#Math not lining up with calculator unless productivity is added.

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

boreal sentinel
#

I have started to use modules beyond efficiency and beacons, but I noticed, despite my math on notepad, that my calculations aren't lining up and now I feel like I lack a fundamental understanding on how to calculate things.

I want to be able to understand why the Factorio calculator figured out how to get how many machines you need. I have two seemingly good formulas to get the amount of machines from a certain demand per second. One lines up REALLY close to the calculator while the other is 10 machines higher than required, all because I removed productivity from the equation.

bruh.png image.png
#

And basically the only differences between the formulas are the productivity being added:

35.4 = a(1/6*(1.25*(1.2+(0.5*1.06))))

versus

35.4 = a((1*1.18)/6*(1.25*(1.2+(0.5*1.06)))

where the a is the needed machines to achieve the red circuits per second. I also got the specific 35.4 from using the ratio of green circuits to red circuits with 18% productivity. But I am genuinely confused on why productivity is added back into the equation to get required amount of machines if I used it in the ratio part.

Below is the Factorio calculator as well and how I even discovered the issue. Also shows the modules and beacons I am using.

image.png
cinder lodge
#

It'll be much easier for you to work the math if you do a single machine

buoyant cedar
#

okay firstly I'll note do \* if you want discord to not make asteris into italics

cinder lodge
#

What's the transmission strength of a 2 beacon set up?

boreal sentinel
# cinder lodge It'll be much easier for you to work the math if you do a single machine

Ye, I re-inputted the 84 machines I got from the calculator for a in the second equation and got the probable result to the 35.4 per second. I also did it by itself for one machine and it and the over lay are basically the same. Yet is it ordinary to cancel out the productivity, despite the desire output having already been calculated with productivity, when looking for the number of machines required?

image.png image.png
boreal sentinel
#

Only one beacon has a speed module to affect the machine speed.

cinder lodge
#

It can't be 212%, a single beacon is 150% and you only have 1 speed module in a beacon

boreal sentinel
#

There is two beacons affecting one machine though.

cinder lodge
#

Right, which means that you can't have greater efficiency from 2 beacons than you would from one, since only one beacon has a speed module

boreal sentinel
#

Which my equation accounts for. As I said, the second equation is legitimately likely the real result- But I am confused on why the productivity bonus plays into it. The speed is all correct, accounting for beacon transmission dimmishing as well as the slowdown from the productivity modules themselves.

gentle rivet
#

I'm not sure what the numbers in your equations are related to

boreal sentinel
#

The -0.3 is from the 3 productivity IIs, the by itself 0.5 is from the speed III in the machine itself, and the (0.5*1.06) is the singular speed III inside of one of the two beacons, and the singular 1 is the original percent. So that entire (1+1.2+(0.5*1.06) is basically just (1-(0.1+0.1+0.1)+0.5+(0.5*1.06)). Which accounts for speed and seems to be the working part of the equation.

Just my confusion lays on the beginning, which is the 35.4 = a(1+1.18). Why do you readd the productivity despite the 35.4 having the 2:1 and 18% productivity already added?

cinder lodge
#

If you're calculating to reach 35.4 i.e. 30 unprodded red chips, you have to multiply on the other side by the 18%. i.e. you're taking out the prod value

gentle rivet
#

I thought you had 0 prod and no subtractions

cinder lodge
#

You have to multiply by 18% on both sides to get 35.4 and the correct ratio

#

Otherwise you're calculating for unprodded assemblers

boreal sentinel
#

So you do take in consideration of the productivity on the machine side of the equation.

#

Because both sides have to be multiplied by it, including the 30 red circuits per second.

cinder lodge
#

yep

boreal sentinel
cinder lodge
#

If you don't add the 18% on the right side of your equation, all you're saying is you have a goal (35.4) and you want to reach it without prod modules

boreal sentinel
#

That helps a lot because I didn't really think about what the right side of the equation really meant.

#

So thank you very much! This will help me as I delve into the horrors of insanely efficient or compact builds. :D

#

Oh, right, one more thing. I did the left side of the equation absolutely correctly as I wanted to find the amount of red circuits I can produce with productivity from an ordinary 60 green circuits.

#

I basically just did ((60/(2/1))*(1+0.18)). 60 being green circuits, the 2/1 being the ratio of green circuits required per red circuit**, and the 0.18 being the 3 productivity II modules.

cinder lodge
#

Right, though getting a round number for green circuits kind of goes out of the window because of prod modules on that, unless you're just going with full belts/lanes

boreal sentinel
#

I am just going off of full conveyors, so even if green circuits is little above 60 per second it will be limited by the speed of a turbo belt.