Bot "Minimum Operation Time"

[A7x49]

This seems a bit strange name of a metric to me. I think that this actually means "Maximum Operation Time" if it is the time it takes for the bot to operate at something at the maximum distance.

Am I misunderstanding?

[MechBFP]

It means the minimum amount of time the bot can operate regardless of conditions. Better conditions mean it can operate longer than that base minimum.

[orzelek]

It might be in reference to Aquilo where bots will not work as long due to heavily increased energy costs for operation.
It still sounds weird when you read it.

[Nypyren]

I mouse-over'd over a construction bot recharging at a standard (non-personal) roboport on Aquilo and its info card showed a minimum operational time of 6 seconds, which is the maximum flight time I observed with a stopwatch. I have movement speed bonus rank 8 which is +435% (I can't remember if increased speed decreases flight time or not).

If I hover over the same one inside the roboport on Aquilo, it says 30 seconds, which matches my Factoriopedia entry. I get about 30s of flight time out of them on Nauvis.

I think the tooltip should be changed to "time between charges".

[Aricitic]

I mouse-over'd over a construction bot recharging at a standard (non-personal) roboport on Aquilo and its info card showed a minimum operational time of 6 seconds, which is the maximum flight time I observed with a stopwatch. I have movement speed bonus rank 8 which is +435% (I can't remember if increased speed decreases flight time or not).

If I hover over the same one inside the roboport on Aquilo, it says 30 seconds, which matches my Factoriopedia entry. I get about 30s of flight time out of them on Nauvis.

I think the tooltip should be changed to "time between charges".

Sorry to enter an older post, but I thought I would add my "two cents."

For a construction bot on Nauvis (I've yet to go to another planet... I'm being too cautious) I see Speed: 13 + 9.7 km/h and Maximum flying reach: 1095 m. Fortunately, it's easy to convert m to km and back (multiply/divide by 1000). The speed is 22.7 km/h or 22699.98 m/h. That's (gets out calculator) 6.305556 m/s; so it would take about 173.8 seconds to travel 1095 m. That's 2 minutes and 53 seconds, which is equal to the "Minimum Operational Time."

So.... Um... (looks up the definition of minimum), that's definitely NOT the "minimum" operational time, but the "maximum" operational time. Right?

Just in case it was a "language thing" I decided to do a "deep dive." Wube is out of the Czech Republic according to the Factorio Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factorio. the Czech Republic has the Czech language (CS in the language selection if anyone is curious), but also speak English, German and Russian according to Czech Universities https://www.czechuniversities.com/artic ... h-language. To test if it was a language thing I changed the language first from English to French (the one I knew I would mostly recognize and be able to type into Google Translate the most easily), then French to Czech. I didn't try German, I didn't want to try and figure out Russian letters so...

The phrasing is the same in the three instances I tested (English, French, and Czech). So... I don't know, maybe a cultural thing?


On my part, I would second Nypyren's idea of rephrasing it to: "time between charges" (maybe add "maximum"?) or simply changing "minimum" to "maximum optimal" operation time.
Realistically the "Minimum Operational Time" would be the time it takes a bot to go from where it's placed to the nearest Roboport or job (and then Roboport).

Post Script

One thing I have noticed as I've played with this expansion is that there are a few odd wordings for some things. The following thread is a discussion on another such "odd phrasing.": viewtopic.php?f=12&t=120191&p=641994#p641994

This is IN NO WAY meant to say anything bad about Wube or its people. Not at all. I just find the choices made for some things "curious" and am the type of person who likes to (gently) offer suggestions to make things more clear and understandable...

[majik1213]

For a construction bot on Nauvis (I've yet to go to another planet... I'm being too cautious) I see Speed: 13 + 9.7 km/h and Maximum flying reach: 1095 m. Fortunately, it's easy to convert m to km and back (multiply/divide by 1000). The speed is 22.7 km/h or 22699.98 m/h. That's (gets out calculator) 6.305556 m/s; so it would take about 173.8 seconds to travel 1095 m. That's 2 minutes and 53 seconds, which is equal to the "Minimum Operational Time."

So.... Um... (looks up the definition of minimum), that's definitely NOT the "minimum" operational time, but the "maximum" operational time. Right?

The Operational Time depends on power, not speed. After all, wouldn't you agree that the time available to fly relies on the battery power, not the actual speed of the unit? Power = Energy / Time, and energy consumption is energy over a given second. (1 Watt = 1 J / second = 1 energy consumption.) For a given Energy Capacity, E_max, the Consumption, C, ranges between "Moving consumption" and "Max. consumption," and these two data points are shown on the info box you mentioned.

Now, you want to know minimal Operational Time, which in turn relies on power available to the bot. Well, the minimal Operational Time needs to be less than or equal to the Operational Time, right? So, let's start there. Operational Time depends on the varying power consumption. Remember what I said above? "Consumption" (here, energy consumption) varies between "Moving consumption" (the lowest possible energy consumption) and the "Max. consumption" (the highest possible energy consumption). If we let C_min represent the former and C_max represent the latter, we have a range, C_min to C_max, whose units are that of consumption, expressed conventionally as joules per second, or watts, which represents power, not speed.

OK, we have a power consumption range, now we just need a time. If energy consumption is energy over time, then its inverse is time over energy. If we know maximum energy (which is expressed as "Energy capacity" in Factorio, E_max, also on the info box), we know the Operational Time, T. To be formal, let "Energy capacity" (shown in info box) = E_max. You now have the minimal Operational Time, T_min. T_min = E_max / C_max. C_max is chosen here because the minimal operational time occurs under circumstances that consistently require the maximal amount of energy consumption. Also, here, division represents the inverse. You can also compute the maximal Operational Time by analogy: T_max = E_min / C_min = E_max / C_min. (In the Factorio video game, C has a range, but E doesn't [false in real life], so E_min = E_max, always.)

Given this line of reasoning, let's verify that the already shown T_min, 18 seconds on the info box, is correct. Now, to be fair, I'm from the future, and your values have been updated in the Factoriopedia. Here's what I see for a normal logistic bot:
- "Max. consumption" = C_max = 83.25 kW
- "Moving consumption" = C_min = 15.0 kW + 65.25 kW = 75.25 kW
- "Energy capacity" = E_max = 1.5 MJ
- "Minimum operational time" = T_min = 18 s
- "Maximum flying reach" = D_max = 289 m
- "Speed" = 10.8 + 47.0 km/h = 57.8 km/h (again, this is an update, from the future, regarding what you said, "13 + 9.7 km/h," or 22.7 km/h)

Using the above formula in red, T_min = E_max / C_max = 1.5 MJ / 83.25 kW = 1500 kJ / (83.25 s/kJ) = 18.018 s, or ~18 s. By contrast, the maximal operational time you accidentally computed as 2 minutes and 53 seconds is actually T_max = E_max / C_min = 1.5 MJ / 75.25 kW = 1500 kJ / (75.25 s/kJ) = ~20 s. So, the logistic bot runs between 18-20 seconds before a recharge.

If you apply efficiency modules, C_min drops, and T_max increases. T_min improves with higher quality logistic bots.

The phrasing is the same in the three instances I tested (English, French, and Czech). So... I don't know, maybe a cultural thing?

Hopefully, this explanation clarifies the formula involved and reveals that this formula is not a "cultural thing." Factoriopedia could include something like this explanation, however, to avoid confusion.

[Aricitic]

For a construction bot on Nauvis (I've yet to go to another planet... I'm being too cautious) I see Speed: 13 + 9.7 km/h and Maximum flying reach: 1095 m. Fortunately, it's easy to convert m to km and back (multiply/divide by 1000). The speed is 22.7 km/h or 22699.98 m/h. That's (gets out calculator) 6.305556 m/s; so it would take about 173.8 seconds to travel 1095 m. That's 2 minutes and 53 seconds, which is equal to the "Minimum Operational Time."

So.... Um... (looks up the definition of minimum), that's definitely NOT the "minimum" operational time, but the "maximum" operational time. Right?

The Operational Time depends on power, not speed. After all, wouldn't you agree that the time available to fly relies on the battery power, not the actual speed of the unit? Power = Energy / Time, and energy consumption is energy over a given second. (1 Watt = 1 J / second = 1 energy consumption.) For a given Energy Capacity, E_max, the Consumption, C, ranges between "Moving consumption" and "Max. consumption," and these two data points are shown on the info box you mentioned.

Now, you want to know minimal Operational Time, which in turn relies on power available to the bot. Well, the minimal Operational Time needs to be less than or equal to the Operational Time, right? So, let's start there. Operational Time depends on the varying power consumption. Remember what I said above? "Consumption" (here, energy consumption) varies between "Moving consumption" (the lowest possible energy consumption) and the "Max. consumption" (the highest possible energy consumption). If we let C_min represent the former and C_max represent the latter, we have a range, C_min to C_max, whose units are that of consumption, expressed conventionally as joules per second, or watts, which represents power, not speed.

OK, we have a power consumption range, now we just need a time. If energy consumption is energy over time, then its inverse is time over energy. If we know maximum energy (which is expressed as "Energy capacity" in Factorio, E_max, also on the info box), we know the Operational Time, T. To be formal, let "Energy capacity" (shown in info box) = E_max. You now have the minimal Operational Time, T_min. T_min = E_max / C_max. C_max is chosen here because the minimal operational time occurs under circumstances that consistently require the maximal amount of energy consumption. Also, here, division represents the inverse. You can also compute the maximal Operational Time by analogy: T_max = E_min / C_min = E_max / C_min. (In the Factorio video game, C has a range, but E doesn't [false in real life], so E_min = E_max, always.)

Given this line of reasoning, let's verify that the already shown T_min, 18 seconds on the info box, is correct. Now, to be fair, I'm from the future, and your values have been updated in the Factoriopedia. Here's what I see for a normal logistic bot:
- "Max. consumption" = C_max = 83.25 kW
- "Moving consumption" = C_min = 15.0 kW + 65.25 kW = 75.25 kW
- "Energy capacity" = E_max = 1.5 MJ
- "Minimum operational time" = T_min = 18 s
- "Maximum flying reach" = D_max = 289 m
- "Speed" = 10.8 + 47.0 km/h = 57.8 km/h (again, this is an update, from the future, regarding what you said, "13 + 9.7 km/h," or 22.7 km/h)

Using the above formula in red, T_min = E_max / C_max = 1.5 MJ / 83.25 kW = 1500 kJ / (83.25 s/kJ) = 18.018 s, or ~18 s. By contrast, the maximal operational time you accidentally computed as 2 minutes and 53 seconds is actually T_max = E_max / C_min = 1.5 MJ / 75.25 kW = 1500 kJ / (75.25 s/kJ) = ~20 s. So, the logistic bot runs between 18-20 seconds before a recharge.

If you apply efficiency modules, C_min drops, and T_max increases. T_min improves with higher quality logistic bots.

The phrasing is the same in the three instances I tested (English, French, and Czech). So... I don't know, maybe a cultural thing?

Hopefully, this explanation clarifies the formula involved and reveals that this formula is not a "cultural thing." Factoriopedia could include something like this explanation, however, to avoid confusion.

Good <insert your preferred word here> I wish I had a better brain. Does anyone know of a method of upgrading memory and focus?

Jokes aside, I'm assuming that your formulas show how the wording is correct, right? Ok, fine.

-= And I need to preface myself here by saying I truly, and honestly mean absolutely no offense or insult... but... seriously, I NEED an editor... =-

What you have done is, however, sadly, utterly irrelevant.
Why?
It's still confusing.
Factorio isn't a thesus.
It isn't a user manual for a nuclear power plant or nuclear armaments.
It is a game. If the wording is confusing on something it should be changed... or explained as thoroughly as you have --- and then explained again in a way that someone without a math degree can understand in five seconds.

The wording, as it stands, may be correct, mathematically, however, even with your example, I still disagree with it.
You are correct that the minimum/maximum operational time depends on the available power - and, by the way, there are no efficiency upgrades for bots, so, relevance? there are, however, "speed" upgrades, which influence this equation. i.e. no way to increase energy capacity without quality, but there is a way to increase speed - but only until you take into consideration that bots >DO NOT DIE (or stop)< when they run out. They continue to operate indefinitely, but only seek a charge until recharged fully.

So, even if we go with the assumption that the equation you provided is the basis of the wording, the wording itself is still incorrect.
Absolutely no one cares about the "minimum" amount of time - which changes per planet and per upgrade in speed - that the bot can operate. They care about the "maximum" amount of time between needed charges.
And, listing a minimum suggests that there is a maximum. Which, arguably, there isn't, as bots (once again) >DO NOT DIE< when they run out. They don't stop functioning either, they just stop doing anything but seek a recharge.

So, why list a "minimum" operational time? Why not list the maximum? Why list something that only those digging into the code will care about, and not what the general user will need... actually need to know?

How long?
"How long."
How long will my bots continue to operate?
The minimum is irrelevant to that question; is it not? Why do we care about the minimum amount of time? (Please, tell me.) Don't we care about the maximum amount of operational time? How long before a bot needs to stop doing what it's doing and seek a charge? No, not the "minimum", but, instead, the maximum amount of time between charges.

Finally, with regard to the "cultural thing" I wasn't referencing formulas. While those, bizarrely, CAN BE cultural (see "mathematical notation by culture"), I was more referring to the strange choice in how a number of things have been worded in Factorio. This is only one, I've joined in on the conversation of another. https://forums.factorio.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=120191 is another.
Sorry for the confusion on that. -- but, seriously, I absolutely LOVE Factorio, but why are some of the things worded the way they are?

One final question I feel that I need to start asking everyone who responds to me: "Who are you in relation to the game? General user? Code digger/hacker/moder? Wube associate? Or part of the game development team?"
The reason I ask is so that I understand your background with regards to your answer.
Me? I'm a general user (and, yes, as you can take by my joke at the beginning, I'm not as "smart" as I would like... I've tried, and failed, to do far too much to believe highly of myself...) But I do my research for my responses - when I don't already know the information off-hand (and even then I double-check with the game and/or 50 web pages open).
Your math is correct, regardless of whether I can generally process it at the moment or not, but, why do "you" care? Why do "you" believe that the wording is correct?

That's what has me curous.

Sorry, and thank you. -- And, truly, I mean no offense. I just can't think of a better way of wording 'some things'...

EDIT: Final note: I updated my preferences so that I will be emailed when I get quoted so that it won't take as long for me to notice... Also, in case it influsences anything, I nearly reported, then nearly deleted this post while trying to simply "edit" it... so, yeah, I'm not exactly thinking clearly.

[mmmPI]

Good <insert your preferred word here> I wish I had a better brain. Does anyone know of a method of upgrading memory and focus?

Actually, even if the brain isn't a muscle, you can train it with practice ! My method is playing video-games, it's a bit like reading books, but much easier to stay focused i think

Finally, with regard to the "cultural thing" I wasn't referencing formulas. While those, bizarrely, CAN BE cultural (see "mathematical notation by culture"), I was more referring to the strange choice in how a number of things have been worded in Factorio. This is only one, I've joined in on the conversation of another. https://forums.factorio.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=120191 is another.
Sorry for the confusion on that. -- but, seriously, I absolutely LOVE Factorio, but why are some of the things worded the way they are?

I just wanted to point out that the link doesn't work due to the syntax, you can use the "copy link button" to have a clean link like this : 120191 or the [ url= ] thing must be used with the link first , like : link
( you can "quote" to see the text without formatting and use "preview" to see how it look before submitting to make sure it works )
( and i'm just saying this because i saw you might be interested from the previous discussion )

Regarding the actual topic, i think it's difficult/impossible to write a short sentence that is unambiguous for everyone. There will always be at least a few person who in particular context will be confused.

EDIT: Final note: I updated my preferences so that I will be emailed when I get quoted so that it won't take as long for me to notice... Also, in case it influsences anything, I nearly reported, then nearly deleted this post while trying to simply "edit" it... so, yeah, I'm not exactly thinking clearly.

Sorry if you receive an email just for this x) In case my personnal goof is to try and edit a post to remove a typo i made, but due to lack of focus i click the quote button, and end up needing to delete the second post after posting a corrected copy after the first one instead of just modifying it.

[Aricitic]

Good <insert your preferred word here> I wish I had a better brain. Does anyone know of a method of upgrading memory and focus?

Actually, even if the brain isn't a muscle, you can train it with practice ! My method is playing video-games, it's a bit like reading books, but much easier to stay focused i think

Finally, with regard to the "cultural thing" I wasn't referencing formulas. While those, bizarrely, CAN BE cultural (see "mathematical notation by culture"), I was more referring to the strange choice in how a number of things have been worded in Factorio. This is only one, I've joined in on the conversation of another. https://forums.factorio.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=120191 is another.
Sorry for the confusion on that. -- but, seriously, I absolutely LOVE Factorio, but why are some of the things worded the way they are?

I just wanted to point out that the link doesn't work due to the syntax, you can use the "copy link button" to have a clean link like this : 120191 or the [ url= ] thing must be used with the link first , like : link
( you can "quote" to see the text without formatting and use "preview" to see how it look before submitting to make sure it works )
( and i'm just saying this because i saw you might be interested from the previous discussion )

Regarding the actual topic, i think it's difficult/impossible to write a short sentence that is unambiguous for everyone. There will always be at least a few person who in particular context will be confused.

EDIT: Final note: I updated my preferences so that I will be emailed when I get quoted so that it won't take as long for me to notice... Also, in case it influsences anything, I nearly reported, then nearly deleted this post while trying to simply "edit" it... so, yeah, I'm not exactly thinking clearly.

Sorry if you receive an email just for this x) In case my personnal goof is to try and edit a post to remove a typo i made, but due to lack of focus i click the quote button, and end up needing to delete the second post after posting a corrected copy after the first one instead of just modifying it.

I know the brain is a muscle. I do exercise it, but I also have a (few) nonverbal learning disabilities. Below average focus and memory are two of them (ironically). It's like trying to exercise a broken arm/leg (or, more accurately, something that's growth was stunted at a young age and will never fully grow). I absolutely *HATE* it because there are things I want to do that I simply am unable to do. >from here<

Anyway...

This: 120191 is the thread. It's entitled: "Minor grammar in "resource drain" and "spoil time" descriptions."
Technically the OP was incorrect, but their intent - it being confusing - was correct.

Additionally, you are absolutely correct, it is impossible to write a short sentence that is unambiguous for everyone. This is entirely true. But it is possible to reduce this for "most" people. -> Parts of Factorio read as a user manual - which, in-and-of-itself is fine, except for the context that they appear. Within the forums, you have images that can have captions (subtexts in italics that give descriptions/additional information). The way some of these read is as though they are these captions, but without the immediate context of the images. Sometimes this is fine, other times - such as the above link's instance - they "create" ambiguity that creates confusion.

Imagine, if you will, that I take a sentence referring to a previous part of the entirety of what I've written (here, not on the forums in general) and reference, or complete it further down from where it is positioned. Let's say >to here<, but I make no reference to the actual position of the original text, and no reference to the text itself, it's just a continuation of that context. (I'm sure that most people who actually read my posts were confused about what the >from here< was referencing until just now). That's my main issue with the sentence in "Minor Grammar [...]"

My gripe with "Minimum operational time" is described in my previous post, and I won't bore/annoy people with restating it in full, but I will state that it's needlessly complex. Simply changing to "Maximum" or utilizing what one of the people before me suggested - and I replied with "YES! This!" (I think it was "Maximum time between charge") - would make it more easily understood.

I won't argue that we don't need a manual, and Wube have done an excellent job providing one that goes above and beyond what most devs would provide. It's wonderful... but I question some of the wording choices. This is a "manual" for a game, not a technical manual for something we need a degree to be able to use, right?



Finally, I think because you quoted yourself, and not me, I only received an email for the initial post.
Still, getting an email is much better than needing to have 20 tabs open to see if anyone has responded.

[majik1213]

I know the brain is a muscle. I do exercise it, but I also have a (few) nonverbal learning disabilities. Below average focus and memory are two of them (ironically). It's like trying to exercise a broken arm/leg (or, more accurately, something that's growth was stunted at a young age and will never fully grow). I absolutely *HATE* it because there are things I want to do that I simply am unable to do. >from here<

Don't give up! Factorio is not a game for all players. It ignores accessibility considerations. In turn, it attracts a select group of such individuals who prefer that style of gaming. It isn't a cultural thing but at the same time it certainly will not appeal to all tastes, but all players are welcome!

Absolutely no one cares about the "minimum" amount of time - which changes per planet and per upgrade in speed - that the bot can operate. They care about the "maximum" amount of time between needed charges.

Aquilo cares. Aquilo will be unpleasant if you don't improve Minimum Operational Time, even if Maximum Operational Time is infinitely high. The cold environment of Aquilo forces your robots to consume more energy just to stay warm. (Mathematically, C_max = C_min + I + stuff.) C_min is just "Moving consumption" and ignores any other energy requirements. I is Idle consumption, which is negligible on most planets but is magnified on Aquilo. T_min = E_/C_max, so T_min will drop on Aquilo unless you improve the quality of the logistic bots.

And, listing a minimum suggests that there is a maximum. Which, arguably, there isn't, as bots (once again) >DO NOT DIE< when they run out. They don't stop functioning either, they just stop doing anything but seek a recharge.

Well, to be fair, I did say the minimum in red was 18 seconds and maximum in green was 20 seconds. Maximum operating time simply means a point at which any bot would immediately recharge, but they ">DO NOT DIE<." To be direct, here's an example: Suppose there are 3 logistic robots flying around for 18, 19, and 20 seconds at varying velocities. The 20 second bot must recharge now and stops doing its tasks. The 19 second bot also quits, but only because it has met its minimum operational time threshold of 18 seconds and now doesn't give a crap anymore what anyone thinks about it and just wants to DANCE instead of doing its job you asked it to do. So, the 19-second robot, right in front of you, ">DOES NOT DIE<", but abruptly stops its task and instead dances, smiles, frowns, and does just about everything you never once asked the 19-second robot to do. You are saddened with this defiant behavior, but there are other bots still working, so you focus now on the 18-second robot instead. The 18-second robot *wants* to quit. I mean, let's be honest: the 19-second robot just shot a giant middle finger your way, so that tickles the 18-second robot's interests. But, the 18-second robot understands that its life is dictated by the Minimal Operational Time, which is 18 seconds and in the red formula I mentioned. With tears in its eyes, the 18-second robot keeps working, counting down the nanoseconds until the 19 second mark arrives. I mean, it could work longer if it wan-- "I'M SORRY, DID YOU FORGET ABOUT ME?!" screams the 20-second robot, now long forgotten, at the narrator. You see, the 20-second robot really WANTED to work harder, do more, but he just ... well it's just .. he just couldn't, OK?! He was at the Maximal Operational Time.

Like I said before, if you improve the logistic robots quality, you can make that sucker DANCE its little butt right back to work for up to 6 times longer.

My gripe with "Minimum operational time" is described in my previous post, and I won't bore/annoy people with restating it in full, but I will state that it's needlessly complex. Simply changing to "Maximum" or utilizing what one of the people before me suggested - and I replied with "YES! This!" (I think it was "Maximum time between charge") - would make it more easily understood.

The Minimum Operational Time is NOT the "Maximum time between charge." Normal bots can fly up to 20 seconds, but the time you mentioned is 18 seconds. 20 seconds is more than 18 seconds, so 20 seconds is the maximum. The Minimum Operational Time accounts for Aquilo's harsh environment, and bots are required to fly longer at a minimum on other planets than Aquilo. If I understand your comments correctly, what I think you want is a "Maximum Distance Before Recharge" in the info box. On Aquilo, max distance before requiring recharge decreases. I agree that semantics can be confusing!

[Aricitic]

>snip for brevaty<

If I understand your post correctly then you are saying that the "minimum" is the time before it *can* recharge.
Um, isn't that effectively the maximum before it *will* recharge?

Generally speaking, bots will drop what they are doing and recharge once they hit this number, regardless of what they are doing. If the player has done what I once did: in 1.1, creating grids of roboports, ignoring water tiles because they were meaningless -- until I realized that bots will literally stop almost three-fourths of the way across only to turn around and seek a recharge from where they came (rather than on the other side...), then they will discover this to be true.

So far as I know there are only two instances where this isn't true: 1. Bot dies from damage. 2. Bot's task gets removed and it immediately returns to the port.


As pointed out by both of us, "Maximum" never referenced their lifetime as that is "until destroyed". No, "maximum" references the maximum time before they stop their current task and start a new one: "seek recharge at all costs."


And, your point about Aquallo only drives my point forward. This is the maximum time before they stop doing what 'the player' wants them to and start "seeking a recharge" - is it not? If not, tell me, what do they do (that the player wants) beyond this 'minimum'?

Ok... Ok... To be fair to your next point, if there is a maximum - truly a maximum that is not the minimum listed - before they disregard all else and seek a recharge (or to dock, for that matter) what is it and where is it listed? How do you calculate it? If it isn't time between recharges then what metric are you using for "maximum" operational time... as stated above it cannot be 'death' since this only happens when they are destroyed. Nor can it be time between recharges as that is what you use as the "minimum"... So... what is it? (and, I will admit, I may not be reading your text as well as I should. I only recently 'needed' to start wearing glasses and I often forget that they actually help me read text... so...)

Truly... Truly, the minimum operational time, all else be damned, is the additive time between the start and end of the "leaves roboport" animation and the start and end of the "enters roboport" animation. This is the absolute minimum operational time, because "leaves" is "Begin Operation" and the end of "returns" is the "End of Operation".


Finally, with regards to your reply, how does the "Minimum operational time" ignore Aquallo completely... IF the following comment says otherwise?:

I mouse-over'd over a construction bot recharging at a standard (non-personal) roboport on Aquilo and its info card showed a minimum operational time of 6 seconds, which is the maximum flight time I observed with a stopwatch. I have movement speed bonus rank 8 which is +435% (I can't remember if increased speed decreases flight time or not).

If I hover over the same one inside the roboport on Aquilo, it says 30 seconds, which matches my Factoriopedia entry. I get about 30s of flight time out of them on Nauvis.

I think the tooltip should be changed to "time between charges".

So, yes, here I'm confused.


Finally, finally: You didn't answer my last question in my previous post: "One final question I feel that I need to start asking everyone who responds to me: "Who are you in relation to the game? General user? Code digger/hacker/moder? Wube associate? Or part of the game development team?"
The reason I ask is so that I understand your background with regards to your answer."

EDIT: Ok, one last finally. I think after the two of us have one last comment with regards to this we should probably drop this here. We could, potentially, continue in direct/private messages, but I don't see any reason to harass everyone else with this, unless someone else disagrees.

[majik1213]

If I understand your post correctly then you are saying that the "minimum" is the time before it *can* recharge.
Um, isn't that effectively the maximum before it *will* recharge?

If minimum time is before it *can* recharge, maximum time is before it *must* recharge. I already said previously that the minimum time is 18 seconds, maximum is 20 seconds. The bot *can* recharge at 18 seconds, but it *must* recharge at 20. The two values are completely different.

Ok... Ok... To be fair to your next point, if there is a maximum - truly a maximum that is not the minimum listed - before they disregard all else and seek a recharge (or to dock, for that matter) what is it and where is it listed? How do you calculate it?

I'm sorry, I'm now the confused one: I already calculated the maximum time in green for you. I keep saying the maximum time is 20 seconds. The minimum time is 18 seconds. I gave you the formula and calculated these two times for you, but it was in my original reply post, not the previous one. Did you see it there?

Truly... Truly, the minimum operational time, all else be damned, is the additive time between the start and end of the "leaves roboport" animation and the start and end of the "enters roboport" animation. This is the absolute minimum operational time, because "leaves" is "Begin Operation" and the end of "returns" is the "End of Operation".

Hmm, I'm not 100% sure if that's correct, but, let's go with it, though, and see what happens! You want the minimal operational time to be the time from departure to arrival of another roboport, yes? OK, that time depends on speed, because if bots go faster, that time improves, yes? OK. Now, improving the quality improves minimal operational time, yet somehow the speed of the bot NEVER changes regardless of quality. Wait a second, didn't you just say time should depend on when a bot leaves and enters another roboport, which means that if robot quality improves, they must move faster? That seems like a contradiction. This "time" you defined increased with quality, yet somehow the way you measure it, depending on entry/exit times, relies instead on speed of the robot, which never changes. You don't even need a label to tell you minimal operational time to comprehend that quality on the robot depends on energy capacity, energy expenditure, and energy consumption. It doesn't matter what the label even says: if you see it as units of time, and look at the other blue diamonds that denote quality-dependent values, you already know that whatever this "time" value is, it cannot POSSIBLY depend on speed, because speed NEVER changes despite quality improvements in the robot itself. Thus, your idea of time depending on when a robot leaves vs. enters, which in turn depends on speed, cannot possibly be true, even if the "time" label were written in French. Although time is frequently presented as distance over speed, there are many other ways to define time, such as the case here.

[mmmPI]

Finally, I think because you quoted yourself, and not me, I only received an email for the initial post.

I haven't quoted myself, i quoted you. ( and here again)

Still, getting an email is much better than needing to have 20 tabs open to see if anyone has responded.

You don't need 20 tabs open, just one and refresh from time to time to see the notifications counter which should increase when i quote you.

[Aricitic]

If minimum time is before it *can* recharge, maximum time is before it *must* recharge. I already said previously that the minimum time is 18 seconds, maximum is 20 seconds. The bot *can* recharge at 18 seconds, but it *must* recharge at 20. The two values are completely different.

Ok, now, FINALLY, I think I understand where you are coming from.

I still assert that this information is irrelevant to most players. Most players don't care how quickly a bot "can" recharge, but how quickly it "must." But I'm going to leave it at that.

I'm sorry, I'm now the confused one: I already calculated the maximum time in green for you. I keep saying the maximum time is 20 seconds. The minimum time is 18 seconds. I gave you the formula and calculated these two times for you, but it was in my original reply post, not the previous one. Did you see it there?

I don't feel well; I have felt unwell enough to not go to work (and therefore lose money - and be unsure if I'm using lose vs loose correctly...), so, I "saw" your equation, but I didn't "comprehend" your equation.

Hmm, I'm not 100% sure if that's correct, but, let's go with it, though, and see what happens! You want the minimal operational time to be the time from departure to arrival of another roboport, yes? OK, that time depends on speed, because if bots go faster, that time improves, yes? OK. Now, improving the quality improves minimal operational time, yet somehow the speed of the bot NEVER changes regardless of quality. Wait a second, didn't you just say time should depend on when a bot leaves and enters another roboport, which means that if robot quality improves, they must move faster? That seems like a contradiction. This "time" you defined increased with quality, yet somehow the way you measure it, depending on entry/exit times, relies instead on speed of the robot, which never changes. You don't even need a label to tell you minimal operational time to comprehend that quality on the robot depends on energy capacity, energy expenditure, and energy consumption. It doesn't matter what the label even says: if you see it as units of time, and look at the other blue diamonds that denote quality-dependent values, you already know that whatever this "time" value is, it cannot POSSIBLY depend on speed, because speed NEVER changes despite quality improvements in the robot itself. Thus, your idea of time depending on when a robot leaves vs. enters, which in turn depends on speed, cannot possibly be true, even if the "time" label were written in French. Although time is frequently presented as distance over speed, there are many other ways to define time, such as the case here.

Here you fully misunderstood me.

Think of it this way. Roboport with one construction bot in it -> create a ghost -> immediately delete the ghost -> construction bot immediately leaves and reenters roboport. THAT is the minimum operational time.

Finally, I think because you quoted yourself, and not me, I only received an email for the initial post.

I haven't quoted myself, i quoted you. ( and here again)

Still, getting an email is much better than needing to have 20 tabs open to see if anyone has responded.

You don't need 20 tabs open, just one and refresh from time to time to see the notifications counter which should increase when i quote you.

I received two notifications. One for the above post, one for yours. I think we're good on this front.
The reason for 20 tabs, is that I have posts on threads where they don't reply to me directly (or at all), but I'm still interested in what is said.

[mmmPI]

I received two notifications. One for the above post, one for yours. I think we're good on this front.
The reason for 20 tabs, is that I have posts on threads where they don't reply to me directly (or at all), but I'm still interested in what is said.

good to hear
sorry if this off topic but as i'm using the forum quite a lot i've faced the same concern, and i solved it by clicking the "your post" link at the top of the page, you got all threads where you posted at least once listed, and the icon turn orange if there was something new, plus it's put at the top of the list so you can't miss anything !

[majik1213]

Think of it this way. Roboport with one construction bot in it -> create a ghost -> immediately delete the ghost -> construction bot immediately leaves and reenters roboport. THAT is the minimum operational time.

That is an interesting way of thinking about it, where minimum time would be expected to be nearly 0 seconds in this scenario. One thing to keep in mind is that the bot reentered the roboport not because it needed to recharge but only because it had no task assigned to it. In robotics, operational time is defined as the total hours a robot has been powered on, or the time it takes for a robot to complete a task. What you did here was made a task but then removed it before the robot had an opportunity to complete it.

[Muche]

I received two notifications. One for the above post, one for yours. I think we're good on this front.
The reason for 20 tabs, is that I have posts on threads where they don't reply to me directly (or at all), but I'm still interested in what is said.

I use subscribed topics for that. There are also bookmarked topics, if you want to have differing notification vs. email setting for them.

[Aricitic]

I received two notifications. One for the above post, one for yours. I think we're good on this front.
The reason for 20 tabs, is that I have posts on threads where they don't reply to me directly (or at all), but I'm still interested in what is said.

good to hear
sorry if this off topic but as i'm using the forum quite a lot i've faced the same concern, and i solved it by clicking the "your post" link at the top of the page, you got all threads where you posted at least once listed, and the icon turn orange if there was something new, plus it's put at the top of the list so you can't miss anything !

I didn't know about that. I'll start using something like that instead. Thank you.

I received two notifications. One for the above post, one for yours. I think we're good on this front.
The reason for 20 tabs, is that I have posts on threads where they don't reply to me directly (or at all), but I'm still interested in what is said.

I use subscribed topics for that. There are also bookmarked topics, if you want to have differing notification vs. email setting for them.

I probably didn't think of this because typically -- and I KNOW this will be hard to believe --- typically I prefer to remain invisible and anonymous... so "subscribing" to things is 'difficult' for me. I'll get over it.

Think of it this way. Roboport with one construction bot in it -> create a ghost -> immediately delete the ghost -> construction bot immediately leaves and reenters roboport. THAT is the minimum operational time.

That is an interesting way of thinking about it, where minimum time would be expected to be nearly 0 seconds in this scenario. One thing to keep in mind is that the bot reentered the roboport not because it needed to recharge but only because it had no task assigned to it. In robotics, operational time is defined as the total hours a robot has been powered on, or the time it takes for a robot to complete a task. What you did here was made a task but then removed it before the robot had an opportunity to complete it.

True, but look at it another way, if, instead of deleting the ghost, you build it yourself, then the task is complete, not by the robot, but complete none the less.

[Nidan]

This thread seems to have derailed somewhat… I'll limit myself to OP's question.

This seems a bit strange name of a metric to me. I think that this actually means "Maximum Operation Time" if it is the time it takes for the bot to operate at something at the maximum distance.

Am I misunderstanding?

As far as factorio is concerned, "operational time" is the time it takes to drain the bots battery ("energy capacity"). If the bot is doing something energy intensive, i.e. moving, that time will be short:
minimum operational time = energy capacity / max consumption
The other extreme, just idling / hovering in place, allows the bot to be operational for longer:
maximum operational time = energy capacity / min consumption.
Idling seems to consume 3kW, thus for a normal quality bot: maximum operational time = 1.5MJ / 3 kW = 8min 20s.

[majik1213]

Idling seems to consume 3kW, thus for a normal quality bot: maximum operational time = 1.5MJ / 3 kW = 8min 20s.

Oh yeah thanks for that. C_min = I_min = idling consumption. C = C_min + stuff (including C_move = "Moving consumption" = 15.0 kW + 65.25 kW = 75.25 kW). I guess on Aquilo, I_min increases.