Thanks for the explanation. Then I'm convinced by evidence it's really coincidence - the 26.67 is 2/3 of 40, which is a round even number instead of some seemingly randomly picked decimal that wouldn't be likely at all. Matches with my estimate of 119.5-119.8 also, now that I realize I forgot to multiply the downtime by 2 since 2 engines were fluctuating with coal shortages, making the correct estimate 119.0-119.6. For it to supply 60 boilers then, the throughput would have to be 27 items/s, but since that would break the x1/x2/x3 multiplier on belt speed, I'll cancel my idea of making a suggestion to buff it.leitk wrote:8MJ per lump of coal
/2 for boiler
/1800 for 2 engines at 900 kW each
* 26.67 (or really 40 * 2/3)
Aside the boiler/engine ratio bug then, all that's left is deciding which of the following I should do ~ 59/118 for 1:2 ratio and no resource efficiency decrease from only using 1 engine for the last boiler, 60/119 for the highest integer of engines a red belt can support, or 60/120 for gaining the final 240 KW, maximizing output per row, but either causing constant minor fluctuations in steam due to coal shortages or adding overhead to extend the ~20 minutes or so buffer time for the ~0.74 engines worth of coal the red belt can't supply. Can't say any of the 3 are quite clean solutions.
(Edit: 59/119 corrected to 60/119)