Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Solver suggests using both the standard recipe and the alt when alt strictly dominates #57

Open
aldanor opened this issue Mar 19, 2021 · 4 comments

Comments

@aldanor
Copy link

aldanor commented Mar 19, 2021

An example (link) where both Solid Steel Ingot and Steel Ingot are used at the same time. However Solid Steel Ingot (2, 2 -> 3) strictly dominates Steel Ingot (3, 3 -> 3) in terms of raw resources, so it's weird that the solver decides to pick both at the same time (and then even route the outputs to the same nodes):

image

@greeny
Copy link
Owner

greeny commented Mar 19, 2021

that's most likely due to the known "bug", where maximise doesn't optimise for raw resources. Best way to go around this is to copy the number that you get and put it to the tool again with "items/min", then it'll be optimised for raw resources. New version that's in the works will do this automatically tho, so you'll have even maximise setups optimised for raw resources.

@aldanor
Copy link
Author

aldanor commented Mar 19, 2021

Fair enough, thanks! (maybe this example will come helpful during dev as a test case)

@aldanor
Copy link
Author

aldanor commented Mar 19, 2021

Just a note - may also be useful to add a checkbox "Only use one recipe per part" (and maybe even set it on by default) - it happens very often in both modes (maximize and items/min) - that it picks e.g. both Modular Frame and Steeled Frame etc. Realistically, you would pretty much always just pick one, even if there's 1% difference in performance.

@greeny
Copy link
Owner

greeny commented Mar 19, 2021

While being technically possible, it's not a big priority for now. May add it later I guess.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants