why prod modules are important

[mmmPI]

It's just easier to argue from the miners side of the equation because there it's clear it's 20% more ore for every miner you equip with modules.

No this is not true, it's not 20% more ore for every miner you equip with module. Maybe your thought do not correspond to your wording.

Again you fail to read what I write.

As for the modules being less effective with mining bonuses that is only when seen as a percentage of the total. In ore counts it remains 20% of the base mining speed. You always get the same amount of extra ore from module.

I read that and i said i disagree, because if you have 100K ore in 4 tiles, you can place 1 miner that covers it all, you add 2 PM3 you expect 120K ore, now you add another miner and the miner overlap, you add another 2 PM3 and you still have 120K ore, you add another miner that makes it 3, all ovelapping on those 4 tile which is possible in the game, you add another 2 PM3 for a total of 6 and you still have 120K ore you can even add a 4rth miner, using a total of 8 PM3 and you'd still have 120K ore.

You do not get the same amount of extra ore from module, not if the miner overlap. The first one adds 20%, then the other add nothing at all in the previous example. Which is another diminishing return mechanism.

Suddenly diverting 80% to module production doesn't seem so insane anymore, does it?

I never said it was insane i'm just saying that there is no relation between the amount of ressources modules gives you for free and the amount of ressource you decide to divert for their production. If you divert all your ressource to module production, you still consume ressources, in no way the generalization that modules are built using ressources bonus from modules is correct. It can be sometimes in particular cases.



The actual bonus given per modules depend on the richness of the ore patch, considering mining drills do not overlap, each mining drill covers up to 12 tiles of ore. If the richness of the ore is low, like near the middle of the map, then 12 tiles can contain as low as 100 ore for example with 10 ore per tile, and if you build the same mining drill far away from the middle of the map, and you decide to put prod module in the mining drill, then it's possible that the same mining drill is covering 12 tiles worth 1.2 million ore. You get a different amout of bonus ore per module compared to its own cost. Sometimes they pay off for themselves by a lot sometimes not at all.

[mrvn]

It's just easier to argue from the miners side of the equation because there it's clear it's 20% more ore for every miner you equip with modules.

No this is not true, it's not 20% more ore for every miner you equip with module. Maybe your thought do not correspond to your wording.

Again you fail to read what I write.

As for the modules being less effective with mining bonuses that is only when seen as a percentage of the total. In ore counts it remains 20% of the base mining speed. You always get the same amount of extra ore from module.

I read that and i said i disagree, because if you have 100K ore in 4 tiles, you can place 1 miner that covers it all, you add 2 PM3 you expect 120K ore, now you add another miner and the miner overlap, you add another 2 PM3 and you still have 120K ore, you add another miner that makes it 3, all ovelapping on those 4 tile which is possible in the game, you add another 2 PM3 for a total of 6 and you still have 120K ore you can even add a 4rth miner, using a total of 8 PM3 and you'd still have 120K ore.

You do not get the same amount of extra ore from module, not if the miner overlap. The first one adds 20%, then the other add nothing at all in the previous example. Which is another diminishing return mechanism.

I'm not sure how your mind works but for me 120k ore is 120k ore is 120k ore. All your cases give the same 20k extra ore. If you place 4 miners to cover a 100k ore field you don't get 400k ore. So you also don't get 4 times 20k ore but "only" 20k in total, since each miner only mines 25k ore.

It's always the same amount. What you get for using 4 miners is 4 times the speed. Not 4 times the ore.

[mmmPI]

It's just easier to argue from the miners side of the equation because there it's clear it's 20% more ore for every miner you equip with modules.

I'm not sure how your mind works but for me 120k ore is 120k ore is 120k ore. All your cases give the same 20k extra ore. If you place 4 miners to cover a 100k ore field you don't get 400k ore. So you also don't get 4 times 20k ore but "only" 20k in total, since each miner only mines 25k ore.

It's always the same amount. What you get for using 4 miners is 4 times the speed. Not 4 times the ore.

That's what i'm pointing out, it's always 20K wether you use 1 2 3 or 4 miners meaning 2 4 6 or 8 modules. it's NOT 20% more for every miner you equip with module.


And also that modules cannot be said to gives you the extra ressources necessary for their own production.

[mrvn]

It's just easier to argue from the miners side of the equation because there it's clear it's 20% more ore for every miner you equip with modules.

I'm not sure how your mind works but for me 120k ore is 120k ore is 120k ore. All your cases give the same 20k extra ore. If you place 4 miners to cover a 100k ore field you don't get 400k ore. So you also don't get 4 times 20k ore but "only" 20k in total, since each miner only mines 25k ore.

It's always the same amount. What you get for using 4 miners is 4 times the speed. Not 4 times the ore.

That's what i'm pointing out, it's always 20K wether you use 1 2 3 or 4 miners meaning 2 4 6 or 8 modules. it's NOT 20% more for every miner you equip with module.


And also that modules cannot be said to gives you the extra ressources necessary for their own production.

"it's 20% more ore for every miner you equip with modules" == "every miner you equip with modules gives you 20% more ore that IT mines". It's not multiplative or adding modules to one miner obviously doesn't give you more ore on any other miner. That only works with beacons and they don't take prod modules. I wonder if you ever play the game or just live in your own reality.

I'm putting you back on ignore, your reality is just to different from mine to make any discussion meaningful.

[mmmPI]

I am sad to see such way of facing contradiction, i feel the explanations were needed because the wording used "it's clear 20%" and for me it wasn't clear and maybe for other person too that could overlook the effect of overlapping mining drill reducing the cost efficiency of modules. At least it's somewhat more clear what you meant now.

That doesn't make prod module them less important, it adds a dimension to the puzzle, like how many % of productivity can be reached total if you were to place modules 3 everywhere. How many time you have to re-use one module in a different miner for it to pay for iteself if you use it on overlapping low yield mining drill ? How much time does it takes given that productivity module reduce mining speed ? What about the extra ressources needed to pay for the extra electricity required for their functionning ?


It's quite cool that they have different use for different game. It's not as straighforward as it seem to make good use of them, it adds quite some depth:)

[ssilk]

Replaced “mods” in title wit “modules”, because mods are the Factorio extensions and modules are what we are speaking here about.

[mmmPI]

As i'm ignored anyway i guess it will do no harm to note that it was mentionned in the other thread created by mrvn asking for other people to calculate the amount of ressources consumed/bonus when using productivity module 3 everywhere that mining drill can actually have up to 3 productivity modules.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=103354

I'd rather put only 4 PM3 in the silo and get 40% productivity on everything before rather than placing them in all miners and furnaces to get a 44% bonus raw material input that will require more machine to process. Maybe in labs too, starting from the end of the production chain makes more sense than the opposite ...

The number of 44% is wrong although the conclusion that placing productivity module 3 in mining drill is the worst place for them in the game still holds.

The error i did is reusing numbers from previous statement of another user containing error without checking them :

People keep talking about the cost of prod modules. But consider this:

Put in miners they produces 20% more ore (and oil although speed is probably better there). Imagine taking those 20% and using it exclusively to produce the infrastructure to make more modules and the modules themself. That will grow exponentially. Put prod modules in electric furnaces for 20% more plates for a total of 44% gain. The exponential growth has gotten more than twice as steep. Add it to copper wire and steal and many others and the gain just keeps growing.

Other than the initial investment to get the process started it wouldn't cost you anything, the modules produce themself. Well, except for the time for you to set it up and expand.

The actual bonus given per modules depend on the richness of the ore patch, considering mining drills do not overlap, each mining drill covers up to 12 tiles of ore. If the richness of the ore is low, like near the middle of the map, then 12 tiles can contain as low as 100 ore for example with 10 ore per tile, and if you build the same mining drill far away from the middle of the map, and you decide to put prod module in the mining drill, then it's possible that the same mining drill is covering 12 tiles worth 1.2 million ore. You get a different amout of bonus ore per module compared to its own cost. Sometimes they pay off for themselves by a lot sometimes not at all.

The surface that a mining drill covers is a 5x5 square, 3X3 directly underneath it and a 1 tile square outside of its direct footprint not sure why i used 12 tiles a mistake most likely if mining drill do not overlap the coverage is 25 tiles.

If mining drill DO overlap as much as possible, their coverage will be under 12 equivalent-to-non-shared tiles depending on how you manage to power the setup and extract the ressources, counting 50% for a tile shared by 2 mining drill, 25% for tiles shared by 4 drill.

[mrvn]

In another thread I was corrected about the number of modules a electric mining drill can hold:

Adding productivity 3 modules to a miner gives 120% ore. [...]

Adding two does, but the electric mining drill has three slots .

That makes it 30% extra ore with 3 PM3. And that is 30% of the ore the drill actually removes from the field (not what it outputs as the mining bonus increases that too) regardless of how large or rich the patch is or how closely you pack the miners. That just changes how much ore each miner actually mines. If you pack them more closely then you need more miner and thus more modules. But contrary to some claims this doesn't change the effectiveness of the modules one bit. It just means you have to move the miner (and the modules) to a new position more frequently. It's not like the modules disappear when an ore field is exhausted, you just relocate them to the next field.

Actually if you want to maximize the mining speed, rather then pack them closely, you should surround the miners with beacons. But then you can't cover all the ore of a field as the middle of the 3x3 beacon at minimum is unreachable. You have to move the miners and beacons at least once to mine the whole field. But it would be faster. A bacon with speed modules is cheaper than building more miners with PM3 to get the same ore/s overall.

Personally, and if the patch size isn't tiny, I place a miner on each side of a belt and then spread the next pair out to minimize overlap while keeping power poles connected. Same for the next row. With wooden poles that leaves more overlap than with medium poles. If I place 20 miners on one patch or 10 on one patch and 10 on a second the ore output is the same. But it will last twice as long giving me more time between having to relocate mining outposts.

Note: Again I only used miners as example as they give a bonus to every single ore as a straight up +30% bonus. You fill in modules from the top down because one module in the rocket silo is the same as one module in every mining drill and pump jack. 1 vs. 1000 for the same effect. I'm not yet at a stage where I have 1000 modules to spare for the drills. But one day ...

[blazespinnaker]

Another interesting usage of PMs (and speed modules) I didn't mention is correcting poorly balanced factories. Sometimes I'll realize that a factory I've laid out is somewhat sub-optimal for a certain production line, but the judicious addition of modules can make it perform extremely well without having to change the layout.

This is sort of the opposite of some of the concerns above about PMs causing headaches from having to recreate factories - they help fix them.

When you remove production modules from certain intermediates, you lose this option.

And modules shouldn't be seen as 'magicky'. Using statistical analysis techniques to optimize currently running factories is standard practice IRL. Modules can be seen as a way of doing this automatically.

[mmmPI]

But contrary to some claims this doesn't change the effectiveness of the modules one bit. It just means you have to move the miner (and the modules) to a new position more frequently. It's not like the modules disappear when an ore field is exhausted, you just relocate them to the next field.

No-one had used the word effectiveness on this thread so far, i'm curious which claims.

Maybe you misunderstood the word efficiency ?

It's just easier to argue from the miners side of the equation because there it's clear it's 20% more ore for every miner you equip with modules.

You were right on the first part, it's easier to argue even though the rest is wrong.

The "clear 20 more ore per miner equipped." as noted it's not 20 but 30, and it's not so clear because it's not "for every miner you equip with modules" as you corrected yourself later, the real factor is the amount of ore covered by mining drill. For which non-overlapping is important because if 2 mining drill cover some tile in comon you need twice as many modules to get the same amount of 30% bonus more ore from the map.

Not sure how to call this in other word than a non-efficient use of PM3. No-one said anything about "non-effective".

Placing PM3 in mining drill is the least efficient place to put them in, as it's most likely the place where it will take the longest for them to pay for themselves if they do before being reused in another location.

And there is also a least efficient way to do so when miner overlap, because that decreases the amout of bonus ressources each modules will yield before needing to be moved. Another reason of why it's inefficent.

Which is not the same as ineffective : it works, it gives the %, it's just the worst way to get them. it's inefficient. that's the word in english afaik.

The clarifications were necessary and are appreciated.

[mmmPI]

Another interesting usage of PMs (and speed modules) I didn't mention is correcting poorly balanced factories. Sometimes I'll realize that a factory I've laid out is somewhat sub-optimal for a certain production line, but the judicious addition of modules can make it perform extremely well without having to change the layout.

I agree this and even when you only have super well-balanced factories that you are expanding and realize you need a product that you already produce, one can place speed modules/beacons to increase the ouput of an already laid-out factory to fit anoter consumer. And at some point if you don't have enough throughput in that existing factory, so you mix-in productivity module with speed module, to increase the ouput/input ratio.

I never realize when my factory are poorly laid-out they are humoristicly slightly off at worst in my eyes.

And modules shouldn't be seen as 'magicky'. Using statistical analysis techniques to optimize currently running factories is standard practice IRL. Modules can be seen as a way of doing this automatically.

The less magicky option would be alternative more complex production chain with higer yield from the same raw material in my eyes for productivity modules. But that doesn't represent what would IRL be a better management of ressources to avoid waste while keeping the same process.

Statisical analysis is somewhat magicky sometimes

[FuryoftheStars]

And modules shouldn't be seen as 'magicky'. Using statistical analysis techniques to optimize currently running factories is standard practice IRL. Modules can be seen as a way of doing this automatically.

They kind of are, actually, yes. As mmmPi pointed out, the "proper" way to do it is advanced recipes or machines, not a module that somehow makes said recipe/machine better.

But a module in a machine is still better than beacons. At least the module you can maybe say is an AI upgrade for the machine? I don't know, I feel like I'm grasping at straws for that.

So, really though, debate on efficiency (and "magicky") aside, only things I've gotten out of this (for the benefit of prod modules, which exclude beacons) is UPS savings (more output with same machines / same output with less machines), and (potentially) being able to "fix" a mistake in design without having to rip it up and redo it.

[blazespinnaker]

""Statisical analysis is somewhat magicky sometimes"

True that.

Fury, there are a whole class of startups who's job is to collect data from factories and help them fine tune their parameters in order to increase production.

https://tracxn.com/d/trending-themes/St ... -Analytics

Sometimes just by tweaking some mixtures or speeds, quality can increase significantly, resulting in much less wastage and higher output.

[mrvn]

And modules shouldn't be seen as 'magicky'. Using statistical analysis techniques to optimize currently running factories is standard practice IRL. Modules can be seen as a way of doing this automatically.

They kind of are, actually, yes. As mmmPi pointed out, the "proper" way to do it is advanced recipes or machines, not a module that somehow makes said recipe/machine better.

But a module in a machine is still better than beacons. At least the module you can maybe say is an AI upgrade for the machine? I don't know, I feel like I'm grasping at straws for that.

So, really though, debate on efficiency (and "magicky") aside, only things I've gotten out of this (for the benefit of prod modules, which exclude beacons) is UPS savings (more output with same machines / same output with less machines), and (potentially) being able to "fix" a mistake in design without having to rip it up and redo it.

Prod modules are truly magic. They just create the result out of thin air every now and them from watching output go by.

Beacons with speed modules on the other hand are simple physics. They alter the local space-time in such a way that mass has less momentum so it is easier to accelerate. It also reduces gravity so things have less weight and friction is reduced. That means the parts in the machine can move faster without tearing itself apart. Simple really, everyone should do that.

[FuryoftheStars]

Fury, there are a whole class of startups who's job is to collect data from factories and help them fine tune their parameters in order to increase production.

https://tracxn.com/d/trending-themes/St ... -Analytics

Sometimes just by tweaking some mixtures or speeds, quality can increase significantly, resulting in much less wastage and higher output.

Yes, and they accomplish this by refining their recipe, or the machines.

Beacons with speed modules on the other hand are simple physics. They alter the local space-time in such a way that mass has less momentum so it is easier to accelerate. It also reduces gravity so things have less weight and friction is reduced. That means the parts in the machine can move faster without tearing itself apart. Simple really, everyone should do that.

[mrvn]

I mathed out miners with PM3 and beacons a bit. First basic electric miners give 0.5 ores/s and you can place 4 like this:

miners-1.png (59.73 KiB) Viewed 1779 times

That is 4 miners = 2 ore/s on a 7x6 area = 0.04761904761904761905 ore/s/tile.

With the maximum beacons you have a layout like this:

miners-2.png (163.36 KiB) Viewed 1779 times

That is 1 miner = 3.275 ore/s with a 30% bonus coming to 0.9825 ore/s for a total of 4.2575 ore/s on a 10x10 area or 0.042575 ores/s/tile. A 10.5% reduction in throughput against the dense packed mining setup. But the ore field will last 23% longer. More ore and less (percentage wise) lasting longer with mining bonuses.

Note: The miner only covers 25% of the ore so the field has to be mined in 4 phases, moving everything for each phase.

A less dense setup can look like this:

miners-3.png (303.03 KiB) Viewed 1779 times

4 miners = 2 ore/s in a 9x9 area = 0.02469135802469135802 ore/s/tile, less by a factor of 1.7 compared to beacons.

Lets try a middle ground:

miners-4.png (37.75 KiB) Viewed 1779 times

That is 2 miners = 3.05 ore/s with a 30% bonus coming to 0.915 ore/s for a total of 3.965 ore/s on a 7x6 area or 0.09440476190476190476 ore/s/tile. An increase by a factor of 1.98. Or an increase by a factor of 1.525 plus 30% more ore.

Using coal liquification producing 2 beacons, 4 speed 3 modules and 6 prod 3 modules using only the 30% extra ore takes (everything filled with PM3s and according to helmod):

4'758 iron ore = 1 hour 21 minutes to break even
6'518 copper ore = 1 hour 51 minutes to break even
3154 coal = 54 minutes to break even
7212 water but that is free

So after under 2 hours a PM3 + beacon mining setup is a resource gain. Meaning the ore file lasts longer even subtracting the resource to produce the modules and beacons. And you get to keep the modules and beacons forever and can reuse them at the next ore field.

If you feed all extra ore (speed increase + bonus) back into module production the module count doubles every hour. Investing resources for just one pair of miners it only takes 9 hours to expand that to 1024 miners at no cost other than power. Or it takes 1 hour to get back the invested resource while maintaining the same mining throughput as the dense setup and after that throughput is nearly doubled.

This seems a lot shorter time to pay off than previously stipulated. Maybe because producing modules with everything PM3ed is so much more efficient reducing the time.


Now I wonder if the increased production of coal would produce enough electricity to run the beacons. Is mining coal with PM3 + beacons an energy gain? Or do you have to produce solar panels from the extra resources to get free energy? That would increase the time to break even.

[mrvn]

I looked at the same with Bob + Angels mods:

bob-angle-miner.png (1006.76 KiB) Viewed 1774 times

I've run the miner for 60 ticks (1 second) and that is 11043 ore. That would be 147.24 Ultimate Transport Belts. That's just insane.

Forget about buffer chests, just place this next to a train stop and it fills a Smelting Cargo Wagon mk3 in under 2 seconds.

bob-angle-miner-train.png (1.16 MiB) Viewed 1774 times

Note: Removing some beacons doesn't reduce the speed of the miner. Speed seems to be capped at 32767% (int16_t), which translates to 35 Beacon mk3 with speed module 8.

[mmmPI]

Another reason why mining drill are one of the worst place to put production module is that mining drill contrary to any other machines are not expected to run continuously as the ore underneath them deplete, unless you constantly monitor your depleted mining drill over the map you will end up with expensive modules and/or beacons sitting on inactive machine which is even worse than just having them sitting on a chest as they do not pay for themselves during this time and instead cost energy for nothing. ( one possible way to have them non-effective, and even counter-productive depending on how many depleted outpost you have sitting on the map with beacons ).

This is not the case with pumpjacks as those do not deplete , but placing PM3 modules in old pumpjack is worse than not using PM3 at all. As pumpjack have 2 modules slots, placing PM3 on a depleted one first reduces speed by 30% and then gives 20% productivity on the remaining amount which means the pumpjack will only produce 84% of what it would have produce per second without modules. While costing a whooping + 160% of energy. This is without taking in account the productivity bonus from research which you sacrifice for no good purpose if you were to place a PM3 in a pumpjack as the 30% reduction in speed has more impact on the real output.


How much time is required for a module to pay for itself is based on amount of extra ressources generated from consumed ressources per time. This means that the mining drill producing 0.5 ore per second is one of the worst contender to be accomodated with production module. For example making an electronic circuit require 3 copper cable and 1 iron plate and has base speed of 0.5 second too, this means each module placed in an assembly machines producing green circuit produces an extra 10% based on 1.5 copper + 1 iron per cycle.

An assembling machine 3 has a base crafting speed of 1.25 which means the receipe that is 1 second will be made 25% faster than a mining drill takes time to produce just 1 ore. The receipe itself representing 250% more material on which the productivity module is effective and being only 0.5 second in the case of electronic circuit.

If you factor in the speed reduction it doesn't help, you have -60% for the assembly and -45% for the mining drill. this means 1.25x0.4=0.5 crafting speed for the assembly vs 0.5x0.55= 0.275 ore per second for the mining drill on which the PM3 module will be effective. This means in 1 second the assembly does 1 cycle, meaning consuming 3 copper cable and 1 iron plate, or 2.5 ore on which you gain 40% so 1 extra ore for the ressources consumed in 1 second.

While the mining drill in 1 second will consume 0.275 ore from the ore patch , on which you gain 30% extra for a total of 0.3575 ore, so an extra 0.0825 extra ore for the ressources consumed in 1 second.

This means it appear that the benefit for placing 4 modules in an assembly machine producing electronic circuit is more than 12 times the one that you get from placing 3 productivity module in a mining drill. The benefit per module being calculated doing (1/4)/ (0.0825/3) = 0.25/0.0275 = 9 times. roughly.

TL DR: placing a PM3 module in an assembly 3 producing green circuit is more than 9 times better than placing it on a mining drill.

What this means is that instead of waiting for 9 PM3 modules to place in a mining drill, if one wants to be more efficient, just adding 1 in an assembly machine producing electronic circuit will produce more extra ressources per second overtime .

But maybe i overlook something very simple in the math department, that occurs sometimes

[Khagan]

placing a PM3 module in an assembly 3 producing green circuit is more than 9 times better than placing it on a mining drill.

Much more than 9 times. Firstly, you can straightforwardly get much better value from the PMs in the assemblers by interleaving with beacons; if you try to do that with miners you end up with gaps in coverage of the ore patch. Secondly, the module bonus is only additive with the tech productivity bonus for mining, but the speed hit from the modules scales all the production down. Once you have a good few levels of mining tech, this is a very bad deal.

The payback time for high-level PMs in miners is far too long to be worth it: there are always going to be better things to do with those resources. Most obviously, you can use them to expand or improve your science factory and speed up the rate at which you are improving your mining tech. Three extra levels is like 3 free PM3s in every single mining drill, but without the slowdown, or the energy cost, or the extra pollution.

[mrvn]

placing a PM3 module in an assembly 3 producing green circuit is more than 9 times better than placing it on a mining drill.

Much more than 9 times. Firstly, you can straightforwardly get much better value from the PMs in the assemblers by interleaving with beacons; if you try to do that with miners you end up with gaps in coverage of the ore patch. Secondly, the module bonus is only additive with the tech productivity bonus for mining, but the speed hit from the modules scales all the production down. Once you have a good few levels of mining tech, this is a very bad deal.

The payback time for high-level PMs in miners is far too long to be worth it: there are always going to be better things to do with those resources. Most obviously, you can use them to expand or improve your science factory and speed up the rate at which you are improving your mining tech. Three extra levels is like 3 free PM3s in every single mining drill, but without the slowdown, or the energy cost, or the extra pollution.

Placing PM3 modules in an assembly 3 producing green circuit might be 9 times better. But placing PM3 modules in an assembly 3 AND placing PM3 modules in miners and adding beacons is then 18 times better. But this was always just a thought experiment. I always said for real you place the modules at the top of the pyramid first.

"is far too long"? I don't think two hour is that long. And that is two hours for the modules to pay for themself just from the ore gain no matter what mining bonus you have. The extra or gains does not diminish with more mining bonus, only in percentage terms, so the pay back time remains constant. Again that is not to say the payback time is even shorter when you place PM3s somewhere else. The rocket silo makes PM3 pay for themself within minutes, if you have the resources for the rocket ready, for example.

You do make a point though with each mining bonus being the equivalent of a PM3 module in every miner without the negative effects. Other than the first 3 levels that requires space science, and a lot of them. 2500 for level 4, 5000 for level 5, 7500 for level 6, ...

Lets helmod the cost for that with PM3 modules in every step wherever you can. 2500 of every (not military) science cost:

Code: Select all

147'751 iron ore   = 821 / <num miners> hours * (level - 3)
118'122 copper ore = 656 / <num miners> hours * (level - 3) 
60'833 coal        = 338 / <num miners> hours * (level - 3)
18'850 stone       = 104 / <num miners> hours * (level - 3)

Lets assume we do levels 4-6 instead of PM3 modules, that's 6 * 2500 science. Or 11514 miner hours to break even. The PM3 modules in miners pay for themself in under 1 hours (putting all the extra ore from beacons and PM3s into it). That means, ignoring power, at >11514 miners the mining bonus pays off quicker.

IF you do levels 4-6 instead of PM3 in miners and stop there. If you compare level 4 + PM3 vs. level 7 it's another 3*2500 science = 5757 miners. In fact per level of mining bonus it takes an extra 5757 miners to break even.

All of this ignores power. So you either need to add in the cost of solar cells or nuclear power on top. Remember PM3 work on uranium too and it takes very little uranium to produce 1 GW power. Going nuclear I don't think the extra cost is that high. With solar cells I'm more worried about the time and space it takes to place them.

So let's ballpark this to mining bonus being cheaper at >10000 + 5000 * <more levels> miners (largely guessing and overestimating power costs). Those figures don't make me want to agree that mining bonus is the better option. Launching 9 rockets sounds way less than building 30000 PM3, 20000 SM3 and 10000 beacons. Did I make a mistake in the math or is that just one of those cases where intuition is wrong? I too thought mining bonus was better, surely.


There is another factor to consider: UPS. The PM3 miners setup I showed has half the number of miners. Solar cells come at no UPS cost but accumulators do. And nuclear power is UPS costly too. So here is another question: Are beaconed miners more UPS costly or less?

PS: Assume everything else already has PM3 modules. No point in arguing PM3s are better placed in the rocket silo or the like. We all know that.

UPDATE:

I've calculate the miner hours with a mining bonus giving 10% increase on 0.5 ore/s and already for all 3 levels. And then I multiplied that by 6 since level 4+5+6 costs 6 times as much. But it also gives 30% increase on 0.5 ore/s.

So actual miner hours are:

Code: Select all

147'751 iron ore   = 821 / <num miners> hours * (level - 3)
118'122 copper ore = 656 / <num miners> hours * (level - 3) 
60'833 coal        = 338 / <num miners> hours * (level - 3)
18'850 stone       = 104 / <num miners> hours * (level - 3)

Or 1919 miner hours for level 4. Level 5 costs twice that and Level 6 three times as much, but they also give a combined 30% bonus: 641 * (1 + 2 + 3) / 3 = 3838 miner hours.