Thanks to:

Italian forum Mods and members and in particular to

**Hugoz**

BlackRazor

BlackRazor

DannyD

Bizzy

All the ones who will partecipate to translation (contact your Mod)

Special thanx to:

jorganos (german forum)

**PROLOGUE**

-----------------

Mines... the strangest factory in the X-Universe.

I love to plan my next expansion with precision, I can easily find the balance of a station but I have a problem... how can I choose the right sector with the right asteroid on which I can build a mine that will sustain my complex productivity with raw materials?

This is the question that started this long discussion, all based on the infallible mathematical and logical language, that will lead us to the total knowledge of a mine behaviour... through other questions...

Why, with the change of the asteroid yield, all the empirical results, that we may imagine linear and easy to calculate, are not "so easy"?

Why with different yields we have the same production?

What happens if I choose to install a mine on a yield zero asteroid... or if I install the wrong mine on a wrong asteroid?

Why should I decide to build there and not here?

Why...

This topic is the answer to all questions about mines, from empirical sampling to code analysis, from formulae to tables... to the end of mines' mistery.

**MINES AND PRODUCTIVITY**

--------------------------------------

Abstract

To start: we want to allow anyone with a calculator in hand (but also paper and pen are good since the simplicity of calculations) to predict how many products a mine will produce knowing already the yield . Others have already developed speeches depth and better articulated about Factories, and Loop Complex.

**Here we only talk of mines.**

Far from me to give the idea that what follows as the infallibility and the importance of what I first inappropriately called “study”. After all I have not certainly discovered the Maxwell Equations, which only name them lead me to chilling school’s memories!

The

**"Equations of Mietitore"**already named, play a little “different”.

Below we exposed the two "paths" that led to the equations:

1. Experimental – the sampling we have -> data -> chart -> equations closest possible to chart;

2. Analyzing the code - code reading -> interpretation -> adaptation -> equation (discovered by Garga-Potter).

The second of two routes grew after the publication of respect topic, as a result of numerous speeches, but mainly thanks to intense collaboration with

**Garga-Potter**to who, with great personal pleasure (and much boredom by everyone else ...), I had a confrontation in “algebra tongue". The final equation was deduced by him: if anyone is interesting about the whole "gestation" which led to the result I invite you to read the numerous replies to the main post (in italian forum).

Otherwise, if you want to get quick and jump directly to the calculation, go to the end of the post, just copy the table and equations, and take a pen and paper and... Have fun.

**EXPERIMENTAL METHOD**

------------------------------------

Sampling and Analysis

So I decided to sample, during playtime, the various types of mine both Mineral and Silicon to find, once accumulated a certain amount of data to understand what's the relationship is between the yield of an asteroid deducted from the use of Mineral Scanner Upgrade and the potential productivity in time.

Since most of the cycles of stations last a minute and that every production is easily traceable to that unity of time, for convenience, exportability and comparability of the data I have decided to refer to the "minute" (aka 60 seconds).

I don't have made a lot of test indeed, even for reasons of time, but shortly after it was appear, as the rest was predictable, that the relationship between Profit and Productivity is linear, that the plan represented by a Cartesian straight. Consequently that to find had to be a equation of First Instance.

In this image (if you click on the thumbnail is the same in original size), I reported the results of sampling for mines with Profit from 1 to 10 and their graphs that represent the relationship between this and productivity.

As expected the relationship is represented by lines on the plane. The formula for this type of graphic has to be something like

Y = nX + c

So considering Y = Productivity and X = Yield, empirically (or rather doing various efforts), I tryed to understand which value attach to "n" and "c" to come nearer to the representation that the graphics gived back putting in the data of the sampling.

I created and used four spreadsheets to immediately compare real data with the previsions of the formula i tryed. The following images shows some examples:

Ore Mine M

Silicon Mine L

Results

After some hours of lost sleep, I picked out the following formula which I bring up to scratch with some attempts that confirmed the good precision. I tryed to reduce the drifts which creates around real and expected data to minimum. These drifts born probably from the number of sampling which, clearly, if has been bigger it would be more exact.

Nevertheless the formula can be reckoned enough exact... mainly as designed for the game.

I reached these conclusion for the computation of the productivity. Notice that the result, as saied before, is expressed in product units for minute:

**ORE MINE M**

Productivity = 0,19 x Yield + 0,2

For more precision remember that 0,19 is a recurring decimal

The drifts of this formula is represented by a sinusoidal function of type X*Sin(X) and, instead of real date, has to be considered nonessential as fluctuate between +0,15 and -0,25 product units for minute. For example, on a value of production of 12 units for minute we will have an error of about 0,25 unts (equal to 2,8%).

**ORE MINE L**

Productivity = 0.47 x Yield + 0.4

This is the case in which for time reasons i could less improve, but at least for non excessive Yield the drift seems to be nonessential. As soon as i will have time i will try to improve the computation.

**SILICON MINE M**

Productivity = 0,5 x Yield + 0,5

Here the drift seems even to be absent, at least for Yield values non excessive.

**SILICON MINE L**

Productivity = 0,125 x Yield + 0,12

For more precision remember that 0,125 is a recurring decimal.

Also in this case the drift is almost nothing.

**SIMPLIFYED FORMULA**

For simplicity, but with detriment for the accuracy, con be used the following formula, more "memorized":

1. ORE MINE M --> Productivity = 0,2 x Yield + 0,2

2. ORE MINE L --> Productivity = 0.45 x Yield + 0,45

3. SILICOME MINE M --> Productivity = 0,5 x Yield + 0,5 (..equal to original)

4. SILICON MINE L --> Prouctivity = 0,12 x Yield + 0,12

Examples

Lets do some explaining practical examples

**EXAMPLE 1:**

Is given a ore asteroid, which yield is

**Ore = 15**, using the formulae we obtain

Ore Mine M formula > Productivity = 0,19 x Yield + 0,2

Products per minute = 0.19 x

**15**+ 0,2 = 3,08 Ore

Ore Mine L formula > Productivity = 0.47 x Yield + 0.4

Products per minute = 0.47 x

**15**+ 0.4 = 7.45 Ore

**Result:**with good precision on this asteroid we can predict mine productivity in

**3 Ore**per minute in a M sized mine and

**7.45 Ore**per minute in a L sized one.

**EXAMPLE 2:**

Is given a silicon asteroid, which yield is

**Silicon = 23**, using the formulae we obtain

Silicon Mine M formula > Productivity = 0.05 x Yield + 0.05

Products per minute = 0.05 x

**23**+ 0.05 = 1,2 Wafers

Silicon Mine L formula > Productivity = 0.125 x Yield + 0.12

Products per minute = 0.125 x

**23**+ 0.12 = 2.99 Wafers

Result: with good precision on this asteroid we can predict mine productivity in

**1,2 Wafers**per minute in a M sized mine and

**2.99 Wafers**per minute in a L sized one.

**CODE ANALYSIS**

*(joined work by*

**Garga-Potter**& Mietitore)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this part of the topic I will use the plural form, that's not why now I have greatness obsession to use the "pluralis majestatis", but only because all comes out from the collaboration by me and Garga-Potter: without his support I surely had stopped to the empirical phase of it.

I will try to summarize all the phases that leaded us to the goal: if you don't love mathematics I suggest you to jump forward and copy the table and the formula that, after all, you can solve in 30 seconds also with paper and a pen.

Scripts and Parameters

Starting directly from the code part who manage the mine behaviour on X3 (taken by the linked topic by

**jlehtone**, english moderator, who has our gratitude)

the first problem comes from the knowledge of two parameters without which we can not solve the equations in first and third code line: BASETIME and Fab_size.Basic_cycletime = rounddown( BASETIME / (Yield + 1) ) + 1 seconds

Multiplier = rounddown( 59.9 / Basic_cycletime ) + 1

Cycletime = Multiplier * Basic_cycletime

Products per cycle = Multiplier * Fab_size

To simplify we set: K = BASETIME e J = Fab_size.

These parameters depend on the Mine type we wont to analyze (Ore Mine or Silicon Mine) and on the structure size (M o L).

On the following table you can find the values based on the mine type and size, with which we can calculate the productivity per minute:

So, thanks to the code, now we can define the mine cycle-time (T) and the products number the mine produces for every cycle (P).

The steps

Now products per minute (Pm) are easy to desume from the simple mathematical relation

**Pm = 60 * P / T**

in which, from code lines, we can change

**Pm = 60 * Multiplier * J / Multiplier * T**

and with a simplification (Multiplier can be erased)

**Pm = 60 * J / T**

Now, looking at the first code line, we can replace T with the expression, considering int = rounddown (function that gives the integer part of an argument)

**Pm = 60 * J / ( int ( 600 * K / R + 1) + 1**

Finally: the formula

Definitely simplifying and balancing the coefficients we obtain the definitive formula to calculate a given mine products per minute, having the yield of the asteroid on which we wont to install it (c.d.

**Garga-Potter Formula**).

Replacing

**J**and

**K**with the table value and

**R**with the asteroid yield we will obtain the mine products per minute (

**Pm**).

Examples

**EXAMPLE 1**: We want to know how much a

**Ore Mine M**can produce in a minute if placed on a

**Yield=15**asteroid.

In this particular case we can set K = 600, J = 120 (from the table) and R=15

First step we solve K / (R+1) = 600 / 16 = 37.5

than we calculate int(37.5)+1 = 37 + 1 = 38

and finally J / 38 = 120 / 38 =

**3.15**Ore / minute

**EXAMPLE 2**: We want to know how much a

**Silicon Mine L**can produce in a minute if placed on a

**Yield=10**asteroid.

In this particular case we can set K = 2400, J = 300 (from the table) and R=10

First step we solve K / (R+1) = 2400 / 11 = 218.181818

than we calculate int(218.181818)+1 = 218 + 1 = 219

and finally J / 219 = 300 / 219 =

**1.369**wafers / minute

**EXAMPLE 3**: We want to know how much a

**Ore Mine L**can produce in a minute if placed on a

**Yield=100**asteroid.

In this particular case we can set K = 600, J = 300 (from the table) and R=100

First step we solve K / (R+1) = 600 / 101 = 5.94

than we calculate int(5.94)+1 = 5 + 1 = 6

and finally J / 6 = 300 / 6 =

**50**ore / minute

Easy, isn't it?

**OTHER RESULTS AND TABLES**

----------------------------------------

As a direct result of the deep mathematical study about mines, I calculate other equations used to generate four spreadsheets.

These are tables with the data obtained from the mathematical formulae found directly analyzing the script code who manage the calculations in game.

In these tables you can read the data about every single mine in realation with the asteroid on wich it is built accordingly to this

**Legend:**

Rendita (yield): Yield of an asteroid scanned with Mineral Scanner Upgrade

Prod / min: Mine production capability per minute (Pm)

Ciclo (sec): Mine production cycle-time in seconds (T)

Prod / Ciclo: Products per production cycle (P)

Celle / Ciclo: Energy needed per production cycle (E)

**I will now list which formulae leads to the table data.**

Set:

**R**= Yield (in italian is Rendita.. so it's "R")

and considering the parameters table in which

for

**Ore Mine M**: J = 120, K = 600

for

**Ore Mine L**: J = 300, K = 600

for

**Silicon Mine M**: J = 120, K = 2400

for

**Silicon Mine L**: J = 300, K = 2400

we have

Pm = J / ( int ( K / (R + 1) ) + 1 )

*Garga-Potter's Formula*

T = ( int ( 59,9 / ( int ( K/(R+1) ) +1 ) ) +1 ) * ( int ( K/(R+1) ) +1 )

*deducted by script code*

P = ( int ( 59,9 / ( int ( K/(R+1) ) +1 ) ) +1 ) * J / 60

*deducted by script code and balanced*

E = P * K / 100

*deducted by samples*

**Finally here are the four tables we can now generate using the formulae:**

Ore Mine M

Ore Mine L

Silicon Mine M

Silicon Mine L

**CONCLUSIONS**

---------------------

Data emerged from samples and deducted from the experimental equations match with those coming from the script-code, but, obviously those coming from the code returns more accurate results.

There is no doubt that this last equations are, despite of their harder difficuty to resolve, more precise, elegant and correct, but, for the easier kind of expression they hare, due to the lack of parameters, i keep in this topic also the experimental equations, for those who don't love mathematics so much.

**THE X - MINE CALCULATOR**

-------------------------------------

Thanks to the numerous formulae we found with the long process of this topic, great

**Garga-Potter**, who leaded the creation process, presents us this utility to calculate, fast and easy, the data that now we can obtain.

Here is the link!

http://www.deligant.net/extra/X3MineCalc.php?lang=ru

----------------------------------------

Last update:

*2008/04/10 18.31*

All reported error and comments will be welcome.

Mietitore.