安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题









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.