Page 1 of 1
[0.15.10] Oil patch and pumpjack expected resources mismatch
Posted: Sun May 14, 2017 9:52 pm
by steinio
Hi,
after setting infinite=false for oil patches the amount for expected resources is shown 10 times higher in the pumpjack as on the patch:
255.762
2.500.000
What is also needed to be checked, which of both values is the correct one.
Greetings, steinio.
Re: [0.15.10] Oil patch and pumpjack expected resources mismatch
Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 3:03 am
by Rseding91
They're both correct. The description shows the amount in the resource and the mining drill shows the amount of oil expected from mining the resource. Oil is setup to mine 10 oil per time one is mined.
Re: [0.15.10] Oil patch and pumpjack expected resources mismatch
Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 5:22 am
by steinio
Rseding91 wrote:They're both correct. The description shows the amount in the resource and the mining drill shows the amount of oil expected from mining the resource. Oil is setup to mine 10 oil per time one is mined.
OK so we really get 2.500.000 oil?
Re: [0.15.10] Oil patch and pumpjack expected resources mismatch
Posted: Fri May 11, 2018 8:43 pm
by thereaverofdarkness
Rseding91 wrote:They're both correct. The description shows the amount in the resource and the mining drill shows the amount of oil expected from mining the resource. Oil is setup to mine 10 oil per time one is mined.
It seems wrong, because after the fluid change that multiplied fluid amounts by 10, the amount displayed in oil patches seems to have been multiplied by 10. Where I used to see ~25k per patch, I now frequently see ~250k per patch. The end result is that an oil patch lasts ten times as long as before. It was hard enough to get a patch to deplete before, but now I don't think I'll ever get functionality out of Steinios' unlasting oil mod before the end of the game. My one patch is going to give me more than enough oil to start launching rockets.
Re: [0.15.10] Oil patch and pumpjack expected resources mismatch
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:01 am
by thereaverofdarkness
I just ran a test and confirmed there is a bug which is multiplying the oil.
I have an oil patch which read 83% in unmodded, and 250099 with Steinio's Unlasting Oil. I ran it for a while in unmodded, collecting 8.3 oil per second, and collected 699 oil in a storage tank. When mod was loaded, oil patch read 249419, a reduction of 680. Some small gain apparently occurred (rounding error? I have no mining productivity research) but the patch depleted by approximately the same amount as what I received. When I ran the pumpjack modded, I collected 10 oil per second and got 600 oil. The patch now read 249359 oil, having depleted by only 60.
This proves that the mod is indeed multiplying oil by ten.
Re: [0.15.10] Oil patch and pumpjack expected resources mismatch
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 4:37 am
by steinio
thereaverofdarkness wrote:I just ran a test and confirmed there is a bug which is multiplying the oil.
I have an oil patch which read 83% in unmodded, and 250099 with Steinio's Unlasting Oil. I ran it for a while in unmodded, collecting 8.3 oil per second, and collected 699 oil in a storage tank. When mod was loaded, oil patch read 249419, a reduction of 680. Some small gain apparently occurred (rounding error? I have no mining productivity research) but the patch depleted by approximately the same amount as what I received. When I ran the pumpjack modded, I collected 10 oil per second and got 600 oil. The patch now read 249359 oil, having depleted by only 60.
This proves that the mod is indeed multiplying oil by ten.
You can have a look at the code, there is no multiplication.
I explicitly added an option to devide the amount for people which don't like it.
Re: [0.15.10] Oil patch and pumpjack expected resources mismatch
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:03 am
by thereaverofdarkness
steinio wrote:You can have a look at the code, there is no multiplication.
I explicitly added an option to devide the amount for people which don't like it.
I meant that the mod is causing it, and that's the bug. You reported the bug, Rseding91 said the bug was invalid, but I have demonstrated that it is valid.