it's recently been patched, but press enter to get out JUST before the cargo hub door closes

somewhere around 1 to 1.5 million

You could space walk by exiting the capsule just before entering/exiting the platform hub. It's beenwhile been patched

Merry Christmas!

No, they wouldn't be very useful. There will be a save game perhaps

I'm one of the people who were involved in scripting. The "problem" is that with many horizontal belt braids, the trivial solution of "just take a horizontal belt braid, and stack 5 of them on top of each other, each with a horizontal offset of 1 more than the previous" has both columns with too many horizontal "surfacings" and with "too little" (I.e. columns with not enough space for 2 colors of vertical belts and columns with too much space). It's pretty easy to manually find one where their numbers are decently low, but there's no way of knowing what the _best_ result is that you can get for a given horizontal belt braid. Especially if you suspect that there should be some way to line them up without any imperfections, then proving that there isn't requires testing _all_ possible ways to shift the horizontal belt braids. And in the process you'll find the maximum length horizontal belt weave with only one vertical belt missing for the longest horizontal belt weave (which is that the 4.753 is). Michael somewhat sold our effort a bit short by only showing the single best result that you can find with scripts. In reality, there's "four-point-seven-something"s for a few widths. Also, given that the current consensus among us scripters is that 4.8 or thereabouts seems to be the best you'd be able to reach or approach (with the 46x46 class of solutions which our scripts can't handle), should put into perspective how much closer a jump from 4.666 to 4.753 out of 4.800 actually takes you.

@@Pystro I understand all this and see why the top designs use scripting but if I can do better than the computer for a specific size after only 15 minutes then there seems to be a problem with the computer(an old model sure, so you might have fixed it in the new versions).

@@dannyboy1350 Well, let me put it like this: The computer doesn't have any imagination and can't have ideas, so all the ideas have to come from us. And for some reason none of us thought about doing size 36*10, because 36 just isn't a very good horizontal belt baid. [edit: I should probably mention that for each new width, we had to manually find _ALL_ belt braids of that length (of both RGB and GB type); which is why we only looked at the widths with the belt braids that could have allowed us to find a 4.8 density solution.] If I remember the video correctly, then the 4.666 shown was a design with reds in all horizontals. And we found all of those manually. Only the 4.75yada ones are from the scripts. I.e. your 4.666 in 36x10 doesn't match the density in the script solutions, it matched our manually found solutions. Just that yours has a smaller tiling unit (which is not a direction that we were concerned pushing the results into).

@@Pystro "the 4.666 shown was a design with reds in all horizontals. And we found all of those manually." ah, so both of the 4.666 designs are human found. I seem to remember Michael saying it was the first design found via script.

You can't change recipes with logic, if there are items in output slots.

yeah Charlie is right, I covered this in the main video on the main channel

Worse than belt weaving storage. without beacons, it takes in 350 chunks in 25 tiles = 14 asteroids per tile = <2 belts per tile. With max beacons they take 1075, individually storing 43 asteroids per tile (5.375 belts per tile) but of course the beacons take a LOT of space. [SNIPED] ok I quickly tested a 3 beacon per plant setup (plants on both outside rows, beacons and input belt down the middle, no seperate output belt as can simply reverse inserters and output on the input belt when the time comes), then each pair of cryo plants hold 1390 asteroids (675+675+40 on belt) on 5x13 tiles = 21.4 asteroids per tile (2.66 belts per tile). This would diminish a little bit still for connecting up multiple rows, but 2.5 belts per tile is a lot closer to the belt weaving solutions than I though! It is way, WAY more expensive though! (legendary beacons/mk3 speed modules/cryo plants, oof!)

well with a storage of 675 per it has to contend with 25 tiles of belt weave being generous we'll take 4 belts per tile and get 100 belts worth. this would then store 800 prometheum which is more than the equivalent amount in the cryo plant. if we factor in the loading/unloading and beacons it'll have to contend with 42.5 tiles worth of belts thus skewing the result even more in favor of belts though if you had recursive blueprints+ (cause of update 2.0) installed you could automate the changing of recipes

after further testing you can eat the whole throughput of the 4 belts using the cryogenic plants - you need just enough to handle the inserters, with ~20 inserters handling the throughput 4 cryogenic plants should be able to store as much as you ever would need. the only "problem" is that it's a pain to set the blueprint, but you should be able to use an inserter filtered to blueprints to "flash" the blueprint deployer

I'm thinking of adding long handed inserters to the gaps. I believe that will store an extra one (1) item.

@@samc4741 If you move one of the undergrounds forward by two tiles and connect with normal belts then you can do stack inserters instead, which can store up to 16 items each but you'd only have half the space.

You wouldn't download promethium chunks.

They're two separate games lul

was casually reconstructing spaceship mid-flight at 3.3M km out towards shattered planet in a 28h livestream (soon to be re-uploaded on 2nd channel). Was getting rid of a belt-woven asteroid tail which might become a liability, but as I didn't have space to store all the belts, they had to be... disposed of...

Yeah 2nd channel finally got the chance to catch up thanks to space age intervention lol