• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 




Klei Bug Tracker

Game Updates

Hot Lava Bug Reporter

Everything posted by DarkMoge

  1. I recently came back to the game and was checking out the new features... It came to my attention that a lot of people are all over the ethanol for power and water idea... So, I started calculating how much does it actually take to run petroleum generator on ethanol... and well... my calculation led me to the conclusion that it is really bad... It requires a lot of high tech to actually gain anything from it, a basic setup results in net negative in everything. Long story short: you need to consume at least 1720 W to run 2000 W petroleum generator with a basic setup. That is not counting W usage for the arbor tree farm, disposal of polluted dirt and polluted water, not to mention auto-sweepers. Also, the system does not actually produce water, it consumes water. The thing is, you need 2 arbor trees per distillery, not 1. The system produces 450 kg of polluted water per cycle and 8 arbor trees that you need consume 560 kg polluted water per cycle. On top of that, the system requires a lot of duplicant work to run. Now, long story long: Setting up the most basic sustainable system requires a lot of research, practically, you need to research almost everything (some exceptions such as rockets, critter lures, decoration). While it looks like you are about to reach your goal and get ton of power + ton of water, you actually do not. First of all, 1 petroleum generator to produce 2000 W at all times requires 4 ethanol distilleries which consume 240 W each for total 960 W... So, the upper line for how much power one could get from it is 1040 W. Which does not sound bad at first, until you actually realize the amount of CO2 and heat the thing produces. It is kind of the only things it is good at: producing CO2 and heat. Well, CO2 might be what you are looking for to feed your slickster farm, it actually produces 1166 g/s of CO2, enough to feed your 35 slicksters farm... But if you are at the point of ranching that many slicksters, you probably do not need anything. So, the problem arises, what to do with CO2. The most basic thing you could do is carbon skimmers. You could try saving energy by making a setup that cools down CO2 into solid and store it somewhere, but if you are like me, you will not even consider making a setup that produces continuously growing loose end. How many carbon skimmers do you actually need? About 4 carbon skimmers... But lets be generous and take more precise number 3.8889. To run that many skimmers you need 3.8889*120=466W. You also need water sieve or some other way to clean the water, the max capacity for the sieve is 5kg/s... To process 3.888kg/s, we need 3.888/5*120=93W. So, rounding a bit, that is extra 560W. 1040W-560W=480W We are not done yet, the whole setup will produce about 50 kDTU and its not the amount of heat that you can just leave. Lets say, you are keeping in an atmosphere of roughtly 50 kg of oxygen at 0C, just within one cycle it will effectively produce enough heat to turn all that oxygen into 600C hot oxygen. I would love to say that you need to deal with just 50 kDTU, but the polluted dirt and CO2 come out at pretty hot temperature, above the overheating temperature of 75C, so, you actually need even more cooling. Thermo regulators on hydrogen can only move 33.6 kDTU. So, one needs to hook up the system with a thermo aquatuner that uses water to cool down... You will need to cool down the aquatuner too, but lets say that you have it figured out. You do not need the full efficiency of the thermo aquatuner to produce enough cooling... With water as the medium, you will need about 200W for the thermo aquatuner. You can save half of it if you have access to steel and plastic to make steam turbine. 480-200=280W Its a bit of hard to calculate how much energy do you need to run the autosweepers and loaders, but the energy required should be pretty small, it is more of a tech restriction. On the other hand, you might want to think about what to do with that hot polluted dirt, to make it usable, you might either consider to precool it to below 30C or you will later need to cool your farms for same amount. The excessive heat production through polluted dirt is about 70 kDTU. That means using about 150W on aquatuner cooling somewhere. The produced polluted water is at 40C which might also be above the desired temperature... To cool down water to 30C, you need to negate about 32 kDTU. Which is another 70W on aquatuners. Also, you need to pipe the water somewhere, pump can pipe 10 kg/s, with 750 g/s production, you need 0.75/10*240=18W. In the end, petroleum generator barely produces enough power to self sustain, it cant really feed your base all the power... There is a way to get 1000W by boosting the generator, but it requires a lot of refined metal which takes quite a lot of work to produce constantly. Also, the system produces dirt, about 800 kg per cycle actually, though, some of it will be used for sustaining arbor trees. About water though... And getting lumber for that matter... I did not manage to find any way to automatically harvest lumber, I might have missed something, but so far it seems like its a lot of duplicant work that might be better used by making them run on the hamster wheel. Each distillery consumes 600 kg of lumber per cycle, each arbor tree at ideal condition makes 333.3 kg per cycle... At ideal condition, you need a bit less than 2 trees, but in practice, you need to account for dupes taking their sweet time to harvest that lumber and should consider overproducing, putting more than 2 trees per distillery... so, with 8 trees, each consuming 70 kg of polluted water per cycle and 10 kg of dirt per cycle, you need 560 kg of water and 80 kg of dirt per cycle... The problem is that the petroleum generator produces only 450 kg of water per cycle. There are ways to save the water though. One could try making pips plant 32 wild trees which takes really looong to setup and requires a lot of space + it takes even longer to obtain tree seeds, since, in my experience, you do not even start with 32 trees. Though, you could consider running the system at lower efficiencies. Another way to try and obtain water from the system is by using Fertilizer Synthesizer which is another 120W and also requires dreckos... But lets say, you can spare that power and have dreckos...Dirt should not be a problem, so its just 23.4 kg of polluted water per cycle. It also comes with hot natural gas which could technically be used to reclaim some of the power and water, but more likely, it will cause a lot of hassle to deal with... What fertilizer does is make the plants grow 2 times faster by using the duplicant work (which might be better used by making them run on hamster wheel), one fertilizer gives enough for 14 uses. I have not tested this, but I assume that 1 tree properly counts as 1 use and not 5. So, technically, needing 8 trees could be turned into needing 4 trees. Instead of 560 kg, it will be about 300 kg of polluted water per cycle. There are some other ways to make the system more efficient, but it is already a huge hassle to make even a basic setup. My problem with it is that it is practically a "dirt generator 2000". There are a plenty of power generators and water generators that are easier to setup and are fully automatic. Also, pips produce much less dirt, but setting up a pip ranch is much easier and comes with the benefits of making food. I believe that whole idea of lumber -> ethanol distillery -> petroleum generator should be buffed in some way... It really just requires too much research to even attempt making the system when you could much more easily find a natural gas geyser and hook it up with natural gas generator. It does not work as an early game power option, because of all the research required and it might be hard to figure out for newer players. It does not work as late game power source either, since oil and solar panels outclass it, not too mention some of the more difficult setups. Perhaps, it should not be as punishing trying to make domestic arbor trees... Why do wild arbor trees have to be infinitely better? If we make all that water into oxygen, 1 domestic arbor tree pretty much consumes as much as an entire duplicant... Instead of trying to do a lumber farm, I might as well add another dupe to my colony and make it run on the hamster wheel. 70 kg/cycle is just too much, I feel like somewhere in the world of 20 kg/cycle would make the whole idea much more appealing. Another idea, maybe, ethanol distilleries consume too much power on their own, maybe, it would be more interesting if there was a more advanced method of obtaining ethanol with more benefits or maybe instead of consuming 240W, they should consume 120W?
  2. Also, this is pretty much a dead discussion at this point. I did some testing for branch gathering speed... It seems like with 0 agriculture it takes 10 seconds to pick up 1 branch, walking from tree to tree adds about 5 more sec even though they are packed together. So, dupe, even with a maxed agriculture does not achieve numbers that low. At the range from 0 agri to 33 agri: 0 agri: 10*5*8+5*8=440 d-s labor. 15 agri: (10/(1+0.05*15)*5*8+5*8=268 d-s labor. 20 agri: (10/(1+0.05*20)*5*8+5*8=240 d-s labor. 33 agri: (10/(1+0.05*33)*5*8+5*8=191 d-s labor. And yes, I did multiply 5 by 8, not by 7, because the dupe tends to move around the first and last tree. I believe, in range 15-20 agri is the most likely skill level when you are starting the production. So... A dedicated farmer can handle 90 domestic trees or iff we go wild trees... about 360 trees. With 600s work time... 3/4 of that with 450s.
  3. I believe that at some point, klei wanted to make explosions a things... at least, at some point in game, you could through some weird shenanigans cause an explosion that would kill dupes. It felt either like a bug or like unfinished feature that got scrapped... You just needed CO2 at high pressure + battery + dupe and than, by some weird magic, dupe would die, batery gone and all CO2 transformed into steam.
  4. Speaking of sour gas, perhaps, ethanol would be more interesting if it had similar steps to optimize it like crude oil does... Like, when I think about crude oil: oil well -> oil refinery -> petro gen = straight up bad deal for me. The deal is not that terrible when you remove the "oil well" step and process the oil you have, which is quite abundant on some maps. The deal becomes more interesting when you look for ways to make petroleum without oil refinery, such as volcano. And than even more interesting when you get access to late game resources such as super coolant and use it to make natural gas out of oil. Than there is a large room to play around with different designs. Ethanol on the other hand seems to be stuck at the level of oil well -> oil refinery -> petro gen. (arbor trees -> ethanol distillery -> petro gen)
  5. Let me clarify, I have played the game since the earliest days... Like, as soon as alpha was available, I purchased it. What I mean is that I did not play during every single update it ever got. It usually goes like this... I play it for a while, than I get bored... Than I remember that this game is a thing and check out new features. The game updates more often than I come back to it... And well, I am well familiar with building fert synth for power. And I am well familiar with slimelung being deadly... You know, I have played this game, before germs even existed, back than, digging through slime biome and letting your dupes live on pO2 from slime was the best strategy. Than, they quickly introduced slimelung, but took ages to introduce any sort of medicine.
  6. I agree that ethanol generates more dirt than any other system we can currently build in game. In my first post, I basically gave the ethanol chain a name "dirt generator 2000". Though, when I start to look for something else out of that process, I am starting to be upset. Looking for pH2O? The process is water negative unless you use wild arbor trees... Which means that either wild trees are overpowered or domestic trees are underpowered. Looking at all other wild plants... having them as wild does not seem to be as of a big deal to me, so I feel that it is domestic trees that are underpowered. Hence, my suggestion to buff them. Looking for CO2? Well, we actually do not have enough ways to play with that quantity of CO2... We only have slicksters to play around with and to support slickster farm, ethanol is just too much... Hence, maybe, there should be a way to play around with CO2... maybe, some sort of carbon compressor that lets you make diamonds out of CO2. Looking for power? I value W or J too little and H2O too much in comparison to ever take that trade. Because water is duplicants... I even value duplicants way more than just a dupe running on a hamster wheel. And my argument was that I could try to squeeze out more out of dupe running on hamster wheel than from ethanol chain. But that aside... I am tired of talking about it. I have not been playing the time, before nerf. But that tells me that there is inherently something wrong with the whole process than. Why would we argue that reducing cost of maintaining the domestic trees would make the ethanol overpowered and provide free water when it can provide free water with wild trees? If you believe that being water positive with domestic trees is wrong than you should probably try to push for the idea of nerfing wild trees to the point where ethanol becomes water negative with them. Free resources is not a foreign idea to the ONI, we have geysers providing water and power for no cost, just build once and get free goodies. We also have critters that end up providing free resources. So, the whole idea of free resources is not ridiculous. The question becomes how much of free resources and the method of obtaining them. I believe, I know where you have lost me. What you think I was referring to with X/Y is the comparison of 2 final ratios of efficiency. My variables have units and they have units for a reason... Because this whole time I am trying to point out error in calculation in the different area. If I was talking about the comparison of the efficiencies, than any sort of Z would not matter. A / B = d if d > 1 than A > B if d < 1 than B > A when ever d is higher or lower than 1 does not change if we add any Z to both sides. But that is where you lost me, I was not referencing that. And my math examples are attempts to try and point out your errors. You see, what you say is that food choice or how long dupe works in a cycle does not matter, because there is a dupe on both sides. What I am referring to is: A= X1 / Y1 B= X2 / Y2 now if we add Z somewhere in there, it will impact our result. And where do you add Z? If X stands for W and Y stands for water. You change food to bristle blossom, changing Y by adding more water requirement and claim that it does not matter. You change how much power we get from electrolyzer, changing X and claim that it does not matter. What I am trying to point out is that you fiddle during the calculation of the efficiency, getting the wrong A and B to compare later. I have spent hours upon hours and typed thousands of words. And every time, I feel like you do not read my posts or do not try to understand them. There are times when I am wrong, but for the past several posts, I have been trying to point out a fault in how you did your calculations. And what do I get in return? I get claims that 90% of everything I say is bs and claims that everything I say is wrong. When I simplified my attempts to point out the error in your statement to the level of school math just so you can see it. You still seem to be deliberately ignoring it and still believe that I am talking about something else. How do I explain to you that changing ratios inside the system changes its efficiency and than when we compare efficiencies, we get different comparison?
  7. In fact, I am the one who tries to normalize this information by trying to give water some value. How much value can we get from water by feeding it to dupes and how much can we get by feeding it to ethanol chain. My argument is that feeding water to dupes running on hamster wheels is a better use of water than feeding it to ethanol chain. I picked hamster wheels, because any noob can place a hamster wheel and make their dupe run on it. They can start optimizing that system as they learn the game and they end up with a better use of their water.
  8. Example 3: We have 2 systems in ONI. System A and system B. System A requires 1 dupe to ran it and produces 400W. System B requires 3 dupes to ran it and produces 1000W. At first, we were feeding our dupes automated meal lice production (meal lice autoharvest time is 7 cycles) than we decided to change it to having a pip ranch which requires extra dupe time to ran. Lets say, 1 rancher can support 4 dupes with food. If we ask a question of which system produces more power per dupe. While they were fed meal lice: A=400/1=400 B=1000/3=333.33 So, A>B now, there are multiple ways to aproach question 2 and get different results, which one is correct depends on the specifics of the situation, lets go with 2 of them: question 2.a: We added 1 full rancher to both sides: A=400/(1+1)=200 B=1000/(3+1)=250 So, it changes to B>A question 2.b: System A only requires 1/4 of a rancher to run it. System B only requires 3/4 of a rancher to run it. So, values become: A=400/(1+0.25)=320 B=1000/(3+0.75)=266 it remains A>B if we dig deeper into the formula of question 2.b, we can discover that applying this logic to it makes it so that a rancher can never change the result A>B. Because, in this application, it does actually become a common term: A=400/(1*(1+0.25)) B=1000/(3*(1+0.25)) We can remove the (1+0.25) from both sides and it does not change it. But the variation 2.b is incorrect, because we cant just add a dupe, a rancher and say that he does not eat food as well. It has different impact on both systems, because it is a variable that is dependent on the other variables within the system. Again, you basically ask question 2. And apply logic of question 1 to it while trying to sell it as 2.b. If you still cant see the faults of your "it does not matter", "it is a common term" than I give up trying to explain it to you. You can keep on believing that you are right and I wish you a good day.
  9. The problem is that if you look at it that way, you are screwing ethanol to always win. why? because, you insist that 1 dupe is a common factor and you are comparing dupe against dupe + ethanol... Remove dupe from both sides and you get 0 against ethanol. And than what ever you do, becomes irrelevant, because the numbers on ethanol chain are always positive, it would always be higher than 0. So, you cant talk about when ever there is a better use for water in that case. And well, you cant separate the terms like that. Why? because ethanol is actually ethanol + dupe, it does not work without dupe labor input. The thing is, ethanol is a system with inputs: polluted water and dupe labor. And the whole argument is that there is a much better use for those inputs. And so, I will keep insisting that you are using your math wrong. Because I know that you are using it wrong. In our case, the model, we have two systems: A and B. Let me give you a few examples where doing math the way you do proves to be an error. It is like basic math. Example 1: We have 2 countries, country A and county B. Country A has 25 people in it and has size of 1 km^2. Country B has 60 people in it and has size of 2 km^2. Next year, both countries grow in population by 25 people. X1=25 X2=60 Y1=1 Y2=2 Z=25 If the question is which country has higher population. The answer will always be country B, because it does not matter when ever we are comparing 25+25 against 60+25 or 25 against 60. Now, if the question is which country has higher population density. The answer changes. This year, it is: A=X1/Y1=25 people/km^2 B=X2/Y2=30 people/km^2 B>A Next year: A=(X1+25)/Y1=50 people/km^2 B=(X2+25)/Y2=42.5 people/km^2 Between the years, it changed from being B>A to A>B You are asking 2nd question and applying logic of 1st question to it. Example 2: We have two bases in ONI. Base A and base B. Base A has 1 dupe in it and generates positive 200W. Base B has 3 dupes in it and generates positive 900W. After that, both bases decided to tame a volcano and produce extra 850W from the steam turbine for free... If you ask the question which base generates more power than its always base B, because it does not matter if we compare 200+850 to 900+850 or 200 against 900. But if the question is how much power each base has per dupe. Before taming a volcano: A=200/1=200 B=900/3=300 So B>A After taming volcano: A=(200+850)/1=1050 B=(900+850)/3=583.333 So, it changed to being A>B again, you are basically asking question 2 and applying logic of question 1 to it.
  10. You are missing what I am trying to point out again... What you are doing in your calculation is (X+Z) divided by (Y+Z) and saying that its equal to X divided by Y. Most of your "does not matter" have this exact math error that you apply multiple times. lets go with an example... X=6 ----------> X / Y = 6/9 = 2/3 = 0.66666 Y=9 ------ Than, we add Z = 3 (X + Z) / (Y+ Z) = (6 + 3) / (9 + 3) = 9/12 = 3/4 = 0.75 And I hope we can both agree that 0.6666 is not equal to 0.75... But in your calculations you are pushing that it is. In my attempt to point out flaws in your mouth, I bring up bristle blossom, because it is Z. You are calculating ration between X and Y and you are adding Z to both sides. And you are applying same error here. In your case, you argue that your ethanol cycle is 1275.36W... Lets go with that number to point out the error of that statement... I argue that my dupe is worth 394W. X=394W Y=1275W X/Y = 0.309 Now, you want to argue that adding extra second to both sides does not mean anything, but it is our Z... 25 seconds running on a wheel is about 16W if we round it. (394 + 16)/(1275 + 16) = 0.317 Huh, our ration completely changed. Now to continue why it matters... Lets say we added another duplicant to both sides running on a wheel 475s, with my calculations its + 394W to both sides. (394 + 394)/(1275 + 394) = 0.472 How does this not matter? In your previous calculations, you were adding water to support bristle blossoms to both sides and than you are calculating their water consumption ratios. I do not know how else to explain the error in applying math in this fashion. You are not doing comparison of X < Y, in that case adding Z to any side would make no difference. In your calculations, you are comparing ratios of power to water. More accurate formula for what you are doing would be: X1 / (Y1 + Z) ? X2 / (Y2 + Z) and claiming that it is equivalent of X1 / Y1 ? X2 / Y2 Lets take some more random numbers to make an example X1=1 Y1=2 X2=3 Y2=9 Z=3 than 1/2 > 3/9 ~~ 1/2 > 1/3 but 1/(2+3) < 3/(9+3) ~~ 1/5 < 1/4 Thats exactly what you are doing with adding bristle blossoms and it will also happen when you change duty cycle of a dupe. Well, you do realize that if I calculate the extra water return, my ratio actually gets better not worse? I could also use outhouses, because its much more simple. But anyway. 394/67.5 = 5.83 Lets add the water return from water sieve. We only need a sieve, because you can feed the output from sieve as input for your toilets. We produce 11.7 kg of polluted water... At full capacity, sieve processes 3t of water... It needs to work for slightly more than 2 seconds to process it. 11.7/3000=0.0039 The sieve at full capacity costs 120W to run. 120*0.0039=0.468 Which is less than even 1W... Lets generously round up to 1W and than the ratio becomes 393/60.8 = 6.46 Actually, I should have went with that number, because of how much better it is for my side of the argument. Well, I want to argue that bristle blossoms are the worst food, but I have been forced by the game to use bristle blossoms multiple times on ravenous hunger difficulty... I would than *Upgrade* to meal lice and get rid from my bristle blossoms... And than upgrade to omelette... and than to endgame foods. Well, you see, I applief same logic to get 475s, because 1 segment of bath will be treated as extra segment of work unless the player purposely adds showers. That sanity check fails, because you do not run a pump for anything other than hydrogen, you let hydrogen self filter, there are many ways to build that and let your O2 go straight into your base. Here is the setup that I use in my bases. I could not think of any better way of explaining other than giving a video. https://www.dropbox.com/s/4jcfe7mlgbplgwc/2019-08-31 05-25-25.flv?dl=0 Hope it helps. You can see the amount of hydrogen rapidly growing within the reservoirs. And you can see pumps only ever pumping hydrogen. Lets do this argument differently... I want to see you make a box with ethanol production chain that uses domestic trees and all the things that you have described and I want to see it run for multiple cycles without increasing in temperature. Using infinite gas stacking to stack CO2 is not allowed, because it gives me ocd and no venting of the CO2 to space.... Just lock 1 dupe inside the box with ethanol production chain and let it live there... You can give it no stomach setting to not overload you with setting up a food farm. Maybe, just maybe, I cant imagine the working setup that does not overheat, because, so far, cooling was not a part of your calculations. Also, auto sweepers and auto loaders were not a part of it either. Do we need to talk about our education? On my side, I completed masters degree in specialized computer systems. I have worked in both programming and making them. I am working to obtain phd in electronics
  11. wow, I could never imagined a setup that inefficient, the worst I could think of is 2 pumps with 1 filter. There are many different ways to optimize an electrolyzer. If optimized, electrolyzers could even be used to delete 150 kDTU of heat per second while also giving out oxygen at 37C, but its really hard, because of how inconsistent they can be in their work time. The setup that I usually use is 1 pump which is automized to only ever pump hydrogen, 0 filters per electrolyzer which ends up working at 50%-70% of its maximum capacity. But it took me quite some time to come up with a design like that... Trying to use numbers for 3 pumps + 3 filters is way too unreasonable. Its like if I added pumps with filters to my ethanol chain calculation saying that I need to 1 gas pump with 1 filter per 1 distillery and 2 more pumps with filter for generator itself. Which would add 6 pumps and 5 filters to the setup, because I am too lazy. So, I do not agree with that, because oxygen production is power positive rather than power negative. it does matter, because using food that is made out of water screws the final ratio of how much water the setup requires. x/y is not equal to (x+z)/(y+z), but you treated it as if its equal. In your calculations, you are comparing 1 dupe versus 1 dupe + ethanol chain... 1 dupe would normally require 67.5 kg of water/cycle and 1 dupe + ethanol chain would require 177.5 kg of water/cycle. Second is 263% of the first. Than, you screw the calculation by adding 3.75 bristle blossoms which adds 75 kg of water/cycle to both side. 1 dupe side is penalized much harder, because you more than double how much water 1 dupe needs. and you end up with a ratio of 252.5/142.5=1.77 which screws with your final calculation. Also, the fact of having 1 dupe on both sides is kind of weird. In my calculations, I am using the setup where you would have the same number of dupes to consume same amount of water as ethanol chain. Why did you pick bristle blossoms? why not frost burgers? or, maybe, meal lice? You would get completely different numbers for the food cost. Generally, I did not include food cost in my calculation, because food is usually abundant and there are plenty of setups where you can start making food with practically no cost and there are setups where food is very expensive (frost burgers) since when? I made sure to make a test world and try to build a setup with minimal travel times to test it... My first idea was, maybe, just maybe, hatch ranch take less work than other ranches. 500 seconds of work time... According to your numbers, Camille should be able to handle 500/8=62.5 hatches which almost 8 full ranches... But during the live test, she was able to handle only 19 hatches in those 500 seconds... Well, we can also add the ranching bonus of 110%. 19*2.1=39.9 hatches. Though, in more realistic base, we would probably have a rancher that handles 32 hatches or maybe even less, depending on how much downtime we give them, in your calculations, you give them 3 hours downtime and 3 hours sleep time for 450 sec worktime as an example. Anyway, handling 1 hatch is about 12.5 sec.... But honestly, you could make more efficient setup and just get yourself 20 ungroomed hatches within an enclosed room and they would give as much coal as 4 groomed hatches. With so many wrong number, your all other numbers end up being wrong too. 1 dupe: input: 67.5 kg of clean water. 1 kcal. output: 6.7 kg of polluted water, negligible amount of CO2. At least 450s of worktime, can be upped to 500s of worktime or even 525s. I have calculated for 475s worktime, your 1 dupe nets 394W, not 257.8W... It could be higher. Even if we ignore the 6.7 kg of water return. 394W/67.5 kg of H2O -> 5.83 W per kg H2O per cycle. Though, your number for ethanol efficiency is also wrong, though, I am not willing to try an recalculate it again... Not to mention, you do not include the cost of cooling the system down... Even if you cool down your distillers and generators with lumber from trees, you still need to cool down dirt and water or your trees will overheat and you will no longer be able to cool down things with lumber. you probably should not do calculations with a sleepy head. I do not mean to be offensive, but doing lazy calculations as well as doing calculations that are mathematically incorrect, leads to false results. Well, because, I have not tested it for the latest update. I did a test now, it does seem to work with lead which makes it more appealing. Takes about 150s to tune a generator. which you did. x/y is not equal to (x+z)/(y+z)
  12. Right, limited... The falling from the sky makes it infinite. As far as I am aware, lead cant be used to tune generators.
  13. Because, a lot of people bring up how ethanol chain generates water and it does not generate water with domestic trees. Like, looking at your arguments, you yourself are saying that the chain produces water which it does not without wild trees. So, it ends up being a system that goes like: input: water and sometimes dupe labor. output: polluted dirt. ummm, first of all, hamster wheels are 400W. If you give your hamster wheel dupes 2 hours of downtime and 3 hours of sleep(btw they can survive on 2 hours sleep schedules if setup properly and you can squeeze in less downtime) than you are using 5/24 cycle segments which is about 21% rounded up... 400*0.21=84... So you have average 316W. And how is ethanol petro gen is 2200W? Even if you add tuning and disregard all costs to maintain it, it still does not reach that high of a number. At the best scenario, you are using 960W on ethanol production, which makes at the best case scenario, untunned petro into net 1040W. If you tune that petro it becomes 2040W at best, but than, we need to talk about the cost of tuning, it proves difficult to calculate how much it actually costs, because it involves: mining metal, refining that metal within rock crusher or metal refinery, actually tuning the generator. Its quite difficult to asses exactly how much a dupe is worth. In this comparison we start by assigning dupe 316W value when it costs about 67.5 kg of water supplied to electrolyzer. Basically, a dupe costs as much water as 1 domestic tree costs. Though, that is not taking into account that 7.5 kg of that water becomes hydrogen which we could feed into generator. Lets calculate the extra power gain from hydrogen... At max production, electrolyzer would support 8.88 duplicants and would cost 120W for itself, 1/10 of a pump which equal to 24W for water pumping and 1/4.46 of a gas pump which is 54W for total 198W while it produces enough hydrogen for 1.12 hydrogen generators which will produce 896W... 1 duplicant is about 11.26% of 8.88 dupes. So, for 1 dupe, things will produce 896*0.1126=100W and it will cost 198*0.1126=22W... So, its extra 78W. Our 1 dupe is worth at least 316+78=394W. I feel like I could also find a much better use for the dupe at some point. Without automation, 1 petro generator will consume 560 kg of water while producing 450 kg. So, it costs 110 kg of water to maintain. 110/67.5=1.63 dupes. I am not sure how long exactly does it takes dupes to harvest the lumber and how much extra water do we lose while harvesting the lumber... But even if we ignore it, 1.63*394=642W. it is less than 1040W from petro generator, but the problem is that you do not actually get those 1040W. I do not feel like just letting CO2 stack infinitely is a proper way to play the game, so I feel a need to use energy to get rid from it. Venting it to space is an option, but if you are at a point of getting to space, we are back to talking about oportunity costs, you might as well just start working on solar instead of setting up ethanol. Within my calculations the actual W gain from ethanol chain was close to 0W when I could instead have 642W by just accepting more dupes. I did not even take into account things like extra 6.7 kg of water dupes produce by using toilets. So back to It is punishing when you think about that 1 domestic tree = 1 dupe... 4 wild tree = no cost, but produce as much lumber. So, the only time when you consider ethanol production chain is when you have wild trees or you have infinite water supply... In my entire over 1000 hours of playing oni, I have never had too much water and I have no idea how do people manage to run into those situations where they do have too much. In my games, it is a constant struggle to try and get more water, looking for more geysers and taming them and water becomes a bottleneck that prevents me from adding more dupes to my base. So, as the result, I feel like domestic trees are not worth considering. Hence, I suggest to reduce the cost of a domestic tree. Because, extra 480W looks to me like having 480W over having 0W from that system and 480W is very close to my dupes worth assestment of 642W. Another thing that people talk about a lot is tuning the generator to actually make 1000W... Someday, I should probably calculate the exact cost of tuning a generator, but otherwise it is not something I will consider doing, because it tends to use a finite resource
  14. You comment without reading my post arent you? Because my math accounts for duty cycles. Here are some examples from the post: -About 4 carbon skimmers... But lets be generous and take more precise number 3.8889. To run that many skimmers you need 3.8889*120=466W. -To process 3.888kg/s, we need 3.888/5*120=93W. -pump can pipe 10 kg/s, with 750 g/s production, you need 0.75/10*240=18W.
  15. I was doing some experiments about what makes the game lag and what does not and during my experiments, I made the game crash many many times. So, I believe it would be appropriate to add it into bug tracker subforum... The full list of experiments is located here
  16. Does it need to be a domestic tree? I do not think my pips do that or I do not understand how to make them do that? Like, I had this pips ranches for many cycles and I have not seen a seed appear outside of actually harvesting the arbor trees. I know they ruin storage compactors, but I havent seen them ever touch a tree other than to eat.
  17. Map type is not related to the topic of how good/bad ethanol is, it is more about what I have been doing recently. What I mean by different play style is like... I do not get moments like this: "hey, its cycle 200 and I have 300+ tons of lumber stored, lets turn it into ethanol" "I have 14 tiles deep pool of water, lets burn all that water on trees" "I have 11 tiles deep pool of petroleum, lets do something with it" "I have 200t of polluted dirt, lets vaporize it into oxygen" I tend to try making productions chains instead of trying to use stockpiles that I just happened to have. Its a different way of playing the game. solar is awesome though. I vote for the "critter trap" as one of the most useless items currently in the game. You can just make your dupes wrangle the critters or even transport their eggs instead of building 1 use item from hard to get plastic. Trying to breed Radiant Bugs is also pretty high on the list of useless, but it can at least be a challenge. And yeah... Ore scrubbers are pretty bad.
  18. its funny that you say that, because my complain about ethanol is exactly that it requires too much dupe work and too much setting up from me. For the last few days, I have been playing on oasisse asteroid, trying different setups first in sandbox and than trying to make them in survival. Looking at the multiple screenshot shared by you, it appears that there some major differences between how we play though. When I play, I never end up with large supplies of some resources, I plan ahead and seek immediate use for the resources. Yeah, except, such system takes a lot of cycles to kickstart... To do some math for you. Deodirizers convert 100 pO2/s into 90 O2/s. In theory, 800 kg of polluted dirt could be converted into 720 kg of O2. Which should be enough to supply 12 duplicants... But, that is not taking into account how the polluted dirt actually transforms into pO2. Lets say, we put that polluted dirt into multiple rows of conveyor receptacles, each has a capacity of 100 kg... So, we wait 1 cycle and split 800 kg among 8 receptacles and we get this: During my testing experiment, 100 kg of pdirt emits pO2 in a rate of 1823 mg/s, almost 2 grams. Though, it seem to spike up once in a while to a higher number. Wiki suggests that it should be emitting exactly 2 g/s, so lets go with that number. 8*2*600= 9600 g/cycle Ouch, we actually only emit 1.2% of that mass per cycle. To emit the entire 800 kg each cycle, we need 666 receptacles with 66600 kg of pdirt stockpiled. Which takes over 86 cycles to actually make. In the end, we are making a system that is going to take at least 20000 kg of metal ore for the receptacles and coveyers alone to construct and will require us to spend 86 cycles waiting. Spreading the mass more thin makes it so that we need to wait less, but need to waste more resources... Preparing larger chunks of pdirt means that we need to accumulate much higher stockpile first. For example, putting dirt in chunks of 20000 kg inside storage bins will make it emit about 17 kg of pO2/cycle. So, we would need about 47 storage bins filled with 940t of polluted dirt. Which would take over 1k cycles to make. Question. Is it worth it? Alternatively, one could search for a steam geyser of some sort... Build a cooling loop around it and feed that water to electorlyzer... Granted, steam geysers tend to give enough water for 9 duplicants, so, we will have to look for two of them. I do not think I ever saw a geyser with dormancy period of 86 cycles. I am scared to start counting how many cycles does it take to make that many slicksters to get 1/5 of an oil refinery. So: Step 1. Pray for a good starting seed that does not have too many holes in the starting biome, so you can have clean lanes of surface for pips to plant on. Step 2. Carefully dig the out the tunnels for trees and make sure to remove all the seeds from the area. Step 3. Relocate pips into the prepared area together with the seeds. Step 4. Wait for centuries until pips actually plant all those trees. Because they seem to have some random interval at which they consider trying to plant something. Step 5. Wait 36 cycles for your first lumber harvest. So, we have a setup that takes 36 cycles to kick start. Also: Step 0: actually obtain enough arbor seeds, which really takes too long. Well, 450 kg/cycle is a lot of water, not as much as a geyser, but theoretically geysers are limited. The problem starts when we begin looking at lumber as an unlimited resource and realize that it is heavily limited by the number of seeds... Best way to produce seeds is to setup domestic tree farm which will constantly drain the water we are trying to produce. It might be better to look at the trees as a limited asset like geysers... And when looking at them in this fashion, I start to realize that I need those seeds to setup my pips ranches. Yeah. That is true, but its why I made this topic to start with. When the cost in cycles before it starts working, research needed and materials needed makes it look like its not worth it. Its like trying to sustain your entire base with morbs which you honestly can do, but the time needed makes it a dissapointing idea. Honestly, if the domestic arbor trees were not so water extreme, it would fix most of my problems with the ethanol chain... Or maybe, it is missing some advanced technology... Like, similar to how one could make petroleum by hitting up crude oil instead of running it through oil refinery, maybe, ethanol could use a similar trick to make it more interesting. Or maybe, CO2 should be more interesting. Instead of just having slicksters which barely give any oil and have their food supply easily replaceable by multiple other critters.
  19. Thank you for being at one person that actually read through my post. Well, if one tries to get enough oil from slicksters alone, it can be pretty hard, because 200 slicksters are about equal to 1 oil well. The thing is, it might be irrelevant, because every asteroid seem to have multiple oil wells in it. Exceptions might be caused by different world seeds... During my look through multiple asteroids and whats special about them, it was easy to find 3+ oil wells. Well, except on Volcanea which during my first world gen did not have an oil biome at all and during second world gen only had 2 oil wells. I have built oil -> natural gas boilers before, which is pretty much a super late game thing to build. Earlier you can just turn oil into petroleum which nets you free water and power which you can think about doing in the same time you have unlocked everything you need for ethanol production chains. Which is the problem that I am having. The only ways to actually get something from the ethanol system is to either ignore CO2 which gives me ocd to look at or use tons of wild arbor trees. If you do not do that, the system becomes just a CO2 generator for slickster farms and polluted dirt generator for other farms. I agree that it can be useful, but I also feel like there are already systems in game that can provide same things, but do it better and are easier to make. Hence, my 2 suggestions. Maybe domesticated arbor trees should not be that costly or ethanol distillers should eat less power themselves to make the idea of building ethanol power chain feel more rewarding for the effort.
  20. Verdante is 4th asteroid with survival chance "likely" that starts you in the forest biome. Rime is 3rd asteroid with survival chance "likely" that has forest biomes in it, but does not start you in one. If 3rd and 4th asteroid are not considered the easiest than I do not know. I believe that a newer player would find themselves starting in one of those asteroid when they are starting to look for variety in their experience.
  21. if trees drop their lumber after 4 cycles than the generator requires around 16 trees to run fully automatically... which requires 1120 kg of water... basically, thats 1120-450=670 kg of water per cycle... instead, you could feed that water to electrolyzer and support 10 duplicants with oxygen... electrolyzer + hydro generator does not consume power, it gives net positive power. 2 fully commited ranchers can support about 8 full ranches which depending on the ranch type will wary in food output. 2 ranchers with pip ranches will provide enough barbeque for 16 duplicants which is more than 10... hatch and drecko ranches are even better for barbeque. If you running on harder difficulty, You can get enough food with 3 ranchers. Than, you put 7 other duplicants on hamster wheels with 50 seconds of free time and 50 seconds of sleep which results in dupes running for 500 seconds a cycle for average 333W... for total over 2200W which already is more than Petroleum generator on ethanol could ever dream to provide. That is not taking into account the extra power from hydrogen generators working in background. Sustaining 1 tree is basically sustaining 1 duplicant. There is another source of renewable energy -> solar panels, setting up 1000 W on solar panels + shine bugs is pretty easy and you can forget about it.
  22. during my tests, I never got the branches fall off on their own... It might be because I kept the arbor trees inside the ranch with pips when testing. How long do they take to fall off on their own? For domestic and wild?
  23. I have mentioned all of that in long version. It is just not worth the effort.