Software engineering...

do you have an engineering degree or what

To compare just the main platforms of the two MAMs, this older one is 244 PU and 30.3k buildings and the new one is 174 PU and 22.1k buildings.

New even tinier ROS#0 MAM. This time, a PMAM. For all of its components, including miners and trains, it's 1360 PU and 26.6k buildings. With <1k buildings logic engine placed on the vortex platform which controls both the ROS#0 and ROS#1 PMAMs, together.

View the ROS#0 PMAM more in the following additional screenshots:

the main platforms up close

a wide view of an active working version:
* selected to show stats
* without selection highlight

a closer view with the components placed near each other:
* selected to show stats
* without selection highlight

wjat. The fuck.

Sorry, all the "fourth part" and so on stuff are a four part answer to @Vex's questions down below.

fourth part:

* one receiver

Both of my MAMs receive their shape on a color (RED for ROS#0 and BLUE for ROS#1). They're sent out from the vortex platform which has some gate work to send the ROS shape unless I send a different shape. That way, I can have the MAMs do other shapes (also helpful during testing).

my ROS#1 uses only one receiver and runs the signal around as needed.

the ROS#0 uses extras to pull the same signal in where needed. It doesn't "need" multiple receivers, I just dropped them in where convenient.


Really, I need to finish writing my guide on my MAM stuff. It's in the works I'm just busy lately.

third part:

(4) stackers versus swappers?

I favor swappers for everything. The two sides from the outside inward are:

a. part picker
b. painter groups with bypass
c. trash filter
d. swap-or-cut 1
e. trash filter
f. swap-or-cut 2
g. stackers
h. exit trash

Tho, I did, for fun, also build a stacker based one as well. I managed to fit it into the same space as the swap-or-cut stuff.

* shrinking mixers

The real limiter for my design is IO. Both my ROS#0 and ROS#1 MAMs can't get any smaller because they need those inputs. The ROS#0 has 6 inputs for a 3x3p. Making things on the platform smaller won't lessen how many platforms are needed. Same with the ROS#1 which needs 5 inputs for a single platform/layer. I could shrink it some and have some outputs coming in between platforms, but, it's still almost the same size overall so I just leave it as is.

I have a list of other changes I want to make to the MAMs.

second part:

(3) mixers?
I use static mixers for fast changeover. It doesn't matter much once shape goals are huge, but, at the start I like the fast changeover. And, there's plenty of room for them.

They receive the color signal to open the right pipe gate.

There are 4 groups of 7 pipe gates, one per painter group. RGB is included, so, kinda a "bypass".

The mixer groups in these images are intentionally overengineered so I could scale them down later. They have extra mixers and paint storage for RGB. None of the extra was really needed so the ones I am currently using have the extra stripped out. So, it's 8 mixers per secondary and 8 mixers for white. Total of 32 mixers for the painting. The ROS#1 has two more groups of the same mixers for crystalizing.

first part:

My ROS#0 MAM is two 3x3p's for the whole MAM, a 4-belt MAM. Then, I add two more pairs and pass their stuff on thru the middle so it's a 12-belt MAM. It's about 30k buildings and 252 PU, 256 PU with a train loader for output.

Reply to your questions:
(1) parts picker on each side?
(2) why into center?
:> each platform does two layers, so, the two part pickers are separate. the two sides are mirrors and they each build a layer and it's combined in the middle by stackers as well as with the previous platforms 1 or 2 layer shape.
:> I basically had an idea based on the inputs required. The three inputs, paint, 3-shapes, 2-shapes, uses up one side of a 3x3p. Then, I figured I could do the same on the other side, and build two layers, and then stack them in the middle. And, it worked out.