|
Forum: IS
|
|
Topic: Fuel Transport vs. SFX
|
| Fuel Transport vs. SFX |
Sat, 29 June 2019 04:23 |
|
 magic9mushroom |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
As it says in the topic, which do you prefer? The Fuel Transport is obviously way, way better at making fuel, due to both lower cost and lower weight (the SFX needs Mizers or better to produce more fuel than it uses at Warp 9, whereas the Fuel Transport makes over twice what it uses even with a QJ5 and Croby). On the other hand, the SFX has a little more fuel storage and provides twice the repair boost.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Topic: IS and False Public Player Scores.
|
| IS and False Public Player Scores. |
Wed, 03 October 2012 01:40 |
|
| magic9mushroom |
| Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
I thought of something recently...
One of the tricks of IS is to pick up population into freighters and let it overflow back down to boost population growth. In some cases, this overflow can get quite large; if you're building an orgy at a world, you might have hundreds of thousands being dropped and picked up each year.
Now, with a bit of MM, one can arrange for much of that loading to occur at waypoint 1 instead of 0. If the flip-flop's large enough, this can produce severely misleading results in the PPS. It does not, however, fall within the defined parameters of the "False Public Player Scores" cheat (loading at WP1 and dropping at WP0).
So, should "load at WP1 and overflow pop" be added to that definition?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Topic: A few thoughts (and numbers) about IS pop growth...
|
| A few thoughts (and numbers) about IS pop growth... |
Sun, 13 February 2005 07:26 |
|
| Robert |
 | Lt. Junior Grade |
Messages: 393
Registered: November 2002
Location: Dortmund, Germany | |
|
A few thoughts (and numbers) about IS pop growth...
Some basics about growth first:
The formula to calculate the growth is pop_on_surface * modified_growth_rate
The modified growth rate (for capacity >25%) is growth_rate * ((max_pop - pop_on surface)/(0.75 * max_pop))^2
Example: you got OBRM and are non HE or AR or JoaT so the max_pop is 1.100.000
If your growth rate is 19%, then for a planet with 33% cap -> 363.000 pop on surface is:
19 * ((1.100.000 - 363.000)/(0.75 * 1.100.000)^2 = 15,1% (or something close), means
you grow by 0.151 * 363.000 = 54.900 pop
IS has the advantage that pop always growth in fleets like a planet with 50% value and infinite capacity.
In the order of events IS growth in fleets happens before production and growth on planets, which means
that IS can grow the same pop twice - this is because if the freighters are full, the excess population
is dropped to the surface before growing again.
Ok, so far the basics...
Now some numbers (I love numbers):
For now lets assume you got a 100% world with 500.000 pop, and as many freighterspace as you want.
500.000 pop on surface gives 50.000 pop growth and 500 resources (just dropping it all)
363.000 pop on surface gives 54.900 pop growth and 363 resources (33% capacity = 15.1% growth)
275.000 pop on surface gives 52.200 pop growth and 275 resources (25% capacity = 19% growth)
25% always gives max. relative growth, while 33% gives max. absolute growth.
What we can see first is that we got a trade-off between growth and resources. Some people claim
(Jason Cawley was one of them) that you should not maximize the growth, you should try to maximize
the "resource integral" over time - and presented some formula that showed that keeping pop at 47%
once all planets are filled up is best - I dont want to go into such detail, I will just show some
numbers here 
So - this has been quite boring, but lets do the same for IS now:
500.000 pop on surface gives 50.000 pop growth and 500 resources (just dro
...
[Updated on: Sun, 13 February 2005 09:39]
2b v !2b -> ?Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Topic: 1WW is almost like QS for others
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
