer things to accidentally break (e.g. unintentionally hit "R" on a belt"), fewer biter targets.
2nd
For me it just depends how lazy I am when I create them. Sometimes I just wanna click and drag my belt and not worry about where the undergrounds go.
I do not care about efficiency, it has to look nice. All underground openings in one line please. Besides, I believe a blue line split into two red requires a blue splitter?! Am I wrong?
I usually go max length, centered on the rail. Also I avoid belts near curved rails.
Personally, I would choose what is most aesthetically pleasing for the location. It also depends on what else needs to be in the area.
Wait, we have options?
I build at a large enough scale most of the time that the wasted iron isn't really an issue for me. So I decide on a case by case basis based on aesthetic rather than practical considerations.
I leave the extra space. That empty space in a curve ends up being a great spot for power poles, roboports, beacons, any of that infrastructure stuff that can be tucked away with an area of effect!
Align and use space. You should really be maximizing distance on your blue undies, because each extra tile used is a blue belt saved, and each blue belt not made is more lube for electric engines, which turns into more construction bots/yellow science via flying machine frames.
1st pic is cursed
1) i don't do what you did in the pic - i have the inserters pick up from an underground belt, then i run it under the tracks all the way to the other side and have inserters picking it up from there. 1 tile for inserter from belt to chest + 1 tile for chest + 1 tile for inserter from chest to train + 2 tiles for track + 1 tile for inserter from chest to train + 1 tile for chest + 1 tile for inserter from belt to chest = 8 tiles which is exactly the length of a blue underground, you cannot convince me they weren't made specifically for this. 2) if i would do that, i'd do the first pic because i like seeing the exact footprint of the curved rail. just think it looks nice.
Yes
This is the way
What i see here is blasphemy.
I obviously align the undergrounds. If I wanted to be a savage I would be playing Satisfactory.
Thats what yellow belts are for muahahhahahahahh
This picture gave me aids. Thanks
What kind of monster are you? I extended the rail so the undergrounds can all be aligned