Custom 3D Parts & Lift Motor Control - Any Updates in 2025?

Support
1

Hello,

I’ve seen this topic come up a few times in the past, but I’d like to ask again in case there have been any updates.

1. Custom 3D Parts:
Is it currently possible to create or import personalized 3D components into Factory I/O (e.g. to simulate specific mechanical structures like custom elevators or mechanisms)? Or are we still limited to using only the built-in component library?
The latest replies I found on this were from 2023, so I’m wondering if any new features or extensions have been released since then that allow more realistic modeling of such systems.

2. Motor Behavior (Lift / Elevator):
I’m working on a real-world elevator model controlled by a DC motor using a 0–10 V analog signal and a direction bit.
I know that in Factory I/O you can configure actuators either in digital mode (e.g. up / slow / down) or analog mode (e.g. setpoint / position).
However, in my case I’m trying to simulate a motor where the speed can be continuously adjusted based on an analog input (not a position setpoint).
Is there a way to model that kind of analog motor behavior realistically? Or is it still not possible to simulate continuous analog speed control with direction?

Thanks in advance for your support and any clarification!

2

In regards to 1: I know that Real Games are, according to @brunovgr, working on overhauling the whole software. But there hasn’t been any recent news to that. I would really love an in depth update on where the development stands, but it has been hard to get that information from the devs.

In regards to 2: that’s actually been one of my biggest pain points with Factory I/O so far, along with the lack of end position sensors and instead just feedback from the machines that they are moving. That means for any meaningful, realistic way of simulating the machines, you’d always have to create a wrapper function that creates the end position signals from the information you have, but that’s also unreliable.
The worst offender in this regard is the stacker crane, which is almost unusable with just a 0-10V signal for the position. And just giving it the target positions is also not satisfying.

1 Like
3

Thanks for the info! I see what you mean about the motor behavior and end position feedback – it does make realistic simulation a bit tricky. Hopefully the overhaul brings improvements soon. Would be great to hear more from the devs.

4

Hi @emirslimene19, @janbumer1,

Thanks for raising these points – they’re both very relevant and reflect what many users have been asking for.

1. Custom 3D Parts
This is indeed one of the most requested features, and it will be included in a future release. However, we believe that offering a large library of modular parts with the ability to assemble them together will be even more valuable for the majority of users. Our goal is to support both approaches.

We’re already fine-tuning the part assembly system, and the results are very promising. The ability to import custom parts will come later. I could go into more technical details, but that would be better suited for its own discussion thread.

To directly answer your question @emirslimene19: currently it is not possible to import custom parts. The assembly of built-in parts will arrive first, and later we’ll add support for user-created parts.

2. Analog Motor Behavior (Lift / Elevator)
In the current version, this kind of analog control (continuous speed control + direction bit) isn’t supported. However, in the upcoming version, many actuators will support velocity control. We’re implementing this by using the sign of the voltage to determine direction — meaning it’ll be possible to realistically simulate motors controlled by a ±10 V signal or similar.

@janbumer1 – About the stacker crane and feedback signals
You’re absolutely right — the current “moving” feedback is awkward and limiting. In the next version, these will be replaced by proper end position sensors.

Also, we’d love to get your input on the control of the stacker crane. What are your ideas? What would make it feel more realistic or practical from a PLC programming perspective? Your feedback would be very valuable at this stage.

Regarding development updates:
We’re working hard to release a preview version as soon as possible. The idea is to open it to the community early, collect feedback, and evolve the product together. This isn’t the right time to publish a detailed list of new features, but we’re aiming to have this available in the fall of this year.

1 Like
5

3 posts were merged into an existing topic: Stacker Crane upgrade discussion

6

Hello:

Now I ask the following:

Why do we want a stacker crane with the features janbumer1 mentions?

You see, I already mentioned that FACTORY IO is a game in the form of an industrial simulator. It’s intended for students taking programming courses at high schools and universities, and not for NASA engineers who perform very precise, very precise, very precise calculations if they want the spacecraft to land at the exact point, at the exact speed, and at the exact time…

The point is for students to understand the logic of an elevator, using more or fewer functions, controlling three elevators that answer calls based on their position, open the door, sound an alarm when they reach a floor, or show their current location on a display…

I think that making FACTORY IO software that includes concepts that students, or rather, that teachers are completely unaware of, is a waste of money and time, since in real-life cases such advances will be useless, among other reasons because the knowledge acquired in high schools and universities is far from what janbumer1 proposes.

In my opinion, user-created 3D pieces should not be made either; that is a mistake. What is good is creating more types of objects that can be assembled, or bottles that can be inserted into a box, giving robots more movements, creating water pipes, reservoirs, valves, or other types of objects that allow students to create whatever comes to mind without having to apply complicated millimeter-precise configurations that depend on complex calculations that are incomprehensible to students. This prevents the development of the skills of the person who should begin learning at a basic level and never at the level of specialized engineers with years of experience in the sector.

All of this is based on the questions I receive through my channel, and I can assure you that although my assessment of FACTORY IO, based on my experience demonstrated on this site, is that AS IS, it’s a simulator that 98% of students and teachers aren’t able to push to its limits. Therefore, I think that if we add more objects or functions, they should be of the type currently available and never of the experimental type, which I can tell you in advance will add nothing to FACTORY IO, believe me.

Remember that FACTORY IO is a game.

Greetings.

7

I disagree.

For example, you can compare Factory I/O to a home made flight simulator with a few buttons mounted on a desk. It allows you to teaches yourself how to to do basic handling. What we want is a lot of buttons and at minimum 6DOF motion to make it way more realistic instead fly a real plane.

Factory I/O is the closest thing you can have from simulate real process installation’s scenario but it’s very, very, very limited. More I/O will move you from basic to more advance programming without actually working on a multi $k machine to teach on/play with.

Maybe the I/O presented by @janbumer1 is a bit over the top, but it’s way, way, way closer to a real scenario how actually installations are programmed.
(The speed of the process image and the process time is another topic.)

Let the user select the I/O they want to use on a part as they do fit their needs.

9

Hi @amjavi6,

Thank you for your thoughtful message - I completely understand your concerns and appreciate the perspective you’ve brought from your teaching experience.

I agree with you that Factory I/O, in its current state, is already quite powerful and effective for most educational contexts. It’s accessible, intuitive, and does a great job at introducing automation concepts in a visual and engaging way. I also agree that most students and even educators barely scratch the surface of its current potential.

That said, some of the more advanced features and ideas discussed here are actually part (or should be) of university curricula, especially in engineering and automation courses. For those contexts, bringing the simulation environment closer to real industrial practices can significantly enrich the learning experience. It helps bridge the gap between academic exercises and real-world applications, which is ultimately beneficial for students preparing for the job market.

Importantly, adding new features doesn’t mean sacrificing the current usability or making the software harder to use. As long as these additions are well-integrated and optional they can coexist with the existing, beginner-friendly workflow without getting in the way.

I also agree with your point about building blocks being essential. Enhancing what’s already there - such as expanding the parts library, improving existing mechanics, and fixing limitations - would go a long way toward making Factory I/O even more versatile and future-proof, without overwhelming users.

In short: Factory I/O is great as it is, but improving what isn’t yet ideal, and adding better tools, new parts and features can only make it better - especially if we do it without taking anything away from the current experience and simplicity.

3 Likes
10

Hello:

Since hbrandsma is talking about airplanes…

This was a quick adaptation to elaborate on this post. Of course, we’ll be doing it in more detail when I have time…

I propose the following:

Create an object that is an American F-18 fighter plane. The student selects it as if it were a piece, or a pallet, and places it near the roof of the ship. Place a conveyor belt underneath, on which a piece travels in the opposite direction to the F-18 fighter plane.

Request:

Calculate, based on the fighter plane’s height and the initial velocity of the bomb’s firing, the parabola from the F-18 to the piece on the conveyor belt. When the calculation is correct, the fighter plane will fire the bomb, which will fall on the piece. Now the piece will simulate an explosion, and the conveyor belt will stop.

Having given the example, and returning to the topic, we must understand several things:

First: that the objects that are intended to be controlled by creating large-scale technologies that allow students to be as realistic as possible are already made with specific cards for each function. For example, building an elevator with students is of no use beyond helping them understand the logic of an elevator, since they will never program it. The same is true of the vast majority of machinery used in almost all industries. Therefore, I continue to think (and this is my opinion, but it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s correct) that Factory IO only needs new pick-and-drop elements, new robot movements, and new transport systems.

Second, from a certain level, the PLC is useless because it is very limited, this means that the calculations are done by the PC, and once done, the values ​​are passed to the PLC, and this controls the machine, therefore, any program that goes a little too far no longer works for the PLC and therefore neither does the precision of the simulator, because it will be limited to receiving states and values ​​that, as Bruno says, will be affected by communications, and therefore the simulator will fail.

Now, as Bruno says, it’s certainly possible to combine more technologies with existing technologies without interfering. In fact, I would see it as an improvement. But first, we have to push the simulator to its limits for which it wasn’t designed, since not even its creators could have imagined what they see the simulator capable of.

As you can see, FACTORY IO is used to test American F-18 fighter jets. What I’m not so sure about is whether teachers and students are prepared for it.

Now they can better decide what is worthwhile and what isn’t worth implementing in the simulator, at least I’m clear on that.

Best regards.

12

This right here seems to be a very important part. For me Factory I/O is not a game, but maybe a gamified simulation of a warehouse, which is a good thing! It allows to easily create simulations that can be used to teach students easy and trickier concepts about how you can automate warehouses using PLCs. For the introductory courses one could choose to just use the basic config of conveyors where you can only let them move pallets into one direction, simple on/off. And for more advanced courses you can switch to things like variable speed conveyors.

But an important thing is that students get taught the correct expectations of how something should/could work in the industry. And this is exactly where my previous comment ties in. At the moment many stations don’t offer end position sensors, but instead a “moving” state. This is usually not really helpful in an industrial setting, as you have to know the final positions AND the moving state as an additional info. Same goes for the 0-10V signals to control the stacker crane. Or to just directly give it the position. If you assume that the stacker crane has its own PLC and you just want it to put pallets into certain positions, then the direct rack positions are fine. But maybe you want to teach a student how they would actually control a stacker crane. And the 0-10V signal is not how that would be done (for which you of course explained where that’s coming from).