| Re: Detailed mineral mining table |
Tue, 02 October 2007 12:20   |
|
 m.a@stars |
 | Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
| yartrebo wrote on Tue, 02 October 2007 18:10 |
Could you elaborate. It seems pretty complete to me. If you're talking about concentrations 1, 2, 3, and 4, the numbers are 0, 2000, 1000, and 1000 respectively, and the table reflects that.
|
Yep, I wondered where your code was outputting those nicely rounded values, as well as the table header. It seems I also misread at least one of your loops, so now it all seems quite OK to me.  
| Quote: |
It's only as good as the formula I based it on. I'm confident I reproduced the formula accurately, but not sure if the formula itself is accurate.
|
AFAIK, the formula stumbles on the lower minconcs, just where you've decided to use those nice fixed values. There's also been doubts about its accuracy if minconc>100. 
I'm personally wary of anything that's not pure integer math where Stars! formulas are concerned, since it would not be the 1st time that the *real* calculations for seemingly complex results were actually based on just integer ops. 
Wish I could think of a better formula than the currently "best", but there's still hope. 
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
