Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Small Cargo Container WAY cheaper than the Conveyor(Large ships)

Discussion in 'Survival' started by EstebanLB, Jun 30, 2014.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. EstebanLB Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    62
    Right now, the Small Cargo Container is way cheaper than the Conveyor for large ships and stations. They also have storage space, a terminal and access to the network's inventory. The Conveyor doesn't have any of that. The cost of it should match it usefulness because there's no point in building them
     
  2. Knsgf Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    538
    Maybe they could leave only 2 doors on opposite sides of the container? (Similar to small ship one).
     
  3. ViperMan Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    680
    I'm assuming however that a row of small containers don't move materials automatically, correct? IE a refinery connected to a connector with a row of small containers won't transfer ore to the refinery if ore is placed in the connector? At least it shouldn't...

    Technically, a conveyor is much more advanced than a storage container, though I see your point with the console and ship-wide inventory access. Containers merely hold material, while a conveyor routes and moves material. I guess you could say that the cost is on the inside guts more than the outside appearance.

    (I used to work for a material handling EPC firm...) :)
     
  4. EstebanLB Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    62
    The containers makes push and pull request as needed so they act like conveyors
     
  5. RockSlice Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    39
    I would think the storage container would be more advanced. If you take a "crossroads", the conveyor needs to figure out which of 4 destinations the cargo needs to travel. The storage container needs to figure out which of (4 destinations + storage) the cargo needs to travel (not to mention the interface and local access which was also brought up).

    IMO, the two blocks should be reconfigured so that the conveyor uses fewer resources than the storage container.

    On a somewhat related note, it would be nice to be able to group connected storage containers together in the interface.
     
  6. kristakis Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    607
    omg yes! It'd be awesome if there was a 'all cargo containers on the network' meta view showing a single stack of each item regardless of which containers/welders/connects etc they're in.
     
  7. gazeebo Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    106
    Except using small cargo containers will seriously clutter up your control panel when trying to look for your items.
     
  8. Gheiter Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    184
    There's a simple solution to this: Make conveyors cheaper. ;D
    Seriously, they're way too overpriced.
     
  9. EstebanLB Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    62
    Now with Poll guys. Please, vote to what you think is best
     
  10. ndwar Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    127
    You do run the problem of having hundreds of containers on your network if you have a lot of T-junctions, but generally you need all the space you can get. And with programming coming in this will be even less of a problem.
     
  11. Shortsonfire79 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    26
    I don't like either choice for the poll.

    I don't think conveyors should be cheaper than containers because I agree that they should be more technically advanced, based on what they do/should be doing. By definition a conveyor is an object that is used to transport something; and a container is one that holds or transports (though I think in this context it means to be moved as a unit from point A to B). Conveyor a machine, container an empty box. I also think that the cargo containers are at a pretty decent build price as they are.

    I think that what should be altered are the way that containers work. I really enjoy being able to access one container and pull from any other that's within the network, but that's where the flaw is. As you point out that makes the conveyor and container the same. In that case, the push-pull functionality should be removed from containers. In order to continue accessing one container and getting stuff from others would require conveyors or tubes between containers. This would mean that putting a refinery port adjacent to a container port wouldn't produce automation. But if you have a refinery-conveyor-container, it would. Looking at what I've written, I would hate myself if Keen chose to make this switch, but to me that's the way that would work best.
     
  12. RockSlice Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    39
    You're thinking of the container as an "empty box" - in which case you should want the build price dropped, because why does a box need motors?

    Except that the container isn't just an empty box. Like a modern robotic warehouse, it is a box that can take an item from any of 6 sides, place it internally for storage, and then retrieve that item for delivery to any side.

    So in order to perform its function, it needs internal machinery that can deliver items from any one side to any other side (aka the function of a conveyor).
     
  13. Tiger313 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    297
    Containers should be expensive, as they handle putting items in and out of storage bins inside the container. Conveyors should be expensive too, as they handle automated switches in the conveyor systems. I think the devs have it set up wrongly though. Push/pull should NOT be possible without one or more conveyors in between, as conveyor blocks are supposed to be the brains of the system. The only exceptions being connectors/ejectors/collectors, when jettisoning and scooping it up from space. And that way the whole discussion about whether or not to use containers instead of conveyors is OVER. :)
     
  14. Knsgf Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    538
    I still wish that there was the 3rd option in the poll: "Make small cargo container to have only 2 doors". This way the container would transfer stuff only in a straight line, so if you need to build a junction you'll have to use a conveyor block.
     
  15. EstebanLB Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    62
    Yeah, well that's another option too. But I don't see where I can edit the poll...
     
  16. Communist Penguin Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    148
    Personally i think the large conveyors are just to expensive. I mean, when implementing a conveyor system the pipes are often much MUCH more expensive than the thing they are connecting to.
     
  17. Yatakedeze Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    99
    There is definitely some wierdness differentiating cargo containers from conveyors. I have it mostly, but not quite, figured out.

    Here's the helpful diagram that shows how they "should" work:

    [​IMG]
    I'm sure we've all seen this. The thing is, there are some cases where this is not necessarily the case. For example, a ship I have has a welder adjacent to a medium cargo container that's adjacent to another medium cargo container which is adjacent to a connector. This is a pretty common small ship design, and is effectively the design in the top of the above diagram. If it were entirely correct, items input from the connector would only travel as far as one cargo container before stopping, and the welder would find its adjacent cargo container empty and not be able to pull.

    Nonetheless, I have had issues with a "cargo container" network of e.g. assemblers not being able to find the materials and having to move them manually. Following the design above mitigates the issue, but I'm still uncertain why sometimes cargo containers appear to pass items and not other times.
     
  18. SirTragain Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    160
    I find it more annoying trying to place large containers with the large inlets in the proper orientation of the build I am doing. You have to spin and flip while counting facings.
    I’d much rather see large openings on all 6 sides; after all it is a “Large Cargo Container”. The whole small tube / large tube throughway is a pain which only gets baffling when you look at the underside of a collector. The only advantage I see for it is if you wanted a quick way to separate such items but frankly I don’t see the need.
    More to the topic at hand; way before the update of conveyor tubes, collector & connectors were put on the starter ship; the first modification to my lovely beat up yellow survival ship was the reorientation of the assembler.
    I’d grind out a couple of the roof blocks and stand the assembler up so it connected with the small storage and the refinery. Then I moved the reactor from the left floor line wall to the assemblers’ opposing inlet side keeping accessibility inside the ship. This way when ore is dropped in to the collector it is automatically grabbed by the refinery as always and in conjunction with the reactor using conveyer system allows the uranium to be pulled to the reactor as it is refined and the rest of the other ingots are ready to be pumped in to the assembler storage as needed from the refinery.
    I’d like to see a send ingot drag down in refinery and Assembler options to (select location) i.e. Large Storage Container 3 that way the refinery won’t fill up and shut down plus since the assembler can also pull using conveyor system and dismantle all; it would make for a truly automated factory. With all that said; I try not to install the conveyor block unless I need to make a “T”. As I understand it; each of these equipment items with computers and motors make up the “Conveyer System” and therefore already have the components that make up a conveyor so a storage container should cost more than a conveyor since it does everything a conveyor dos plus stores items which a conveyor doesn’t.
    Just think of a Laptop as the storage container vs. Desktop being the conveyor, both do the same thing but the Laptop has smaller components which cost more to make and it is portable which a Desktop isn’t.
    By the way, I also take out the blocks behind the ships refinery and put in 4 more assemblers then put the Gyroscope back in place and plunk down a Large Storage on top of them like in the back of a pickup truck and pipe that to the bottom inlet of the refinery making everything connected to eachother.
     
  19. GenRommel Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    70
    It would be nice if items took time to travel through the conveyer network. Not only would this make the system more realistic than it is now, but would also allow there to be more of a difference between cargo containers and conveyors. The cargo containers could simply be much slower at transferring items. This would give us a reason not to build long pipes out of containers.

    I think the containers should be more expensive than the conveyors.
     
  20. Chris Keena Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    209
    I'd love to be able to set up routing tables in the conveyors. That might actually make them worth the expense.
     
  21. TheeScrub Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    123
    Cargo containers are cheaper because of the danger they pose.

    In this game cargo containers compress matter, meaning the space they take up is far less then the space their contents take up. When destroyed, they release their contents. This forces the contents to expand in the area where the cargo container was, effectively acting like an explosion, damaging or destroying all neighbouring blocks until there is enough space to hold the contents that were in the container.

    Therefore its best to only use cargo containers away from important blocks (power, thrusters, etc), so even if it costs a bit more for conveyor blocks, I will use them deep within the ship, rather then line the inner part of the ship with what are effectively bombs. The placement of cargo containers should be well considered and not placed simply because they are cheaper then conveyors.
     
  22. dzikakulka Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    60
    But you can keep them empty, just like conveyors would be.... then you have low cost and possibility of extended storage, neither of which conveyor offers.
     
  23. Yatakedeze Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    99
    What a bizarre form of meta-reasoning. If cargo containers have such sophisticated technology to be able to compress items without damaging them, certainly they'd be far more expensive!
     
  24. Ketobor Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    23
    I agree with the core issue here.

    Playing in Survival Mode, it feels very unpleasant to use Conveyer Tubes because of their immense cost, especially compared to inventories, which also store.
    It seems like most of this is to make you into value automation, but instead it makes you feel bad about your choices either way.
     
  25. JayCo2013 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    356
    "Make conveyor cheaper than the cargo container" or "Make the Cargo container more expensive than the Conveyor" Pretty much means the same thing anyways.

    The idea is that conveyors will eventually direct stuff to determined areas, this is why they are more expensive.
    What we need is to be able to set refineries to only process certain resources, a tick screen on its settings screen to only accept set raw materials or all, so it could be set to process only stone and iron for example, and another set to process the rest since although we need all these resources we will be getting huge amounts of iron and stone so have a refinery just for processing that would allow the other refinery to process the other ores quickly instead of quing up behind 40k of iron.
    The other thing we need this tick selection box set up on is cargo containers, so we can select which items and ores or all will go into that cargo container. this way the conveyor system will be able to direct items to only specific areas allowing us to create more interesting trade post not to mention organising our equipment more efficiently.
    In MP Co-OP mining games this could become really interesting with some people mining only for iron and trading it with others, unrefined is cheaper so you set your main refinery to refine everything but iron, and have another setup to refine iron and you only turn it on when your running low on refined iron, therefore you will accumulate alot of unrefined iron in that iron only cargo container you have at your trade deck. This is just an example, obviously the military minded can set up multiple refineries and assemblers purely for making the resources for rockets and bullet ammunition etc.
    I hope this comes in soon because currently I spend more time moving my cargo around because the assembler and conveyors just send anything anywhere.
     
  26. Volfram Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,564
    If you're playing on Realistic inventory capacity, this is only true of the Small Ship medium and large containers.(which is probably a bug, the Small ship Large container holds nearly twice the capacity of the Large ship Small container, which takes up the same volume, and it's considerably cheaper.)

    If you're playing on 3x/5x/10x inventory, everything has unrealistic capacities because of space magic. It doesn't have anything to do with volume compression.
     
  27. GotLag Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,114
    Modded the costs, tell me what you think:
    http://forums.keenswh.com/post/cheaper-conveyors-7012153
     
  28. EstebanLB Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    62
    Excelent!
     
  29. entspeak Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,744
    The conveyor system is flawed and incomplete. You can't push things from a grinder to a storage container across a connector link, for example.

    The big cost of conveyor tubes is the glass. I don't really know why you need it - it's not like you can see items going through.
     
  30. carazvan Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    16
    You actually dont need the glass to make the tubes functional. You need the glass to complete the block only.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.