 |
|
Dansz
|
|
lost in space
Mar 2004 time: 05:35
|
|
I hope that doesn't mean all the other information is old. I hadn't seen any of it from looking through previous threads.
I'm fairly sure that it is true, I don't know how to prove it, but I haven't found any counterexamples.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dansz
|
|
lost in space
Mar 2004 time: 05:35
|
|
I know that E-mirrors can be crawled. And I was trying to suggest that it's no good having more mirrors than collector's, because if they were all swapped round you'd get the same output with less terraforming time.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dansz
|
|
lost in space
Mar 2004 time: 05:35
|
|
I hadn't seen any of the "matured" stuff when I'd looked through previous threads. As everyone seemed to be mentioning square parks, I assumed everyone thought they were the best shapes.
I also knew that people had said in some cases having more mirrors than collectors doesn't help; I was trying to say that in all cases, it doesn't help.
Chaos Theory has come up with the proof I was thinking of, but I wasn't sure I hadn't overlooked anything.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Santiago_Claus
|
|
If you start with the assumption of, say, 7 available squares for a park you get some really weird "optimal" arrangements which don't suggest any sort of ultimate best shape for a larger area.
Make it, say, 49 squares instead and the area / perimeter effect makes itself felt. Given a large enough park, the best shape would be the largest area inscribed by the smallest perimeter: a circle!
Circular nutrient parks, on the other hand, indicate the presence of Progenitors, that is if the Chiron Enquirer's dire warnings are to be believed: "Crop Circles Evidence of Alien Visitation, Experts Warn".
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Chaos Theory

|
 |
Missouri / Misery; CC
Oct 2002 time: 04:35
|
|
Read what I posted and consider what happens if a mirror has less than 8 panels next to it, or a panel has less than 8 mirrors next to it. Everything I wrote still holds.
Look at it slightly differently. Take a field of panels and mirrors. For each panel, calculate how much extra energy it receives from mirrors (in that field). For each mirror, calculate how much extra energy it contributes to panels (in that field). Obviously, the sums of these sets must be equal, and each in isolation represents the actual energy gained over homogenous solar panels.
Swap every mirror and panel. As I explained in my previous post, for each tile, the bonus energy it contributes or receives must stay the same. Therefore, all of the bonuses in the mirror set are mapped into the panel set, and vice versa. Their sums remain the same and still represent the energy gained over simply using solar panels.
Nothing here depends in any way on the shape of the field, its elevations, solar flares, or any other qualities of the field. However, the following qualities may vary when you exchange mirrors and panels:
The variation in energy from tiles may vary. In other words, one field may be more desirable than the other if you don't have enough crawlers to cover the field.
Terraforming time will likely vary.
...can't think of anything else significant that varies right now.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Skanky Burns
|
 |
Skanky Bastard Quartermaster
Aug 2001 time: 14:35
|
|
code: e4e 3e3 2e4e4e4e2
e5e6e5e 2e5e5e2 3e6e6e6e3
e6e6e6e 4e6e6e4 3e6e6e6e3
3e6e6e6e3 e5e6e6e5e 3e6e6e6e3
3e6e6e6e3 e6e6e6e6e 3e6e6e6e3
3e6e6e6e3 e5e6e6e5e 3e6e6e6e3
e6e6e6e 4e6e6e4 3e6e6e6e3
e5e6e5e 2e5e5e2 3e6e6e6e3
e4e 3e3 2e4e4e4e2
Tiles: 61 Tiles: 61 Tiles: 81
e: 32 s: 29 e: 29 s: 32 e: 36 s: 45
Ftime: 457 FTime: 328 FTime: 423
Energy: 148 Energy: 148 Energy: 200
e/t: 2.43 e/t: 2.43 e/t: 2.47
e/F: .324 e/F: .451 e/F: .473
3e3 e4e 2e4e4e2
e5e5e 4e6e4 3e6e6e3
3e6e6e3 e5e6e5e 3e6e6e3
3e6e6e3 e6e6e6e 3e6e6e3
3e6e6e3 e5e6e5e 3e6e6e3
e5e5e 4e6e4 3e6e6e3
3e3 e4e 2e4e4e2
Tiles: 37 Tiles: 37 Tiles: 49
e: 17 s: 20 e: 20 s: 17 e: 21 s: 28
Ftime: 196 FTime: 211 FTime: 252
Energy: 86 Energy: 86 Energy: 114
e/t: 2.32 e/t: 2.32 e/t: 2.33
e/F: .439 e/F: .408 e/F: .452
Key:
e = eschelon mirror
s= solar collector
FTime = Former time (8e + 3s)
e/t = energy per tile
e/F = energy per Former time
Regardless of the metric used to measure this, square energy parks seem superior to circular parks. They are built faster compared to the energy they produce, and they net you more energy per tile used.
EDIT: Fixed both middle figures.
Last edited by Skanky Burns on 18-04-2004 at 07:51
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Skanky Burns
|
 |
Skanky Bastard Quartermaster
Aug 2001 time: 14:35
|
|
code: e4e4e 2e4e4e4e4e4e4e4e4e4e4e4e4e2
3e5e6e6e5e3 3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
3e5e6e6e6e6e5e3 3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e 3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3 3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e 3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3 3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
4e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e4 3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e 3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e 3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e 3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3 3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3 3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3 3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3 3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3 3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e 3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e 3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e 3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
4e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e4 3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3 3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e 3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3 3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e 3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
3e5e6e6e6e6e5e3 3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
3e5e6e6e5e3 3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
e4e4e 2e4e4e4e4e4e4e4e4e4e4e4e4e2
Tiles: 553 Tiles: 729
e: 275 s: 278 e: 351 s: 378
Ftime: 3034 Ftime: 3942
Energy: 1554 Energy: 2054
e/t: 2.81 e/t: 2.82
e/F: .512 e/F: .521
EDIT: Still not as efficient as a square.
Last edited by Skanky Burns on 18-04-2004 at 19:10
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Santiago_Claus
|
|
Damn, SB, I'm impressed! Hah! Not even I went to the trouble of making models of circular energy parks, but I'm glad somebody did.
Building things in a circle is ... umm, "impractical" I think is the word I'm looking for. Besides, I'm into parallel ridges (have I exceeded my quota for that phrase this month?)
However, in defense of the circle it bears mentioning that both circle and square efficiency is directly proportional to the overall size of the park, and that the lean, compact circle with a mere 553 tiles slightly tops the ponderous old square which tips the scales at 729.
Put another way, a square of 553 tiles would be less efficient; a circle of 729 tiles would be more.
Not that I would advocate building circular energy parks. Where would you fit the thing?
Hmm ... if you raised concentric rings centered on Mount Planet you could tell how old the park was by counting them ... ok, why is everybody looking at me like that?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Chaos Theory

|
 |
Missouri / Misery; CC
Oct 2002 time: 04:35
|
|
I counted 1558 energy in your circle, for an energy/tile of 2.817. However, as I look at your circle, I see obvious improvements. Any empty tile next to 3 mirrors should be filled with a panel, since the average bonus/tile is less than 3. Likewise, any empty tile next to three panels should be filled with a mirror. That produces an octagon. After that, I add rows and columns until I no longer gain energy/tile. It turns out that adding a row of n tiles gives 3n - 1 energy, but adding a column of n tiles gives 3n energy. Therefore, the right and left sides of the octagon (now hexagon) become points, but the top and bottom remain flattened. Then, here is how I can improve the circle:
code:
3e4e4e3
e5e6e6e5e
4e6e6e6e6e4
e5e6e6e6e6e5e
4e6e6e6e6e6e6e4
e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e
4e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e4
e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e
4e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e4
e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e
4e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e4
e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e
4e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e4
e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e
4e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e4
e4e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e4e
4e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e4
e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e
4e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e4
e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e
4e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e4
e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e
4e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e4
e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e
4e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e4
e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e
4e6e6e6e6e6e6e4
e5e6e6e6e6e5e
4e6e6e6e6e4
e5e6e6e5e
3e4e4e3
Bonus: 1896 (hex) vs 1558 (circle) vs 2054 (square)
Tiles: 667 (hex) vs 553 (circle) vs 729 (square)
B/T = 2.84258 (hex) vs 2.81736 (circle) vs 2.81756 (square)
Mirrors: 333 (hex)
Panels: 334 (hex)
Ftime: 3666 (hex)
B/F: .51718 (hex)
To optimize for former efficiency, since F(panel) = 3, place panels such that they give more than B/F * F(panel) = 1.55 energy each. Plenty of empty tiles are adjacent to two mirrors. Furthermore, mirrors should be eliminated that give less than B/F * F(mirror) = 4.14 energy each. If this is done, the energy park looks like this:
code:
2 2
3e4e4e3
2e5e6e6e5e2
4e6e6e6e6e4
2e5e6e6e6e6e5e2
4e6e6e6e6e6e6e4
2e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e2
4e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e4
2e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e2
4e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e4
2e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e2
4e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e4
2e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e2
4e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e4
2e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e2
3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
3e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e3
2e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e2
4e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e4
2e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e2
4e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e4
2e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e2
4e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e4
2e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e2
4e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e6e4
2e5e6e6e6e6e6e6e5e2
4e6e6e6e6e6e6e4
2e5e6e6e6e6e5e2
4e6e6e6e6e4
2e5e6e6e5e2
3e4e4e3
2 2
Bonus: 1954
Mirrors: 331
Panels: 366
Ftime: 3746
B/F: .52162 vs .52106 (square)
Last edited by Chaos Theory on 18-04-2004 at 15:19
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Santiago_Claus
|
|
The question that comes to mind now is whether the optimal shape as area -> infinity is
1. A "trimmed circle"
2. An n-gon, where "n" is constant
3. An n-gon, where "n" increases as a function of increasing area (an increasing "n" makes this a lot like a "trimmed circle")
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35. Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|