Tutorial talk:Quality upcycling math: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Section "Number of crafting machines": new section |
→Section "Recycled Materials": new section |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Section "Number of crafting machines" == | == Section "Number of crafting machines" == | ||
The section doesn't mention anywhere, which modules are used, which modules are used. Or am I missing something? Also I don't thing the numbers in the first table ("per recycler") in the column "Machines producing rare items" are plausible, since they are higher than in the uncommon column. --[[User:Ickputzdirwech|Ickputzdirwech]] ([[User talk:Ickputzdirwech|talk]]) 12:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC) | The section doesn't mention anywhere, which modules are used, which modules are used. Or am I missing something? Also I don't thing the numbers in the first table ("per recycler") in the column "Machines producing rare items" are plausible, since they are higher than in the uncommon column. --[[User:Ickputzdirwech|Ickputzdirwech]] ([[User talk:Ickputzdirwech|talk]]) 12:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC) | ||
== Section "Recycled Materials" == | |||
This section says "The recycler comes with a built-in (anti-)productivity of -75% which gets rid of most of what is input to it." Which is true normally, but what if we took into account the "Scrap recycling productivity" research? Wouldn't that change some numbers, and is it worth trying to include that as a variable for others to calculate for themselves? | |||
Latest revision as of 03:49, 2 July 2026
Section "Number of crafting machines"
The section doesn't mention anywhere, which modules are used, which modules are used. Or am I missing something? Also I don't thing the numbers in the first table ("per recycler") in the column "Machines producing rare items" are plausible, since they are higher than in the uncommon column. --Ickputzdirwech (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Section "Recycled Materials"
This section says "The recycler comes with a built-in (anti-)productivity of -75% which gets rid of most of what is input to it." Which is true normally, but what if we took into account the "Scrap recycling productivity" research? Wouldn't that change some numbers, and is it worth trying to include that as a variable for others to calculate for themselves?