Mica Goldstone | |||
Both of these are now online. Just go to the Phoenix website and you will find links on the left. Note that these give output based on 100% effeciency. | |||
DMJ | |||
These tools are really cool, and have helped alot. Just one suggestion should these tools get upgraded... With the mining calculator is it possible to have the option to enter all the details then work out what the current yeild is. That would be useful, so that you can work out what sort of yeild you woulod get from adding mines. Just a suggestion as the maths underlying all these calculations is already there, I guess. | |||
Steve-Law | |||
David, I have a problem/query with the mining calculator. I'm trying to work out the way that the sharing of a deposit works, and I can't get it to match your results in every case. Where am I going wrong? example: a deposit of yield=10, 10%drop=10 I have 30 mines, you have 20. So, I get the yield for 50 mines (20+30) = 400 divide that by the total mines = 400/50 = 8 so I get a yield of 8*30=240, you get 8*20=160 That matches. But then I take something like 17:24 mines. I get it to: (17+24=41) = 346 total yield 346/41 = 8.43902439 (call it 8.44) 17*8.44 = 143.48 (144?) 24*8.44 = 202.56 (203?) your calc gives me 17 = 146 24 = 204 (Incidentally with your results you are actually getting a total combined yield that is higher than if it was in one outpost, is that right? Is that intentional?) So, whose maths is wrong here? (or in other words where is mine wrong :) Is rounding a factor? How is rounding handled (i.e. at what stage, in which direction?) (and also, while I'm here, does sharing of resources work the same way...) | |||
Mica Goldstone | |||
Have you taken into account that both mines may be tapping the same deposit but may not actually be in the same location. One of the deposits may not have the same yield due to being exploited from a different location. | |||
Steve-Law | |||
I haven't no, but I can't see how the online mining calculator could do that either? This is a good point though. How useful really is the "other mines" box? Presumably for resources it would be okay as they are (usually) global, irrespective of specific location, but mining has too many factors to model simply like this. | |||
Steve-Law | |||
Can anyone help me with the maths (above)? | |||
Dan Reed | |||
the best way to do it, is to calculate the multiples of yield at the respective locations (because that doesn't change) - the division works the same way as the global merchandising.... while the formula doesn't do it in the way I'm about to describe, the effect is to line all the mines up in a row (based on relative numbers of mines) to decide how many each position would have at 100% 90% 80% and so on If you look at the formulae in the merchandising calculator spreadsheet (in the yahoogroup filespace) that should give you what you need to whip up a mining calculator... sorry I can't recall them off the top of my head and have a few things I need to do Dan | |||
Steve-Law | |||
Okay, I think I've figured out how your spreadsheet is doing it. Not sure how the hell to explain it though... I'll see if I can get the transferred now... Thanks Dan Added: Okay, I've got that sorted now, to match Dan's spreadsheet calculations, but both seem to be out slightly on some share calculations compared to David's online calculator. (Note: I can't get Dan's to work 100% as I'm still getting a NAME error with the QUOTIENT function, even after installing the Analysis Tool Pack, but I've manually checked as far as possible, and his gives the same results as mine) Example: drop/10 complexes global max = 150 global drop = 3 local max = 400 local drop = 30 mine = 300 other = 200 ours = 51650 stellars david's = 51704 stellars mine = 250 other = 200 ours = 49760 david = 49763 but others match e.g. mine = 412 other = 156 ours = 56525 david = 56525 (What's going on? It looks like a rounding error, but can't for the life of me see where it's occurring. I'm tempted to just leave it as it's not a lot in it, but I just can't, it's got to be something really simple (or really complicated) :) (apologies to all those going cross-eyed at this gibberish ;) |