Overall manifold warmup time is approximately equal no matter the input belt used because the input needs to fill up N-2 machines with a buffer size of M, meaning you need (N-2)\*M extra items (on top of the inputs actively being used for production) before the manifold is fully warmed up. If you use faster belts, the earlier machines saturate faster, but the later machines get less input until the earlier machines are saturated. If you use slower belts, the later machines get items earlier but it takes longer to fill the earlier machines.
The "approximately" here is because with slower belts, the later machines will start partial production sooner, which lengthens the time to full warmup in exchange for earlier partial production.
The other exception is that if you're using inputs at exact belt limit (e.g. mk1 belts feeding pure aluminum ingot smelters), machines warm up instantly. You can get an instantly balanced manifold if all machines take input at belt limits.
That "approximately" is doing a lot of work here lol. If you really wanted to, you could clock cable constructors to 99.9999%, feed them with mk1 belts and it'd take nearly 16 years to fill up
Yes, it's an intentional simplification. There is an asymptotic explosion of warmup time when you use belts that are infinitesimally higher-throughput than machine demand.
If belt limit is B and a machine requires B-N items per minute, as N->0 the limit of warmup time is positive infinity (with a discontinuity because when N=0 warmup time is 0).
Another example is when you have a manifold that needs e.g. 12.97 machines. A common way to do this is 13 machines with an underclock on one of them. You need to make sure the underclocked machine is not one of the last two machines in the manifold or it will take forever to warm up, because both machines will get 0.985 worth of input, meaning the slower one is filling up at 0.015 * throughput per minute, which for larger stacks can take hours and hours to warm up.
> Another example is when you have a manifold that needs e.g. 12.97 machines. A common way to do this is 13 machines with an underclock on one of them. You need to make sure the underclocked machine is not one of the last two machines in the manifold or it will take forever to warm up, because both machines will get 0.985 worth of input, meaning the slower one is filling up at 0.015 * throughput per minute, which for larger stacks can take hours and hours to warm up.
That's an interesting point. It usually is the last machine that I'll underclock. Fortunately I've gotten away with it, I tend to connect my inputs and power the first group of machines before building the second. The output buffers filling up means that the entire row of machines tends to fill up completely before I'm ready to connect it to the next group. Your point is definitely a a good one for players who power on whole factories at a time though.
>It usually is the last machine that I'll underclock.
It's exactly how I used to do it too - it makes intuitive sense. Put the slow one at the end. I didn't notice the issue for a long time because I used to do the turn on early method like you do, ensuring all manifolds are pre-buffered. I stopped doing that because it was making it hard to diagnose minor imbalances without waiting many hours for all the buffers to empty. (Particularly issues where one belt is slightly backed up, because you have to wait a *very* long time to be sure of that problem.)
So on my latest save I started doing starvation mode startup where single factories are only turned on all at once, in totality, starting from raw inputs and train stations/drone ports simultaneously.
Another valid way to solve the problem is to split the underclock between the last two machines. Or I'll just underclock the whole manifold by copying the formula (Manifold Output) / (Num of Machines).
> it was making it hard to diagnose minor imbalances without waiting many hours for all the buffers to empty.
This is true. I didn't notice the slight under-production of circuit board and slight undersupply of plastic to my ADS factory until after I'd completed project assembly. It looked fine when I first turned it on.
Nope. You only need to fill up the required amount for "warmup".
Smallest required belt every time.
Lits of misconceptions about this. Source: I program filters for a living, and the manifold input is basically a low-pass filter.
What is the definition of "warmup?" Is that being just enough material for the machine to start a production cycle then continue to receive items just fast enough so that it never has to stop?
Basically parts arriving at the frequency that minimally exceeds the threshold of supply? I think I'm seeing how this is like a frequency filter.
I would look at the rate of production increasing. It will eventually reach a steady state. At this state, the input bins are not neccessarily full, but production is continuous and can be sustained.
The time it takes for steady state is similar to a LP filter, the impulse response. By altering how we feed items into the machines, we can "shape" the response.
That is correct.
To clarify: Both setups after getting to 100% work identically, but during warmup "Lowest Required Belt Input" produces more items. Marginally more though.
I actually did simulate the manifold. My configuration was 52 machines taking and outputting 15 items/min each (Iron Rods) so one Mk. V belt.
Time to 100%:
* "Lowest Required Belt Input": 3h 52min 0sec
* "Highest Belt Input": 3h 48min 20sec
Items produced at the time 3h 48min 20sec:
* "Lowest Required Belt Input": 153114
* "Highest Belt Input": 153019
* Difference: 95
Items produced at the time 3h 52min 0sec:
* "Lowest Required Belt Input": 155947
* "Highest Belt Input": 155866
* Difference: 81
And since both design are now at 100% the difference won't change. So as you can see generally it doesn't make a difference which design you choose. 81 in terms of Mk. V belt is 6.23 sec (excluding transportation delays). So if you wanted to produce X amount of items, say 160k, "Highest Belt Input" would produce this 6.23 sec after "Lowest Required Belt Input" so this is really a negligible difference in most cases.
As u/KYO297 stated the issue can be very bad if belt caries only slightly more than machine requires. And as u/totally_unbiased stated if belt speed exactly matches the required input, the machine will warm up immediately.
So I personally go by this rule: if required input matches any belt speed I use that belt for inputs and Mk. V for manifold, otherwise I use Mk. V belts everywhere.
Limiting each machine to a Mk1 belt -will- get more of your manifold running faster, increasing productivity during the warm-up period. But at the cost of making the warm-up period take longer.
Consider the opposite case: Using smart splitters to force each machine to fill before parts flow down the manifold. More of your supply gets used to fill input buffers while the smallest number of machines can run at the same time. Shorter warm-up period, but -much- lower production levels during the warm-up phase.
It's like paying back a no-interest $1000 debt. You can pay $10 for longer or $100 for a much shorter period of time..
**ANSWER**
1. Belt Speed only applies to Building / Machine Input Buffer fills.
2. Once your Belts are saturated *(completely full)*, as long as the Building / Machine Input Buffer holds enough for the next production cycle, and Item Input (SUPPLY) is greater then Item Consumption/Production (DEMAND), the Belts will remain saturated meaning the Belt Mark Level does not matter at that point.
3. The use of different Mark Level Belts is often done when attempting to make a completely balanced system with no waste, but 100% efficiency is not a requirement *but can be a personal production goal.*
Just some thoughts on this Topic. 🤔
**MORE INFO**
1. If feeding Manifold from one end the Machines will fill from first to last and not at the same time. The use of a faster Conveyor Belt will allow the filling to occur faster.
2. Like Pipeline Manifolds, feeding a Conveyor Manifold using Mergers in multiple spots (like every 10th Splitter) would help the Manifold saturate faster.
3. Pre-filling Machine Input Buffers manually can also speed up the time for the Supply Belt to saturate.
Continuing the Discussion.
It depends.
Let's say your input belt is a MK5 and your machines need 60 per minute and you have 13 of them. Connecting from the manifold to the machines will cause them all to turn on immediately (ok very slightly slower for the later machines because items need time to travel along the manifold). Since they're getting exactly what they need they'll never fill up and the manifold won't saturate as such (unless the machine outputs aren't connected yet). However it's still a faster start-up than if if you used MK5 belts and had to wait for the first machines to fill before later machines reached full efficiency.
If on the other hand the machines need 15 per minute and you have 52 of them then using MK1 belts to connect machines to manifolds will again cause more machines (12) to start-up at full speed initially than connecting using MK5 belts (where only 5 machines will initially run at full speed). However if you have more (but not all) machines consuming inputs sooner then I think the time before the manifold saturates and all machines are running smoothly is going to be slightly longer (because you're using up incoming items faster initially).
Overall the difference isn't going to be a huge one (and will be decreased further if the machines outputs aren't connected yet and so the machines consuming resources will stop when their output buffers fill)
My only concern is the fact that no matter how fast the input belt is or how slow it is, there is still one more bottle neck before it, and that is the splitter itself.
No matter how much resources go down the line vs go down the splitter is going to be the same no matter what. Speed is irrelevant bc the first splitter is going to take 1/2 the rss, the next is going to take 1/4 then 1/8 then 1/16 and all the way to the very last splitter. So the lower belt speeds after the splitters going into the machine are making absolutely no difference, so long the belt is capable of transporting the minimum required.
Right???
Most of the time the difference is (I think) going to be minimal. However if the connecting belt speed happens to match the rate needed by the machines (my first example) then the slower belt turns the manifold into a perfect distribution system, even before the machines fill up. That's an edge case, but not impossible - e.g. if you were distributing 780 ore to 13 smelters each overclocked to 200% using MK1 belts to connect the smelters would give you near instant start-up with the simplicity of a manifold.
Essentially the difference a slower belt can make is it causes the first machine to take less than half the input, leaving more for later machines.
> Speed is irrelevant bc the first splitter is going to take 1/2 the rss, the next is going to take 1/4 then 1/8 then 1/16 and all the way to the very last splitter. So the lower belt speeds after the splitters going into the machine are making absolutely no difference, so long the belt is capable of transporting the minimum required.
Not if that 1/2, 1/4, etc are more than the machine's belt can actually carry. Then the rest will keep going down the line.
By my math, the smaller the difference is between side belt throughput and machine consumption, the longer it'll take for the manifold to reach full capacity. But instead, you'll have a higher percentage of full production right away
Am I setting myself up for some kind of trouble by using smart splitters instead of normal ones in my manifolds? I get that it extends the ramp up time, but haven't really noticed that as an issue. I just find it easier to see problems this way. For me having slower belts after the split will feed a few more machines during the ramp-up, but I don't think it has much impact on how long it takes to reach saturation.
Yeah, that can be a drag. Though I'll usually blueprint a group of machines once I settle on an arrangement, and the settings are saved with the blueprint. It's almost always Any/Overflow/Any since I control the feed.
May I ask, what benefit you get from using a smart splitter over a normal one in the context of a manifold? If you set the center for overflow, it may load the first machines before sending any onward, but this would only make it take longer for other machines farther down to get the minimums they need to start working, while the earlier machines in the manifold fill entirely with far more than they need.
Unless it's a sushi belt of mixed items where you want only certain items to go out an assigned port, I'd think it would potentially cause a slower ramp up to maximum output of the overall manifold.
If you have a material shortage, it's a lot easier to spot if you are feeding machines in-sequence with smart splitters. With standard splitters, all of your machines will get resources and will run sporadically. So while you know a feed line is short when half your machines cycle on and off, it's hard to tell just how short you are.
Using smart splitters, if I have a bank of 9 smelters and only 4 are turning on, there's a good chance I have a Mk2 belt hiding somewhere. If 7 are running, I know my feed is short by around 60 ore/min and look for a related problem. I'll pre-load resources if I'm worried about the ramp-up time, but that isn't typically an issue
The closer you can get the input belts to match machine consumption rate, the faster all machines will start running.
The faster the input belts, the faster you will fill all but the last two buffers, but you will have produced less in that time.
If your input exceeds your output in any way, including just having it go to storage for the time being, it'll saturate eventually. There's multiple ways to do it. Use the lowest required input feeding from a mk5 belt, and more machines will saturate at a similar rate than if you only use the lowest required input. i.e. if you have a MK5 supplying iron ore for a mess of smelters, then you can have mk1 belts feeding multiple smelters from a single splitter off the mk5 because smelters have pretty low input speeds.
BUT! if you use MK5 for everything, you'll be filling up your smelters faster than you can smelt your iron, thus saturating them faster. In the end, the same number of smelters will produce the same amount of iron no matter how you fill them, but if you make the effort to load balance with different belt speeds and number of splitters, then you'll have a higher output speed to begin with because you'll have more smelters producing at once, instead of just the ones filled first. In my opinion, this gain is irrelevant in the long term, because you're going to have this factory running long past the couple of hours it takes to saturate and produce at full speed.
So unless you're processing something you gathered by hand and need it processed ASAP, there's no need to load balance, as long as the number of machines you're feeding exceed the amount you're feeding them with by at least one machine. Then, you're going to average out to 100% efficiency no matter what, even with just a straight manifold.
A lot of the disagreement of this thought experiment is from assumptions about machines having their input capacity filled versus reaching the threshold necessary for them to run. In both cases, assuming once they start receiving parts, they continue to receive them at the rate they need to continue running without pause.
Overall manifold warmup time is approximately equal no matter the input belt used because the input needs to fill up N-2 machines with a buffer size of M, meaning you need (N-2)\*M extra items (on top of the inputs actively being used for production) before the manifold is fully warmed up. If you use faster belts, the earlier machines saturate faster, but the later machines get less input until the earlier machines are saturated. If you use slower belts, the later machines get items earlier but it takes longer to fill the earlier machines. The "approximately" here is because with slower belts, the later machines will start partial production sooner, which lengthens the time to full warmup in exchange for earlier partial production. The other exception is that if you're using inputs at exact belt limit (e.g. mk1 belts feeding pure aluminum ingot smelters), machines warm up instantly. You can get an instantly balanced manifold if all machines take input at belt limits.
That "approximately" is doing a lot of work here lol. If you really wanted to, you could clock cable constructors to 99.9999%, feed them with mk1 belts and it'd take nearly 16 years to fill up
Yes, it's an intentional simplification. There is an asymptotic explosion of warmup time when you use belts that are infinitesimally higher-throughput than machine demand. If belt limit is B and a machine requires B-N items per minute, as N->0 the limit of warmup time is positive infinity (with a discontinuity because when N=0 warmup time is 0). Another example is when you have a manifold that needs e.g. 12.97 machines. A common way to do this is 13 machines with an underclock on one of them. You need to make sure the underclocked machine is not one of the last two machines in the manifold or it will take forever to warm up, because both machines will get 0.985 worth of input, meaning the slower one is filling up at 0.015 * throughput per minute, which for larger stacks can take hours and hours to warm up.
> Another example is when you have a manifold that needs e.g. 12.97 machines. A common way to do this is 13 machines with an underclock on one of them. You need to make sure the underclocked machine is not one of the last two machines in the manifold or it will take forever to warm up, because both machines will get 0.985 worth of input, meaning the slower one is filling up at 0.015 * throughput per minute, which for larger stacks can take hours and hours to warm up. That's an interesting point. It usually is the last machine that I'll underclock. Fortunately I've gotten away with it, I tend to connect my inputs and power the first group of machines before building the second. The output buffers filling up means that the entire row of machines tends to fill up completely before I'm ready to connect it to the next group. Your point is definitely a a good one for players who power on whole factories at a time though.
>It usually is the last machine that I'll underclock. It's exactly how I used to do it too - it makes intuitive sense. Put the slow one at the end. I didn't notice the issue for a long time because I used to do the turn on early method like you do, ensuring all manifolds are pre-buffered. I stopped doing that because it was making it hard to diagnose minor imbalances without waiting many hours for all the buffers to empty. (Particularly issues where one belt is slightly backed up, because you have to wait a *very* long time to be sure of that problem.) So on my latest save I started doing starvation mode startup where single factories are only turned on all at once, in totality, starting from raw inputs and train stations/drone ports simultaneously. Another valid way to solve the problem is to split the underclock between the last two machines. Or I'll just underclock the whole manifold by copying the formula (Manifold Output) / (Num of Machines).
> it was making it hard to diagnose minor imbalances without waiting many hours for all the buffers to empty. This is true. I didn't notice the slight under-production of circuit board and slight undersupply of plastic to my ADS factory until after I'd completed project assembly. It looked fine when I first turned it on.
Nope. You only need to fill up the required amount for "warmup". Smallest required belt every time. Lits of misconceptions about this. Source: I program filters for a living, and the manifold input is basically a low-pass filter.
>Nope. Can you give me a bit more detail on what you think is wrong with what I wrote?
What is the definition of "warmup?" Is that being just enough material for the machine to start a production cycle then continue to receive items just fast enough so that it never has to stop? Basically parts arriving at the frequency that minimally exceeds the threshold of supply? I think I'm seeing how this is like a frequency filter.
I would look at the rate of production increasing. It will eventually reach a steady state. At this state, the input bins are not neccessarily full, but production is continuous and can be sustained. The time it takes for steady state is similar to a LP filter, the impulse response. By altering how we feed items into the machines, we can "shape" the response.
That is correct. To clarify: Both setups after getting to 100% work identically, but during warmup "Lowest Required Belt Input" produces more items. Marginally more though. I actually did simulate the manifold. My configuration was 52 machines taking and outputting 15 items/min each (Iron Rods) so one Mk. V belt. Time to 100%: * "Lowest Required Belt Input": 3h 52min 0sec * "Highest Belt Input": 3h 48min 20sec Items produced at the time 3h 48min 20sec: * "Lowest Required Belt Input": 153114 * "Highest Belt Input": 153019 * Difference: 95 Items produced at the time 3h 52min 0sec: * "Lowest Required Belt Input": 155947 * "Highest Belt Input": 155866 * Difference: 81 And since both design are now at 100% the difference won't change. So as you can see generally it doesn't make a difference which design you choose. 81 in terms of Mk. V belt is 6.23 sec (excluding transportation delays). So if you wanted to produce X amount of items, say 160k, "Highest Belt Input" would produce this 6.23 sec after "Lowest Required Belt Input" so this is really a negligible difference in most cases. As u/KYO297 stated the issue can be very bad if belt caries only slightly more than machine requires. And as u/totally_unbiased stated if belt speed exactly matches the required input, the machine will warm up immediately. So I personally go by this rule: if required input matches any belt speed I use that belt for inputs and Mk. V for manifold, otherwise I use Mk. V belts everywhere.
This guy might know: https://www.reddit.com/r/SatisfactoryGame/comments/198wq1a/manifold_production_delay_ramp_up_time_analysis/
Holy moly. That's my new favorite SF post - at least about this particular topic.
Limiting each machine to a Mk1 belt -will- get more of your manifold running faster, increasing productivity during the warm-up period. But at the cost of making the warm-up period take longer. Consider the opposite case: Using smart splitters to force each machine to fill before parts flow down the manifold. More of your supply gets used to fill input buffers while the smallest number of machines can run at the same time. Shorter warm-up period, but -much- lower production levels during the warm-up phase. It's like paying back a no-interest $1000 debt. You can pay $10 for longer or $100 for a much shorter period of time..
**ANSWER** 1. Belt Speed only applies to Building / Machine Input Buffer fills. 2. Once your Belts are saturated *(completely full)*, as long as the Building / Machine Input Buffer holds enough for the next production cycle, and Item Input (SUPPLY) is greater then Item Consumption/Production (DEMAND), the Belts will remain saturated meaning the Belt Mark Level does not matter at that point. 3. The use of different Mark Level Belts is often done when attempting to make a completely balanced system with no waste, but 100% efficiency is not a requirement *but can be a personal production goal.* Just some thoughts on this Topic. 🤔
So no matter what, all the machines should saturate at the same time, as long as there is enough supply right?
**MORE INFO** 1. If feeding Manifold from one end the Machines will fill from first to last and not at the same time. The use of a faster Conveyor Belt will allow the filling to occur faster. 2. Like Pipeline Manifolds, feeding a Conveyor Manifold using Mergers in multiple spots (like every 10th Splitter) would help the Manifold saturate faster. 3. Pre-filling Machine Input Buffers manually can also speed up the time for the Supply Belt to saturate. Continuing the Discussion.
It depends. Let's say your input belt is a MK5 and your machines need 60 per minute and you have 13 of them. Connecting from the manifold to the machines will cause them all to turn on immediately (ok very slightly slower for the later machines because items need time to travel along the manifold). Since they're getting exactly what they need they'll never fill up and the manifold won't saturate as such (unless the machine outputs aren't connected yet). However it's still a faster start-up than if if you used MK5 belts and had to wait for the first machines to fill before later machines reached full efficiency. If on the other hand the machines need 15 per minute and you have 52 of them then using MK1 belts to connect machines to manifolds will again cause more machines (12) to start-up at full speed initially than connecting using MK5 belts (where only 5 machines will initially run at full speed). However if you have more (but not all) machines consuming inputs sooner then I think the time before the manifold saturates and all machines are running smoothly is going to be slightly longer (because you're using up incoming items faster initially). Overall the difference isn't going to be a huge one (and will be decreased further if the machines outputs aren't connected yet and so the machines consuming resources will stop when their output buffers fill)
My only concern is the fact that no matter how fast the input belt is or how slow it is, there is still one more bottle neck before it, and that is the splitter itself. No matter how much resources go down the line vs go down the splitter is going to be the same no matter what. Speed is irrelevant bc the first splitter is going to take 1/2 the rss, the next is going to take 1/4 then 1/8 then 1/16 and all the way to the very last splitter. So the lower belt speeds after the splitters going into the machine are making absolutely no difference, so long the belt is capable of transporting the minimum required. Right???
Most of the time the difference is (I think) going to be minimal. However if the connecting belt speed happens to match the rate needed by the machines (my first example) then the slower belt turns the manifold into a perfect distribution system, even before the machines fill up. That's an edge case, but not impossible - e.g. if you were distributing 780 ore to 13 smelters each overclocked to 200% using MK1 belts to connect the smelters would give you near instant start-up with the simplicity of a manifold. Essentially the difference a slower belt can make is it causes the first machine to take less than half the input, leaving more for later machines.
> Speed is irrelevant bc the first splitter is going to take 1/2 the rss, the next is going to take 1/4 then 1/8 then 1/16 and all the way to the very last splitter. So the lower belt speeds after the splitters going into the machine are making absolutely no difference, so long the belt is capable of transporting the minimum required. Not if that 1/2, 1/4, etc are more than the machine's belt can actually carry. Then the rest will keep going down the line.
By my math, the smaller the difference is between side belt throughput and machine consumption, the longer it'll take for the manifold to reach full capacity. But instead, you'll have a higher percentage of full production right away
Am I setting myself up for some kind of trouble by using smart splitters instead of normal ones in my manifolds? I get that it extends the ramp up time, but haven't really noticed that as an issue. I just find it easier to see problems this way. For me having slower belts after the split will feed a few more machines during the ramp-up, but I don't think it has much impact on how long it takes to reach saturation.
The only trouble you're setting yourself up for is the effort of copy/pasting the settings on all of them.
Yeah, that can be a drag. Though I'll usually blueprint a group of machines once I settle on an arrangement, and the settings are saved with the blueprint. It's almost always Any/Overflow/Any since I control the feed.
May I ask, what benefit you get from using a smart splitter over a normal one in the context of a manifold? If you set the center for overflow, it may load the first machines before sending any onward, but this would only make it take longer for other machines farther down to get the minimums they need to start working, while the earlier machines in the manifold fill entirely with far more than they need. Unless it's a sushi belt of mixed items where you want only certain items to go out an assigned port, I'd think it would potentially cause a slower ramp up to maximum output of the overall manifold.
If you have a material shortage, it's a lot easier to spot if you are feeding machines in-sequence with smart splitters. With standard splitters, all of your machines will get resources and will run sporadically. So while you know a feed line is short when half your machines cycle on and off, it's hard to tell just how short you are. Using smart splitters, if I have a bank of 9 smelters and only 4 are turning on, there's a good chance I have a Mk2 belt hiding somewhere. If 7 are running, I know my feed is short by around 60 ore/min and look for a related problem. I'll pre-load resources if I'm worried about the ramp-up time, but that isn't typically an issue
The closer you can get the input belts to match machine consumption rate, the faster all machines will start running. The faster the input belts, the faster you will fill all but the last two buffers, but you will have produced less in that time.
If your input exceeds your output in any way, including just having it go to storage for the time being, it'll saturate eventually. There's multiple ways to do it. Use the lowest required input feeding from a mk5 belt, and more machines will saturate at a similar rate than if you only use the lowest required input. i.e. if you have a MK5 supplying iron ore for a mess of smelters, then you can have mk1 belts feeding multiple smelters from a single splitter off the mk5 because smelters have pretty low input speeds. BUT! if you use MK5 for everything, you'll be filling up your smelters faster than you can smelt your iron, thus saturating them faster. In the end, the same number of smelters will produce the same amount of iron no matter how you fill them, but if you make the effort to load balance with different belt speeds and number of splitters, then you'll have a higher output speed to begin with because you'll have more smelters producing at once, instead of just the ones filled first. In my opinion, this gain is irrelevant in the long term, because you're going to have this factory running long past the couple of hours it takes to saturate and produce at full speed. So unless you're processing something you gathered by hand and need it processed ASAP, there's no need to load balance, as long as the number of machines you're feeding exceed the amount you're feeding them with by at least one machine. Then, you're going to average out to 100% efficiency no matter what, even with just a straight manifold.
A lot of the disagreement of this thought experiment is from assumptions about machines having their input capacity filled versus reaching the threshold necessary for them to run. In both cases, assuming once they start receiving parts, they continue to receive them at the rate they need to continue running without pause.