| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Roland Grey
Gallente
Nexus Aerospace Corporation
   |
Posted - 2009.12.18 18:48:00 -
[91]
I may just not be that smart, but how do I set Datacore prices?
|
EternalFaust
|
Posted - 2009.12.18 19:49:00 -
[92]
You would need to go into "Market Prices" in the menu and find the datacore you want, then right click it and "Add custom Price".
|
EternalFaust
|
Posted - 2009.12.18 21:48:00 -
[93]
Just to let everyone know, there are miscalculations with the BPC cost (it is being multiplied by output runs instead of avg number of attempts). This will be fixed shortly, but I am still looking into a couple of other potential bugs as well.
|
Bel Amar
Amarr
Children of Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.12.19 00:32:00 -
[94]
 Originally by: Roland Grey
I may just not be that smart, but how do I set Datacore prices?
That functionality is core EVEHQ functionality, rather than specific to this plugin. You set the prices using Market Prices under the Tools menu, and then all of the EVEHQ plugins can access it...
|
Fre'ki
|
Posted - 2009.12.19 00:46:00 -
[95]
Originally by: EternalFaust
well.... i'll be damned... I see exactly what you mean now. I honestly was confused about what you were saying was happening. But I absolutely see what you mean now. I'll get right on this, it is a HUGE mistake.
Hehe, got there in the end :) Excellent and speedy job of improving this plugin and very much appreciated!
|
Fre'ki
|
Posted - 2009.12.19 15:25:00 -
[96]
OK I think you have a similar problem with R.A.M units for Modules.
I was looking at 10MN MWD and with the manufacture components unchecked and no decryptor used the total units = 1 and total price = 27,400.
With the box checked the total units increases to 10 and the total price to 165,437. So it looks like with the box unchecked it is using a single unit whilst with it checked it is using the output run total.
|
EternalFaust
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 06:54:00 -
[97]
I do apologize for my reply time on this. I actually forgot to update my repo with the latest fixes when i left work on friday, so I actually can't fix anything til monday...
I actually became aware of this on saturday morning when I did exactly the same thing, on exactly the same BPC... I know exactly what I messed up and how to fix it but it's going to be another 12 hours before i get into the office to fix it. I do apologize for this and I also apologize for my last post which was actually inaccurate. The bpc cost is being used exactly as I meant it to be.
|
EternalFaust
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 00:03:00 -
[98]
Edited by: EternalFaust on 21/12/2009 00:04:39
Ok, hopefully the latest release I just put up should fix the issues people have been having.
To get the corp bps and pilot bps to show correctly, the first time you use this version please use the "Clear Assets Cache" and then perform an API retrieval. You should only need to do the clearing once, after that everything should be in the new format and it won't be needed again.
|
FroschForscher
Caldari
The German Star-Fighters
United European Star-Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 05:54:00 -
[99]
Originally by: EternalFaust
"Clear Assets Cache"
canŠt find this option. i THINK iŠve tried everything, i cant find it
|
Fre'ki
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 10:54:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Fre''ki on 21/12/2009 10:55:13
The latest beta has introduced another problem for me. I have a scroll area, containing an asset list, now showing on top of the component area - I can't get rid of it and therefore cannot see the component requirements :(
Screenshot attached
|
|
|
Imperator Infinita
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 11:07:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Fre'ki
Edited by: Fre''ki on 21/12/2009 10:55:13
The latest beta has introduced another problem for me. I have a scroll area, containing an asset list, now showing on top of the component area - I can't get rid of it and therefore cannot see the component requirements :(
Same problem here
|
EternalFaust
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 11:13:00 -
[102]
Ah crap! I can't believe I left that there! I am doing a quick rebuild to hide that panel as it is always there just not normally visible. I am so sorry. I don't even know how I didn't notice that I had left it visible.
The clear assets cache option is in the main menu under invention calculator. I will hide that panel and get it reuploaded in a few minutes.
|
Imperator Infinita
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 12:46:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Fre'ki
OK I think you have a similar problem with R.A.M units for Modules.
I was looking at 10MN MWD and with the manufacture components unchecked and no decryptor used the total units = 1 and total price = 27,400.
With the box checked the total units increases to 10 and the total price to 165,437. So it looks like with the box unchecked it is using a single unit whilst with it checked it is using the output run total.
Now it does the opposite, when I check 'Manufacture the components' it miscalculates the needed advanced moonmaterial. Just did a quick check so I don't know the exact math.
|
Karina Redstar
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 12:46:00 -
[104]
Edited by: Karina Redstar on 21/12/2009 12:51:11
Big bug when using the "Manufacture the components". I get lower build cost on a -3ME then on a -1ME decryptor.
Seems like it shows the right number of components needed (2,3 runs) but then only calculates the materials needed for 1.
|
EternalFaust
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 13:26:00 -
[105]
Edited by: EternalFaust on 21/12/2009 13:35:38
Can you give me a specific example of this. The decryptor doesn't affect the build cost of the t2components. I will have to look and make sure that the decryptor me modifier is being taken into account on the number of t2 components needed though.
|
Fre'ki
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 14:27:00 -
[106]
It looks like it is doing what it did before. With it checked it is dividing the build cost of components by output runs again.
eg Curse with Circular Logic
Unchecked - Build Cost for Tungsten Carbide = 494,471,902
Checked - Build Cost for Tungsten Carbide = 41,742,650
|
EternalFaust
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 14:34:00 -
[107]
Ok, thanks, I'm sorry to be failing to get this right for you. I will endeavour to get it correct this time.
|
Lord Helghast
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 19:55:00 -
[108]
Edited by: Lord Helghast on 21/12/2009 19:56:00
glad to see your working on fixing bugs etc...
as a future feature request, wud be wicked if the "meta items" were selectible and pulled from the evehq data... so if im building a 100mn mwd, the meta items, would be a drop down of the available meta items and their prices pulled from the evehq evecentral cache, its not really a necessity but wud be nifty to add once the actual invention is solidified. :)
|
Aeropagus
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 01:44:00 -
[109]
One request: If I choose to "Manufacture Components", is there anyway that an option be included to reflect the quantities needed in the "Resources Owned" when it is selected? Also, could a report be possibly made when you have the spare time? Or perhaps a better copy option? Of course, these are requests and only for my convenience. Hopefully they make sense and I want to say great job on it your plug-in so far!
|
EternalFaust
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 06:01:00 -
[110]
Edited by: EternalFaust on 22/12/2009 06:04:51
I honestly don't know why but de ja vu is kicking in. I could have sworn I'd answered this exact request before. The resources owned section already shows the resources need for building the components when "manufacture" is checked.
Also, the concept of doing the meta item drop down is a good one and not too difficult to implement, though as you suggested, it will have to wait until I get the core of the plugin working correctly.
Also under resources owned, there is a copy button that copies the data out as a tab delimited table.
It shows, the material name, the quantity needed, the quantity owned, and the shortfall (ie. how much you need to buy).
|
|
|
Dharken Rhaal
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 17:12:00 -
[111]
Meta items don't change invention chance for me. Did I miss something about chance calculation or that's a bug?
|
Lord Helghast
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 19:30:00 -
[112]
LMAO i completely missed that it doesnt work, changing meta doesnt change results, confirmed bug.
Eternal found another bug..
When you enable "manufacture components", it doesnt do the base item manufactured...
like the 100mm reinforced steal plates... the manufacture check, enables the manufacturing of the tungsten carbide plates, and R.A.M module... but it leaves the required "100mm reinforced steel plate I" as buy from market, not as produceable.
in reality it should show the manufacturing of this as well...
In reality you should have a check mark, and a column that will show, for "apply owned BP ME stats" so if you own the R.A.M module, it will use that R.A.M modules ME in the calculation for the total minerals needed. i think thats currently missing right? that way if i have all the module BPO's i'd get a column showing my BPO's ME that was used for the calculation, and for the ones that i dont have it wud show ME 0
|
Aeropagus
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 03:33:00 -
[113]
I'm sorry. Perhaps I wasn't very clear or maybe I have a bugged version. I was talking about the T2 components for the build. If you look at the picture below, for example, you'll notice when you have "manufacture components" checked, it shows the need for over 14000 Titanium Carbide.
Now, if you look at this photo, you'll notice that titanium carbide, checked in the previous tabs, shows a mere 137 units need. My question was could this be fixed for the quantities to reflect accurately what is need for the entire T2 manufacture.
If I have a bugged version somehow, then I am sorry. This happens on all my BPOs and it is just a request. Thanks for your time.
|
TigerXtrm
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 05:19:00 -
[114]
Maybe I'm just stupid, but how can I be making a bigger loss if I enter a bigger value for the outcome item?
Example:
Not much extra cost, POS production, invention and copying. When I enter a number in Item Price it influences my net profit, of course. But shouldn't a higher number mean a higher net profit or have the laws of mathematics done a 180 while I was asleep?
Either that or I have no idea how this program is supposed to work. 
|
EternalFaust
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 06:03:00 -
[115]
Tiger, totally depends which price box you are talking about. If you are putting it in the one next to the meta level box, it means you are outlaying that cost on a meta item for invention. If it is the bottom box, then I have another bug to find.
Meta does change the chance, however, depends on other factors as to how much. With my personal skills it makes no difference what so ever, but with my corp members skills it produces a change.
The building of the T1 item I had disabled specifically because it is not technically a T2 Component, but I will happily re-enable it. As for the checkbox idea, I will honestly say I won't be doing that, at least, not for quite some time. I would like to, but it is a little too complex for me to spend time on at the moment while there are so many other bugs. The ME used is currently the optimal for each individual T2 component, and as such, shows you the best case scenario, and I would assume that most would try to get the ME on these BP's up to reduce their outlay if they were at all serious about making a decent profit through invention.
Aeropagus, I'm very sorry mate, I can see what you mean there, and holy crap, that's bad. I honestly had not noticed this. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'm on it. As for the report thing, I'll look into it, as I have currently never looked at the EveHQ core reporting.
Thanks for your reports guys, I'll get stuck into it now.
EternalFaust.
|
Bel Amar
Amarr
Paragons of Order
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 12:01:00 -
[116]
Originally by: TigerXtrm
...or have the laws of mathematics done a 180 while I was asleep?
Go easy, he's already said he's not an industrialist. This is written as a favour for corp mates, and released publicly voluntarily. As a non industrialist, he's not seeing any direct benefit out of his own code, so if you find problems, how about pointing them out to him in that spirit?
|
Lord Helghast
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 16:16:00 -
[117]
Edited by: Lord Helghast on 23/12/2009 16:19:32
Originally by: EternalFaust
Tiger, totally depends which price box you are talking about. If you are putting it in the one next to the meta level box, it means you are outlaying that cost on a meta item for invention. If it is the bottom box, then I have another bug to find.
No he means the sell price for the t2 devise. so the price that the resulting t2 item is worth, i dont exactly understand what the heck hes talking about cause i just did antimatter charge L, changed price to 1000 per unit and the profit went up, as wud be expected.
Originally by: EternalFaust
If you are putting it in the one next to the meta level box, it means you are outlaying that cost on a meta item for invention. If it is the bottom box, then I have another bug to find.
You sure it doesn't help? I think theirs a major bug their, no matter skill it should help increase the % chance of success... and currently no matter what meta you choose the% chance of success remains the same THIS IS A BUG
Originally by: EternalFaust
The building of the T1 item I had disabled specifically because it is not technically a T2 Component, but I will happily re-enable it. As for the checkbox idea, I will honestly say I won't be doing that, at least, not for quite some time. I would like to, but it is a little too complex for me to spend time on at the moment while there are so many other bugs. The ME used is currently the optimal for each individual T2 component, and as such, shows you the best case scenario, and I would assume that most would try to get the ME on these BP's up to reduce their outlay if they were at all serious about making a decent profit through invention.
Ok is that the ML field (the recommended ME thats used in the calculation?)
Originally by: EternalFaust
Aeropagus, I'm very sorry mate, I can see what you mean there, and holy crap, that's bad. I honestly had not noticed this.
icky bug :)
...
Eternal can you pls pls fix the green/red highlight, it should highlight the avg profit per success not the revenue when success, as this is the number that really matters to any actual inventors out their. and scrolling through BP's looking for which ones to do its very misleading when a revenue shows as green 10M but the avg profit is a 4m loss.
|
EternalFaust
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 21:45:00 -
[118]
Ok, if it's the T2 sell price then I'm at a loss too because unless you're putting in a negative sell price it will never increase your profit in this plugin. And I mean never, there is literally no margin for error in this regard as the field is literally used once and I'm looking at that calculation right now and it is being deducted.
And yes, I'm certain of my chance calculations also. I have been back over this math and there are no holes in it. I use the precise formula outlined at http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online/invention_chance.php for chance. If you don't feel that it is correct feel free to modify the calculation in the "Invention Calculator->Settings" page, where the custom chance formula now handles correct order of operations.
Yes, when I say ME i'm referring to the ML.
Yes I'm currently trying to fix that bad bug and as soon as I get it sorted out I will do a new release which also has the colour change requested.
|
EternalFaust
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 22:33:00 -
[119]
Ok guys, sorry that took so long, that manufacture bug was a slippery bugger.
1.3 Up now.
|
Aeropagus
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 23:56:00 -
[120]
EternalFaust - Thanks so much for your changes! If only the rest of world had your dedication and devotion, it would be heaven. Since it isn't happening, I'll take this little slice and just want to say thanks! |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |