Asenna Steam
kirjaudu sisään
|
kieli
简体中文 (yksinkertaistettu kiina)
繁體中文 (perinteinen kiina)
日本語 (japani)
한국어 (korea)
ไทย (thai)
български (bulgaria)
Čeština (tšekki)
Dansk (tanska)
Deutsch (saksa)
English (englanti)
Español – España (espanja – Espanja)
Español – Latinoamérica (espanja – Lat. Am.)
Ελληνικά (kreikka)
Français (ranska)
Italiano (italia)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesia)
Magyar (unkari)
Nederlands (hollanti)
Norsk (norja)
Polski (puola)
Português (portugali – Portugali)
Português – Brasil (portugali – Brasilia)
Română (romania)
Русский (venäjä)
Svenska (ruotsi)
Türkçe (turkki)
Tiếng Việt (vietnam)
Українська (ukraina)
Ilmoita käännösongelmasta
A 2x2 would require a 1x1 "combiner" graphic, to still have a 1x1 inputA, a 1x1 inputB and at least a 1x1 OutputC
A 3x3 would be better.. you could designate the top row & middle as a 1x1 'T' combiner... then have a 1x1 middle inputs left&right with the bottom row all being an output 3x1
- but it would look cramped/too condensed
A 5x5 larger version doesn't have much issues, other than trying to balance the inputs/outputs is again difficult, what tiles become which-when you need to work in/out in rectangles/squares ... and then fitting a 5x5 module itself onto ships becomes an issue
4x4 was the 'sweet spot'. Good balance of input/output and combiner. Easily swap-able and align-able with 4x4 storages.
They are intentionally 4x4 to make the design intent be used for your large factory ship.