Talk:Inserters - Revision history

GregFirehawk: /* Reason for undoing recent edit by Hell Eater */

2026-07-09T11:23:14Z

Reason for undoing recent edit by Hell Eater

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:23, 9 July 2026
Line 45:		Line 45:

	--[[User:GregFirehawk\|GregFirehawk]] ([[User talk:GregFirehawk\|talk]]) 11:06, 6 July 2026 (UTC)		--[[User:GregFirehawk\|GregFirehawk]] ([[User talk:GregFirehawk\|talk]]) 11:06, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

			This discussion ended up moving to my user discussion page. I wanted to prominently share this very relevant citation though provided by bilka https://forums.factorio.com/134301

			This is confirmation from a staff member that the code regarding inserter movement was tweaked, and this has impacted the speed (and by extension power) relationships between inserters slightly, which is very relevant to this page.

			--[[User:GregFirehawk\|GregFirehawk]] ([[User talk:GregFirehawk\|talk]]) 11:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

GregFirehawk: /* Reason for undoing recent edit by Hell Eater */ new section

2026-07-06T11:06:04Z

Reason for undoing recent edit by Hell Eater: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:06, 6 July 2026
Line 39:		Line 39:

	I noticed that there is Chest to Splitter, but no Splitter to Chest. I clocked it at ~20 item/s using blue splitters and green inserters, and at over 17 item/s with red splitters. That's pretty significant, much more so than the sideloaded tunnel strat thats prominently featured. For reference, I did this by doing 1 inserter per splitter, and loading it with both belts. There is a drop in throughput when using only a single belt, and another smaller drop when using 2 inserters per splitter. I'm pretty sure I'm not the first to come across this as I think I've heard people discuss it before, so it should be added to the page. I have no plans to do that right now, so if anyone else would like to then please do!		I noticed that there is Chest to Splitter, but no Splitter to Chest. I clocked it at ~20 item/s using blue splitters and green inserters, and at over 17 item/s with red splitters. That's pretty significant, much more so than the sideloaded tunnel strat thats prominently featured. For reference, I did this by doing 1 inserter per splitter, and loading it with both belts. There is a drop in throughput when using only a single belt, and another smaller drop when using 2 inserters per splitter. I'm pretty sure I'm not the first to come across this as I think I've heard people discuss it before, so it should be added to the page. I have no plans to do that right now, so if anyone else would like to then please do!

			== Reason for undoing recent edit by Hell Eater ==

			You edited the values for the base red/long inserter speed. This has been very extensively documented (including by me) as being accurate for a long time, and reading the changelogs for the game it hasn't been updated or altered. This almost definitely means you made an error in whatever empirical test you conducted.

			--[[User:GregFirehawk\|GregFirehawk]] ([[User talk:GregFirehawk\|talk]]) 11:06, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

GregFirehawk: /* Splitter to Chest */ new section

2025-08-05T01:42:22Z

Splitter to Chest: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:42, 5 August 2025
Line 35:		Line 35:

	:: Well, the char I've used was "×", not "x". Those edits are basically for 2 reasons: Firstly, as Bilka said, to maintain the consistency of wiki contents. Secondly, to avoid ambiguity from the "*" representing the annotation, you can see them in the tables on this page. Of coures, sometimes "x" can also be confused with "×", maybe it's a better idea to reform the equation with LaTeX syntax. Sadly I'm not good at it, so if you can deal with this, I'll glad to apply it in my translation. [[User:Cardinal\|Cardinal]] ([[User talk:Cardinal\|talk]]) 09:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)		:: Well, the char I've used was "×", not "x". Those edits are basically for 2 reasons: Firstly, as Bilka said, to maintain the consistency of wiki contents. Secondly, to avoid ambiguity from the "*" representing the annotation, you can see them in the tables on this page. Of coures, sometimes "x" can also be confused with "×", maybe it's a better idea to reform the equation with LaTeX syntax. Sadly I'm not good at it, so if you can deal with this, I'll glad to apply it in my translation. [[User:Cardinal\|Cardinal]] ([[User talk:Cardinal\|talk]]) 09:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

			== Splitter to Chest ==

			I noticed that there is Chest to Splitter, but no Splitter to Chest. I clocked it at ~20 item/s using blue splitters and green inserters, and at over 17 item/s with red splitters. That's pretty significant, much more so than the sideloaded tunnel strat thats prominently featured. For reference, I did this by doing 1 inserter per splitter, and loading it with both belts. There is a drop in throughput when using only a single belt, and another smaller drop when using 2 inserters per splitter. I'm pretty sure I'm not the first to come across this as I think I've heard people discuss it before, so it should be added to the page. I have no plans to do that right now, so if anyone else would like to then please do!

Cardinal: /* Multiplication sign notation */

2025-05-10T09:55:39Z

Multiplication sign notation

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:55, 10 May 2025
Line 31:		Line 31:

	To Cardinal, why are you changing all the multiplication signs from " * " to " x "? This is less proper notation mathematically, and can cause confusion algebraically which is why the * notation exists. I don't see any benefit to explicitly make this change which is arguably less correct.{{Unsigned\|GregFirehawk\|09:08, 10 May 2025}}		To Cardinal, why are you changing all the multiplication signs from " * " to " x "? This is less proper notation mathematically, and can cause confusion algebraically which is why the * notation exists. I don't see any benefit to explicitly make this change which is arguably less correct.{{Unsigned\|GregFirehawk\|09:08, 10 May 2025}}

	: The wiki generally prefers × and ÷ for mathematical formulas, so these edits are correct. For completely proper mathematical notation, you can use latex instead, there is a proposed style guide: [[Factorio_talk:Style_guide#Draft:_equation_style_guide]]. -- [[User:Bilka\|Bilka]] ([[User talk:Bilka\|talk]]) - <span style="color:#FF0000">Admin</span> 09:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)		: The wiki generally prefers × and ÷ for mathematical formulas, so these edits are correct. For completely proper mathematical notation, you can use latex instead, there is a proposed style guide: [[Factorio_talk:Style_guide#Draft:_equation_style_guide]]. -- [[User:Bilka\|Bilka]] ([[User talk:Bilka\|talk]]) - <span style="color:#FF0000">Admin</span> 09:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

			:: Well, the char I've used was "×", not "x". Those edits are basically for 2 reasons: Firstly, as Bilka said, to maintain the consistency of wiki contents. Secondly, to avoid ambiguity from the "*" representing the annotation, you can see them in the tables on this page. Of coures, sometimes "x" can also be confused with "×", maybe it's a better idea to reform the equation with LaTeX syntax. Sadly I'm not good at it, so if you can deal with this, I'll glad to apply it in my translation. [[User:Cardinal\|Cardinal]] ([[User talk:Cardinal\|talk]]) 09:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Bilka: /* Multiplication sign notation */ fix time

2025-05-10T09:20:29Z

Multiplication sign notation: fix time

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:20, 10 May 2025
Line 30:		Line 30:
	== Multiplication sign notation ==		== Multiplication sign notation ==

	To Cardinal, why are you changing all the multiplication signs from " * " to " x "? This is less proper notation mathematically, and can cause confusion algebraically which is why the * notation exists. I don't see any benefit to explicitly make this change which is arguably less correct.{{Unsigned\|GregFirehawk\|11:08, 10 May 2025}}		To Cardinal, why are you changing all the multiplication signs from " * " to " x "? This is less proper notation mathematically, and can cause confusion algebraically which is why the * notation exists. I don't see any benefit to explicitly make this change which is arguably less correct.{{Unsigned\|GregFirehawk\|09:08, 10 May 2025}}
	: The wiki generally prefers × and ÷ for mathematical formulas, so these edits are correct. For completely proper mathematical notation, you can use latex instead, there is a proposed style guide: [[Factorio_talk:Style_guide#Draft:_equation_style_guide]]. -- [[User:Bilka\|Bilka]] ([[User talk:Bilka\|talk]]) - <span style="color:#FF0000">Admin</span> 09:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)		: The wiki generally prefers × and ÷ for mathematical formulas, so these edits are correct. For completely proper mathematical notation, you can use latex instead, there is a proposed style guide: [[Factorio_talk:Style_guide#Draft:_equation_style_guide]]. -- [[User:Bilka\|Bilka]] ([[User talk:Bilka\|talk]]) - <span style="color:#FF0000">Admin</span> 09:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Bilka: /* Multiplication sign notation */ Reply

2025-05-10T09:19:48Z

Multiplication sign notation: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:19, 10 May 2025
Line 30:		Line 30:
	== Multiplication sign notation ==		== Multiplication sign notation ==

	To Cardinal, why are you changing all the multiplication signs from " * " to " x "? This is less proper notation mathematically, and can cause confusion algebraically which is why the * notation exists. I don't see any benefit to explicitly make this change which is arguably less correct.		To Cardinal, why are you changing all the multiplication signs from " * " to " x "? This is less proper notation mathematically, and can cause confusion algebraically which is why the * notation exists. I don't see any benefit to explicitly make this change which is arguably less correct.{{Unsigned\|GregFirehawk\|11:08, 10 May 2025}}
			: The wiki generally prefers × and ÷ for mathematical formulas, so these edits are correct. For completely proper mathematical notation, you can use latex instead, there is a proposed style guide: [[Factorio_talk:Style_guide#Draft:_equation_style_guide]]. -- [[User:Bilka\|Bilka]] ([[User talk:Bilka\|talk]]) - <span style="color:#FF0000">Admin</span> 09:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

GregFirehawk: /* Multiplication sign notation */ new section

2025-05-10T09:08:48Z

Multiplication sign notation: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:08, 10 May 2025
Line 27:		Line 27:

	:I'd describe extension speed as how fast the inserter "extends", so in this case how fast its arm gets longer/shorter to be able to reach an item on the far or near side of the belt. It's expressed in tiles per tick because that is a unit of speed, just like meters per second :) An inserter that has an extension speed of 1 tile per tick needs 1 tick to make its arm longer by a whole tile. I hope this helps. -- [[User:Bilka\|Bilka]] ([[User talk:Bilka\|talk]]) - <span style="color:#FF0000">Admin</span> 11:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)		:I'd describe extension speed as how fast the inserter "extends", so in this case how fast its arm gets longer/shorter to be able to reach an item on the far or near side of the belt. It's expressed in tiles per tick because that is a unit of speed, just like meters per second :) An inserter that has an extension speed of 1 tile per tick needs 1 tick to make its arm longer by a whole tile. I hope this helps. -- [[User:Bilka\|Bilka]] ([[User talk:Bilka\|talk]]) - <span style="color:#FF0000">Admin</span> 11:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

			== Multiplication sign notation ==

			To Cardinal, why are you changing all the multiplication signs from " * " to " x "? This is less proper notation mathematically, and can cause confusion algebraically which is why the * notation exists. I don't see any benefit to explicitly make this change which is arguably less correct.

GregFirehawk: Removed obsolete talk topic

2025-04-26T08:10:54Z

Removed obsolete talk topic

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:10, 26 April 2025
Line 27:		Line 27:

	:I'd describe extension speed as how fast the inserter "extends", so in this case how fast its arm gets longer/shorter to be able to reach an item on the far or near side of the belt. It's expressed in tiles per tick because that is a unit of speed, just like meters per second :) An inserter that has an extension speed of 1 tile per tick needs 1 tick to make its arm longer by a whole tile. I hope this helps. -- [[User:Bilka\|Bilka]] ([[User talk:Bilka\|talk]]) - <span style="color:#FF0000">Admin</span> 11:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)		:I'd describe extension speed as how fast the inserter "extends", so in this case how fast its arm gets longer/shorter to be able to reach an item on the far or near side of the belt. It's expressed in tiles per tick because that is a unit of speed, just like meters per second :) An inserter that has an extension speed of 1 tile per tick needs 1 tick to make its arm longer by a whole tile. I hope this helps. -- [[User:Bilka\|Bilka]] ([[User talk:Bilka\|talk]]) - <span style="color:#FF0000">Admin</span> 11:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

	~~== Recent Power Usage Edit ==~~

	The Power Usage section was recently edited by user ''Queithe1E'' in a way I find to be incorrect and misleading. I'll break down some of the problems I have with the edit and why I think they're problematic.

	Firstly large swaths of context were removed and branded as "speculation". Those are actually very important contextually as inserter behavior is unusual and not what you'd expect. I'm okay with the section being rewritten for the sake of brevity (in fact I'd probably recommend it as I was perhaps too verbose originally), but only if it's concise and accurate.

	Which segways directly into my second point, which is that the new information that took its place seems to show a misunderstanding of the original information, and is incorrect at times. For example at one point it says "The maximum power consumption as shown in an inserter's tooltip assumes that both types of movement take place at the same time", but that's not actually true, and the previous explanation explicitly communicated a completely different idea. Inserters maximum power usage is absolutely not the sum of rotational and lateral movement costs being expended simultaneously, and there's absolutely nothing to even suggest that might be the case anywhere, neither in the games data or the empirical data that was gathered.

	And that once again segways neatly into my next problem which is I find the inclusion of the games lua data to be misleading and problematic, with the reason being that it's not actually accurate. Empirical testing shows the real values are very different from what the game claims in its lua data, which is something I went to great length to identify, explain, and quantify. The inclusion of the games lua data in such a position of prominence right at the top of the section, and with absolutely no disclaimer, is very misleading due to the discrepancy with actual measured data.

	There's also some other information that I don't really know what to make of. They mention part of the inserters initial power draw is used filling an energy buffer. I'm not aware that electrical inserters even have an energy buffer, as far as I'm aware that's just the burners, and how he can confidently attribute this power draw to this buffer is anyone's guess. It's really just idk, it could be right but I have no clue what he's basing this on. Also later he does an equation seemingly based off the graph and the lua data which does seem to check out, but it's completely at odds with the empirical data that was collected. This actually made me question my sanity so I went back and reviewed my original data and confirmed that my findings ultimately also agreed with the games power panel when averaged over time (this is cited in my forum post as 8.8kw of operational cost for red inserters during testing), and combined with the fact that it's a larger data set with more stringent analysis I'm more inclined to believe my tests accuracy over a low detail in game graph and some numbers I know to be inaccurate.

	Also as I was reviewing this before hitting publish having already written everything further down I realized even the subject of the above paragraph is in self contradiction, because if you apply the equation he gives to extension/retraction using the value from lower down on the wiki you end up with ''0.0457 * 5 * 60'' which equals just 13.71. If you add drain that becomes 14.11, so it seems like the internal buffer he alleges is the remaining 0.89. But then he turns around and I guess to get that 21 max power equals these two numbers he takes 15 and adds the 6 he calculated, meaning he essentially adds this buffer as a second source of drain or something during extensions or during peaks? It just doesn't add up, it's very strange. I pulled that 0.0457 from further down on the wiki so it's possible that number is actually approximately 0.003 too low, in which case his formula for max power would add up properly, but of course then his buffer theory would disappear. Anyway remember the paragraph below this is meant to follow the paragraph directly above this one.

	And this is another important problem with the change, because now the entire section feels incoherent and self contradictory. It was specifically written to show these empirically derived numbers that differ from what the game claims, but now the original game numbers are present and conflicting with and undermining the empirical data, which most importantly is more accurate.

	And I could keep nitpicking about little stuff or how the little context around the burner was removed, but ultimately I think I made my point. The main problems with the change are that it says certain things at are provably wrong, removes certain important context, and ultimately confuses the issue by prominently asserting a separate data set that was tested to be inaccurate, and is in direct contradiction with the data set directly below it. I'm gonna be rolling back the change for these reasons, since I believe the prior version was more accurate and less confusing. If you disagree or have questions please reach out as I'm happy to discuss the topic further

	~~--[[User:GregFirehawk\|GregFirehawk]] ([[User talk:GregFirehawk\|talk]]) 01:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)~~

GregFirehawk: /* Recent Power Usage Edit for typo */

2025-04-13T23:12:45Z

Recent Power Usage Edit for typo

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:12, 13 April 2025
Line 40:		Line 40:
	There's also some other information that I don't really know what to make of. They mention part of the inserters initial power draw is used filling an energy buffer. I'm not aware that electrical inserters even have an energy buffer, as far as I'm aware that's just the burners, and how he can confidently attribute this power draw to this buffer is anyone's guess. It's really just idk, it could be right but I have no clue what he's basing this on. Also later he does an equation seemingly based off the graph and the lua data which does seem to check out, but it's completely at odds with the empirical data that was collected. This actually made me question my sanity so I went back and reviewed my original data and confirmed that my findings ultimately also agreed with the games power panel when averaged over time (this is cited in my forum post as 8.8kw of operational cost for red inserters during testing), and combined with the fact that it's a larger data set with more stringent analysis I'm more inclined to believe my tests accuracy over a low detail in game graph and some numbers I know to be inaccurate.		There's also some other information that I don't really know what to make of. They mention part of the inserters initial power draw is used filling an energy buffer. I'm not aware that electrical inserters even have an energy buffer, as far as I'm aware that's just the burners, and how he can confidently attribute this power draw to this buffer is anyone's guess. It's really just idk, it could be right but I have no clue what he's basing this on. Also later he does an equation seemingly based off the graph and the lua data which does seem to check out, but it's completely at odds with the empirical data that was collected. This actually made me question my sanity so I went back and reviewed my original data and confirmed that my findings ultimately also agreed with the games power panel when averaged over time (this is cited in my forum post as 8.8kw of operational cost for red inserters during testing), and combined with the fact that it's a larger data set with more stringent analysis I'm more inclined to believe my tests accuracy over a low detail in game graph and some numbers I know to be inaccurate.

	Also as I was reviewing this before hitting publish having already written everything further down I realized even the subject of the above paragraph is in self contradiction, because if you apply the equation he gives to extension/retraction using the value from lower down on the wiki you end up with ''0.0457 * 5 * 60'' which equals just 13.71. If you add drain that becomes 14.11, so it seems like the internal buffer he alleges is the remaining 0.89. But then he turns around and I guess to get that 21 max power equals these two numbers he takes 15 and adds the 6 he calculated, meaning he essentially adds this buffer as a second source of drain or something during extensions or during peaks? It just doesn't add up, it's very strange. I pulled that 0.0457 from further down on the wiki so it's possible that number is actually approximately 0.03 too low, in which case his formula for max power would add up properly, but of course then his buffer theory would disappear. Anyway remember the paragraph below this is meant to follow the paragraph directly above this one.		Also as I was reviewing this before hitting publish having already written everything further down I realized even the subject of the above paragraph is in self contradiction, because if you apply the equation he gives to extension/retraction using the value from lower down on the wiki you end up with ''0.0457 * 5 * 60'' which equals just 13.71. If you add drain that becomes 14.11, so it seems like the internal buffer he alleges is the remaining 0.89. But then he turns around and I guess to get that 21 max power equals these two numbers he takes 15 and adds the 6 he calculated, meaning he essentially adds this buffer as a second source of drain or something during extensions or during peaks? It just doesn't add up, it's very strange. I pulled that 0.0457 from further down on the wiki so it's possible that number is actually approximately 0.003 too low, in which case his formula for max power would add up properly, but of course then his buffer theory would disappear. Anyway remember the paragraph below this is meant to follow the paragraph directly above this one.

	And this is another important problem with the change, because now the entire section feels incoherent and self contradictory. It was specifically written to show these empirically derived numbers that differ from what the game claims, but now the original game numbers are present and conflicting with and undermining the empirical data, which most importantly is more accurate.		And this is another important problem with the change, because now the entire section feels incoherent and self contradictory. It was specifically written to show these empirically derived numbers that differ from what the game claims, but now the original game numbers are present and conflicting with and undermining the empirical data, which most importantly is more accurate.

	And I could keep nitpicking about little stuff or how the little context around the burner was removed, but ultimately I think I made my point. The ~~two~~ main problems with the change are that it says certain things at are provably wrong, removes certain important context, and ultimately confuses the issue by prominently asserting a separate data set that was tested to be inaccurate, and is in direct contradiction with the data set directly below it. I'm gonna be rolling back the change for these reasons, since I believe the prior version was more accurate and less confusing. If you disagree or have questions please reach out as I'm happy to discuss the topic further		And I could keep nitpicking about little stuff or how the little context around the burner was removed, but ultimately I think I made my point. The main problems with the change are that it says certain things at are provably wrong, removes certain important context, and ultimately confuses the issue by prominently asserting a separate data set that was tested to be inaccurate, and is in direct contradiction with the data set directly below it. I'm gonna be rolling back the change for these reasons, since I believe the prior version was more accurate and less confusing. If you disagree or have questions please reach out as I'm happy to discuss the topic further

	--[[User:GregFirehawk\|GregFirehawk]] ([[User talk:GregFirehawk\|talk]]) 01:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)		--[[User:GregFirehawk\|GregFirehawk]] ([[User talk:GregFirehawk\|talk]]) 01:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

GregFirehawk: /* Recent Power Usage Edit */ new section

2025-04-13T01:01:02Z

Recent Power Usage Edit: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:01, 13 April 2025
Line 27:		Line 27:

	:I'd describe extension speed as how fast the inserter "extends", so in this case how fast its arm gets longer/shorter to be able to reach an item on the far or near side of the belt. It's expressed in tiles per tick because that is a unit of speed, just like meters per second :) An inserter that has an extension speed of 1 tile per tick needs 1 tick to make its arm longer by a whole tile. I hope this helps. -- [[User:Bilka\|Bilka]] ([[User talk:Bilka\|talk]]) - <span style="color:#FF0000">Admin</span> 11:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)		:I'd describe extension speed as how fast the inserter "extends", so in this case how fast its arm gets longer/shorter to be able to reach an item on the far or near side of the belt. It's expressed in tiles per tick because that is a unit of speed, just like meters per second :) An inserter that has an extension speed of 1 tile per tick needs 1 tick to make its arm longer by a whole tile. I hope this helps. -- [[User:Bilka\|Bilka]] ([[User talk:Bilka\|talk]]) - <span style="color:#FF0000">Admin</span> 11:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

			== Recent Power Usage Edit ==

			The Power Usage section was recently edited by user ''Queithe1E'' in a way I find to be incorrect and misleading. I'll break down some of the problems I have with the edit and why I think they're problematic.

			Firstly large swaths of context were removed and branded as "speculation". Those are actually very important contextually as inserter behavior is unusual and not what you'd expect. I'm okay with the section being rewritten for the sake of brevity (in fact I'd probably recommend it as I was perhaps too verbose originally), but only if it's concise and accurate.

			Which segways directly into my second point, which is that the new information that took its place seems to show a misunderstanding of the original information, and is incorrect at times. For example at one point it says "The maximum power consumption as shown in an inserter's tooltip assumes that both types of movement take place at the same time", but that's not actually true, and the previous explanation explicitly communicated a completely different idea. Inserters maximum power usage is absolutely not the sum of rotational and lateral movement costs being expended simultaneously, and there's absolutely nothing to even suggest that might be the case anywhere, neither in the games data or the empirical data that was gathered.

			And that once again segways neatly into my next problem which is I find the inclusion of the games lua data to be misleading and problematic, with the reason being that it's not actually accurate. Empirical testing shows the real values are very different from what the game claims in its lua data, which is something I went to great length to identify, explain, and quantify. The inclusion of the games lua data in such a position of prominence right at the top of the section, and with absolutely no disclaimer, is very misleading due to the discrepancy with actual measured data.

			There's also some other information that I don't really know what to make of. They mention part of the inserters initial power draw is used filling an energy buffer. I'm not aware that electrical inserters even have an energy buffer, as far as I'm aware that's just the burners, and how he can confidently attribute this power draw to this buffer is anyone's guess. It's really just idk, it could be right but I have no clue what he's basing this on. Also later he does an equation seemingly based off the graph and the lua data which does seem to check out, but it's completely at odds with the empirical data that was collected. This actually made me question my sanity so I went back and reviewed my original data and confirmed that my findings ultimately also agreed with the games power panel when averaged over time (this is cited in my forum post as 8.8kw of operational cost for red inserters during testing), and combined with the fact that it's a larger data set with more stringent analysis I'm more inclined to believe my tests accuracy over a low detail in game graph and some numbers I know to be inaccurate.

			Also as I was reviewing this before hitting publish having already written everything further down I realized even the subject of the above paragraph is in self contradiction, because if you apply the equation he gives to extension/retraction using the value from lower down on the wiki you end up with ''0.0457 * 5 * 60'' which equals just 13.71. If you add drain that becomes 14.11, so it seems like the internal buffer he alleges is the remaining 0.89. But then he turns around and I guess to get that 21 max power equals these two numbers he takes 15 and adds the 6 he calculated, meaning he essentially adds this buffer as a second source of drain or something during extensions or during peaks? It just doesn't add up, it's very strange. I pulled that 0.0457 from further down on the wiki so it's possible that number is actually approximately 0.03 too low, in which case his formula for max power would add up properly, but of course then his buffer theory would disappear. Anyway remember the paragraph below this is meant to follow the paragraph directly above this one.

			And this is another important problem with the change, because now the entire section feels incoherent and self contradictory. It was specifically written to show these empirically derived numbers that differ from what the game claims, but now the original game numbers are present and conflicting with and undermining the empirical data, which most importantly is more accurate.

			And I could keep nitpicking about little stuff or how the little context around the burner was removed, but ultimately I think I made my point. The two main problems with the change are that it says certain things at are provably wrong, removes certain important context, and ultimately confuses the issue by prominently asserting a separate data set that was tested to be inaccurate, and is in direct contradiction with the data set directly below it. I'm gonna be rolling back the change for these reasons, since I believe the prior version was more accurate and less confusing. If you disagree or have questions please reach out as I'm happy to discuss the topic further

			--[[User:GregFirehawk\|GregFirehawk]] ([[User talk:GregFirehawk\|talk]]) 01:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:55, 10 May 2025
Line 31:		Line 31:

	To Cardinal, why are you changing all the multiplication signs from " * " to " x "? This is less proper notation mathematically, and can cause confusion algebraically which is why the * notation exists. I don't see any benefit to explicitly make this change which is arguably less correct.{{Unsigned\|GregFirehawk\|09:08, 10 May 2025}}		To Cardinal, why are you changing all the multiplication signs from " * " to " x "? This is less proper notation mathematically, and can cause confusion algebraically which is why the * notation exists. I don't see any benefit to explicitly make this change which is arguably less correct.{{Unsigned\|GregFirehawk\|09:08, 10 May 2025}}

	: The wiki generally prefers × and ÷ for mathematical formulas, so these edits are correct. For completely proper mathematical notation, you can use latex instead, there is a proposed style guide: [[Factorio_talk:Style_guide#Draft:_equation_style_guide]]. -- [[User:Bilka\|Bilka]] ([[User talk:Bilka\|talk]]) - <span style="color:#FF0000">Admin</span> 09:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)		: The wiki generally prefers × and ÷ for mathematical formulas, so these edits are correct. For completely proper mathematical notation, you can use latex instead, there is a proposed style guide: [[Factorio_talk:Style_guide#Draft:_equation_style_guide]]. -- [[User:Bilka\|Bilka]] ([[User talk:Bilka\|talk]]) - <span style="color:#FF0000">Admin</span> 09:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

			:: Well, the char I've used was "×", not "x". Those edits are basically for 2 reasons: Firstly, as Bilka said, to maintain the consistency of wiki contents. Secondly, to avoid ambiguity from the "*" representing the annotation, you can see them in the tables on this page. Of coures, sometimes "x" can also be confused with "×", maybe it's a better idea to reform the equation with LaTeX syntax. Sadly I'm not good at it, so if you can deal with this, I'll glad to apply it in my translation. [[User:Cardinal\|Cardinal]] ([[User talk:Cardinal\|talk]]) 09:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)