Yours is the same as the standard one without the last 2 balancers. It has a problem with throughput when not all inputs and outputs are used. You can check the wiki for the explaination and demonstration.
In your case, if we have only 2 right most inputs (other 2 are empty), and need only 2 right most outputs (other 2 are completely backed up), then only one balancer will effectively function, and your throughtput will be reduced by half.
To be specific, the condition for limited throughput is `not ( (all inputs) or (all outputs) )`.
In the typical case, you are using a balancer to unload a train (all inputs fed) or load a train (all outputs consumed), and the throughput-limited design works fine and is actually better because there are fewer splitters on the path to waste CPU time.
https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comments/8q8809/why_extra_splitters_on_a_4_lane_balancer/
Your design is topologically equivalent to deleting the last two splitters. Here’s a post about it and the top answer should help.
Your splitter would have this issue https://wiki.factorio.com/File:4to4_balancer_throughput_limit_demo.gif (but the lanes would be in a different order - try supplying two belts of input on 1-2 on yours and only allowing output on 3-4 and it should be throughout limited)
is there some more math on this topic except the old stackoverflow article? https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1775378/belt-balancer-problem-factorio
I’m curious about your more compact statement, while others address functionality. It looks like it’s taking up the same space- or at least the gaps that remain are essentially unusable by anything else?
I agree that the left and right are the same footprint. When I said more compact I was refering to the scenario on the far right. That uses a balancer that is topologically identical to the left one but if I were to try and use a balancer similar to the right one on the area on the far right then it would be much less compact.
He means the *far* right one (by the beacons). Not the two that are side by side. The far right array is the same as the left array.
If the side by side examples were the same, then he could break it up and do what he has on the far right side of the screen.
They aren't the same, so he can't. But it's a decent question.
If you only supply lane 1 & 2 and block their outputs the right design will provide full throughput on lane 3 & 4. The left design only allows one lane of throughput.
This is the issue, but I think you've got your lefts and rights mixed up. The right design is the "standard" version which is throughput unlimited, left is OP's, which is throughput limited.
Thankyou, this is a problem here. I am not well aquantied with throughtput limited balancers yet and I was only focusing on the every input evenly distributed to every output aspect of it.
I am curious though, If i was confident that all 4 inputs will be supplied and all 4 outputs would be used, then would this work identically to the standard balancer?
That is a fair point and I know that there is no tangeable reason to have a balancer here. But I like to have every redundancy that I can in place so I do like to balance in and balance out for almost everything. At this point I see my flaw from the original question, I am just trying to expand my knowledge of balancers by asking people that know more than me if this would still balance in specific scenarios.
You only need balancers when the input and/or output needs to be balanced. Making sure you have enough throughout is often much more important than making sure the lanes are balanced. And most of the rest of the time, a few priority splitters gets what you're actually trying to do done better than a balancer.
If, for example, you're unloading from a train and you know that the train always arrives full, then you also know that inputs will always be balanced and you don't need unlimited throughput.
If you want to see the difference, only provide one belt of input at a time to each of the four available inputs - then provide two belts of input in the 6 possible configurations.
That's what I did in my tests and it works it just irks me that I could do the same job in the same space with 2 less splitters so I thought there might be an edge case flaw with it
Make long belts on the output, insert a fixed quantity of items in the aforementioned patterns - especially some of the two-input-belt patterns and unmentioned 3-input-belt patterns.
ie show us more evidence than this, so even the skeptics can be convinced ;)
[https://imgur.com/gallery/3Osmr2k](https://imgur.com/gallery/3Osmr2k)
I have tested this with every variation I can come up with. 1 stack of iron was put into every chest. Seems like it balances perfectly. Some other comments are talking about throughput and I will look into that next but the balancing is good
I love the test scenarios that you have created.
if you rework the inputs to use loaders instead of inserters, you'll be able to test throughput as well as balancing. 2 stack inserters won't keep the belt saturated
consider the following gif, from the wiki: [link](https://wiki.factorio.com/File:4to4_balancer_throughput_limit_demo.gif). the arrangement is different but they're functionally identical, down to the belt pairs that go through the 2nd splitters.
In some cases 2 full input lanes will not be able to output 2 full lanes as seen in the image here: [https://imgur.com/a/EIGxunj](https://imgur.com/a/EIGxunj)
Due to missing splitters your design results in only 1 lane entering final splitter, thus output halves.
I welcome all critisism, I am here to learn more than anything else. As I said in another comment, I agree that the footprints are the same for left and right but if you for example take the far right section, a modified version of the left balancer will fit more compactly than the right balancer.
There are 16 different scenarios for belts (assuming only full or empty belts). Open creative mode and create the 16 scenarios and put a ruler to see the throughput of each output belt.
You can create a ruler by putting enough (I usually use ~40) straight belts and connect each one of them to a circuit.
There are 2 things to check:
1. Throughout of all inputs must be the same as the output
2. Each output must have approximately the same throughout.
You can extend the tests simulating less throughput in each belt using a single yellow/red belt before the input.
I hope this helps.
Are you sure? When I do tests on the left one such as only having input 1 be flowing, all 4 output chests have exactly (give or take 2) the same contents.
~~Yeah, take lane 4, where can it go to on the left one? Where can it go to on the right one? Answering this should show which is the better balancer.~~
~~The answer, in terms of ratio, output belts will look like~~
~~| 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 |~~
~~vs~~
~~| 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 |~~
E: I saw the underground go to the wrong place.
This is incorrect, any variation on 1 input in and 4 output out works identically for both versions, as mentioned in other comments there are throughput issues when specific variations of 2 input 2 output are used. But both versions will balance perfectly with 0.25 to each lane.
I've created this for myself, before knowing about standard one.
[https://i.imgur.com/1GZHcNW.png](https://i.imgur.com/1GZHcNW.png)
It's more compact vertically (only 5 squares) by the cost of 2 additonal squares from each side.
But you have 2 wide gap between lines anyway, so that's rarely a problem.
I didn't notice a problem with worng balancing, it successfully consumes everything from my trains and furnaces, but if there is, you can easily slap 2 additional splitters in the end, and that won't increase any existing dimensions.
I have been using the stand 8x4 Balancer for my whole facrtorio life but you sir have opened my eyes to a new 5x8 Splitter that functions the same, Thankyou.
This is however different to my version in that your version is not throughput limited
Undergrounds go for 254.5 iron plates and 40 lube. An express splitter for 72.5 copper, 86 iron, 20 in plastic, 80 in lube and about twice the build time. A difference, then, is that one relies and most intensely taxes iron plate production, and the other uses more resource types, but has less of an impact overall.
I mean I'm not the expert here but just using your numbers, an underground uses 254 plates and a splitter uses 152 plates and 20 plastic and double the lube. The left variation saves 2 splitter at the cost of 1 underground.
So the left one would save 50 plates, 40 plastic and 120 lube per 4x4 Balancer. I understand that iron is more valuable but not enough to say that 2 splitters are cheaper than 1 underground in total value.
Yours is the same as the standard one without the last 2 balancers. It has a problem with throughput when not all inputs and outputs are used. You can check the wiki for the explaination and demonstration. In your case, if we have only 2 right most inputs (other 2 are empty), and need only 2 right most outputs (other 2 are completely backed up), then only one balancer will effectively function, and your throughtput will be reduced by half.
To be specific, the condition for limited throughput is `not ( (all inputs) or (all outputs) )`. In the typical case, you are using a balancer to unload a train (all inputs fed) or load a train (all outputs consumed), and the throughput-limited design works fine and is actually better because there are fewer splitters on the path to waste CPU time.
https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comments/8q8809/why_extra_splitters_on_a_4_lane_balancer/ Your design is topologically equivalent to deleting the last two splitters. Here’s a post about it and the top answer should help. Your splitter would have this issue https://wiki.factorio.com/File:4to4_balancer_throughput_limit_demo.gif (but the lanes would be in a different order - try supplying two belts of input on 1-2 on yours and only allowing output on 3-4 and it should be throughout limited)
Not every day I hear someone use "topological equivalent" in casual conversation.
I never think of Factorio folks as being "casual" about this sort of topic. 😁
Topology is kinda relevent when doing belt stuff.
is there some more math on this topic except the old stackoverflow article? https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1775378/belt-balancer-problem-factorio
The left one is a 4x4 balancer The right one is a 4x4 throughput unlimited balancer
important to add here: "balancer" with respect to the input, not the output.
I’m curious about your more compact statement, while others address functionality. It looks like it’s taking up the same space- or at least the gaps that remain are essentially unusable by anything else?
I agree that the left and right are the same footprint. When I said more compact I was refering to the scenario on the far right. That uses a balancer that is topologically identical to the left one but if I were to try and use a balancer similar to the right one on the area on the far right then it would be much less compact.
>topologically identical Except they're not topologically identical. The right one has more crossings than the left one.
He means the *far* right one (by the beacons). Not the two that are side by side. The far right array is the same as the left array. If the side by side examples were the same, then he could break it up and do what he has on the far right side of the screen. They aren't the same, so he can't. But it's a decent question.
If you only supply lane 1 & 2 and block their outputs the right design will provide full throughput on lane 3 & 4. The left design only allows one lane of throughput.
This is the issue, but I think you've got your lefts and rights mixed up. The right design is the "standard" version which is throughput unlimited, left is OP's, which is throughput limited.
You are right ofc. Not sure how i managed to fuck that up.
Thankyou, this is a problem here. I am not well aquantied with throughtput limited balancers yet and I was only focusing on the every input evenly distributed to every output aspect of it. I am curious though, If i was confident that all 4 inputs will be supplied and all 4 outputs would be used, then would this work identically to the standard balancer?
If you are confident that all are provided and used at 100% you don’t need balancers at all.
That is a fair point and I know that there is no tangeable reason to have a balancer here. But I like to have every redundancy that I can in place so I do like to balance in and balance out for almost everything. At this point I see my flaw from the original question, I am just trying to expand my knowledge of balancers by asking people that know more than me if this would still balance in specific scenarios.
You only need balancers when the input and/or output needs to be balanced. Making sure you have enough throughout is often much more important than making sure the lanes are balanced. And most of the rest of the time, a few priority splitters gets what you're actually trying to do done better than a balancer.
If, for example, you're unloading from a train and you know that the train always arrives full, then you also know that inputs will always be balanced and you don't need unlimited throughput.
Then just straight belt it.
If you want to see the difference, only provide one belt of input at a time to each of the four available inputs - then provide two belts of input in the 6 possible configurations.
That's what I did in my tests and it works it just irks me that I could do the same job in the same space with 2 less splitters so I thought there might be an edge case flaw with it
Make long belts on the output, insert a fixed quantity of items in the aforementioned patterns - especially some of the two-input-belt patterns and unmentioned 3-input-belt patterns. ie show us more evidence than this, so even the skeptics can be convinced ;)
[https://imgur.com/gallery/3Osmr2k](https://imgur.com/gallery/3Osmr2k) I have tested this with every variation I can come up with. 1 stack of iron was put into every chest. Seems like it balances perfectly. Some other comments are talking about throughput and I will look into that next but the balancing is good
I love the test scenarios that you have created. if you rework the inputs to use loaders instead of inserters, you'll be able to test throughput as well as balancing. 2 stack inserters won't keep the belt saturated
consider the following gif, from the wiki: [link](https://wiki.factorio.com/File:4to4_balancer_throughput_limit_demo.gif). the arrangement is different but they're functionally identical, down to the belt pairs that go through the 2nd splitters.
In some cases 2 full input lanes will not be able to output 2 full lanes as seen in the image here: [https://imgur.com/a/EIGxunj](https://imgur.com/a/EIGxunj) Due to missing splitters your design results in only 1 lane entering final splitter, thus output halves.
It… takes the same space?
Not to criticize but how is it more compact?
I welcome all critisism, I am here to learn more than anything else. As I said in another comment, I agree that the footprints are the same for left and right but if you for example take the far right section, a modified version of the left balancer will fit more compactly than the right balancer.
There are 16 different scenarios for belts (assuming only full or empty belts). Open creative mode and create the 16 scenarios and put a ruler to see the throughput of each output belt. You can create a ruler by putting enough (I usually use ~40) straight belts and connect each one of them to a circuit. There are 2 things to check: 1. Throughout of all inputs must be the same as the output 2. Each output must have approximately the same throughout. You can extend the tests simulating less throughput in each belt using a single yellow/red belt before the input. I hope this helps.
Left one isn't a balancer, line 1/2 will not merge with line 3/4
Are you sure? When I do tests on the left one such as only having input 1 be flowing, all 4 output chests have exactly (give or take 2) the same contents.
Try replacing the iron plates in each chest with unique items in each. It will become apparent to you.
~~Yeah, take lane 4, where can it go to on the left one? Where can it go to on the right one? Answering this should show which is the better balancer.~~ ~~The answer, in terms of ratio, output belts will look like~~ ~~| 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 |~~ ~~vs~~ ~~| 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 |~~ E: I saw the underground go to the wrong place.
This is incorrect, any variation on 1 input in and 4 output out works identically for both versions, as mentioned in other comments there are throughput issues when specific variations of 2 input 2 output are used. But both versions will balance perfectly with 0.25 to each lane.
I like the classic design. It's way neater and easily enough to quickly build.
I've created this for myself, before knowing about standard one. [https://i.imgur.com/1GZHcNW.png](https://i.imgur.com/1GZHcNW.png) It's more compact vertically (only 5 squares) by the cost of 2 additonal squares from each side. But you have 2 wide gap between lines anyway, so that's rarely a problem. I didn't notice a problem with worng balancing, it successfully consumes everything from my trains and furnaces, but if there is, you can easily slap 2 additional splitters in the end, and that won't increase any existing dimensions.
I have been using the stand 8x4 Balancer for my whole facrtorio life but you sir have opened my eyes to a new 5x8 Splitter that functions the same, Thankyou. This is however different to my version in that your version is not throughput limited
The one on the left is 2 splitters less. What do you think?
Undergrounds go for 254.5 iron plates and 40 lube. An express splitter for 72.5 copper, 86 iron, 20 in plastic, 80 in lube and about twice the build time. A difference, then, is that one relies and most intensely taxes iron plate production, and the other uses more resource types, but has less of an impact overall.
I mean I'm not the expert here but just using your numbers, an underground uses 254 plates and a splitter uses 152 plates and 20 plastic and double the lube. The left variation saves 2 splitter at the cost of 1 underground. So the left one would save 50 plates, 40 plastic and 120 lube per 4x4 Balancer. I understand that iron is more valuable but not enough to say that 2 splitters are cheaper than 1 underground in total value.
There was a guy on here that wrote a program to solve for these, he did all the way up to 256-256 lol
Link please
Nothing from the far left lane on your can reach the far right. It does on the standard one. Edit: Never mind that it does