Make "bulk container units" Actual switchable bsb containers

[Davih 1,340]

I started to reorganize my deed with these new "bulk container units"

To soon realize, that while graphically it's better, practically is much worse, if i have 4 bsb inside, and say one of them is 856 dirt/16k lumps or whatever, and i need that somewhere else (or i sell them, etc)

I manually have to empty it from all the dirt to another empty bsb (in a wagon)

While if i still had it in the old bsbs i could just load the bsb in a wagon and bring it where i need to without emptying it.

I think they should be "actual containers of real bsbs" and not a 4 shelves-container that resemble the mechanics of bsbs.

If it's not mechanicaly possible to drag an empty bsb from the inventory to the "bulk unit" , because i can see it's not possible to drag them even into ships from inventory
You could just make it so that selecting an empty bsb (from the inventory) and right-clicking one of the 4 shelves, you get the option "switch" that will load the new bsb into the unit and unload the selected one on the ground.



 

[Gwyn 328]

+1 This is the main reason I haven't bothered to make more than one of the new units. It ought to be a bare container for containers just like the crate racks with drag-and-drop enabled.

[Jaz 2,665]

These BSB containers the only ones which I do not use. The two reasons are the burden you mentioned above the other is that the storage density provided by bins pushed close to each other cannot be achieved.

 

https://imgur.com/a/hPS46

[Luttuosa 405]

+1

[JakeRivers 2,921]

+1 was what was asked for originally, these are nice but not convenient at all for changing out a load of materials

 

my main warehouse there is something like 40-50 bsbs of marble shards and another 30 or so bsbs of rock shards, these clutter up the floor area something fierce and the new bsb racks will not do at all to organize this, plus all the other bsbs of assorted items, and bsbs of dirt and sand

 

the new bsb racks are not to bad for a few situations

 

 

Edited September 30, 2017 by JakeRivers

[Tallios 307]

-1

I would strongly ask that this solution is not implemented.

 

What I would like to see implemented is a simple client side code.   Which would repeat a movement action limited by stamina, to move objects from one box to another.

 

So you need to move 853 shards from one box to another?  You drag and drop as per usual, and you will get a timer bar, not unlike when you level or flatten dirt.  This action would continue one move action at a time, until the original box is empty (or number limit is reached), the target container is full,  or stamina has run out.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Tallios

[Davih 1,340]

Just now, Tallios said:

-1000

I would strongly ask that this solution is not implemented.

 

What I would like to see implemented is a simple client side code.   Which would repeat a movement action limited by stamina, to move objects from one box to another.

 

So you need to move 853 shards from one box to another?  You drag and drop as per usual, and you will get a timer bar, not unlike when you level or flatten dirt.  This action would continue one move action at a time, until the original box is empty (or number limit is reached), the target container is full,  or stamina has run out.

Or you can just not use bulk containers, and use simple old bsb instead that can now be loaded on ships and wagons and easily transported, making bulk containers useless for this matter, as much as this new method you are suggesting.

I see you have another idea to deal with the whole situation, but i don't think it applies so much to this situation, and i don't really get your reason to -1000 it... o.O

[Tallios 307]

18 minutes ago, Davih said:

I see you have another idea to deal with the whole situation, but i don't think it applies so much to this situation, and i don't really get your reason to -1000 it... o.O

 

Not specifically a disagreement with @JakeRiversand his ideas, just wanted to stress that in my opinion the solution he proposed would be heading in the wrong direction.

 

but that's just my 2i  worth. 

Edited September 30, 2017 by Tallios

[JakeRivers 2,921]

6 hours ago, Tallios said:

 

Not specifically a disagreement with @JakeRiversand his ideas, just wanted to stress that in my opinion the solution he proposed would be heading in the wrong direction.

 

but that's just my 2i  worth. 

 

your idea would cause spikes in server lag, we have enough of that already

[Tallios 307]

On 9/30/2017 at 9:29 PM, JakeRivers said:

 

your idea would cause spikes in server lag, we have enough of that already

 

Right, which is why I wanted it to be a client side series of actions, that would be no different than you manually doing it, just without all the click, drag and confirm prompts.