| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mikael Deco
   |
Posted - 2009.12.15 09:44:00 -
[31]
Yay, it's working fine now 
Thank you so much.
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2009.12.15 11:17:00 -
[32]
Feature requests:
1. For the 'invention profit' column, the profit shown is currently calculated using the decryptor that maximises profit per invention cycle. Please add an option to use the decryptor that maximises profit per day instead, as the two can be different (e.g. Providence -> Ark, best profit/job gives only half the profit/day of the best profit/day).
2. Please remove component/T1 item build time from the profit per day calculation where Manufactured = no is set via the items screen.
3. Please add an option to include copy time for creating T1 BPCs in the profit per hour calculation, for people who depend on their own BPCs.
---
34.4:1 mineral compression |
FroschForscher
Caldari
The German Star-Fighters
United European Star-Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.15 11:36:00 -
[33]
 Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Feature requests:
1. For the 'invention profit' column, the profit shown is currently calculated using the decryptor that maximises profit per invention cycle. Please add an option to use the decryptor that maximises profit per day instead, as the two can be different (e.g. Providence -> Ark, best profit/job gives only half the profit/day of the best profit/day).
2. Please remove component/T1 item build time from the profit per day calculation where Manufactured = no is set via the items screen.
3. Please add an option to include copy time for creating T1 BPCs in the profit per hour calculation, for people who depend on their own BPCs.
+1
|
anatolix
Rage and Terror
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.12.15 11:49:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Feature requests:
1. For the 'invention profit' column, the profit shown is currently calculated using the decryptor that maximises profit per invention cycle. Please add an option to use the decryptor that maximises profit per day instead, as the two can be different (e.g. Providence -> Ark, best profit/job gives only half the profit/day of the best profit/day).
I will make separate column soon. btw there is a bug in time calculation, I forget to change component building time, so component build for golem for example should be only 2w, not 6w. I will fix this today evening.
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Feature requests:
2. Please remove component/T1 item build time from the profit per day calculation where Manufactured = no is set via the items screen.
Yes, it have a sence.
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Feature requests:
3. Please add an option to include copy time for creating T1 BPCs in the profit per hour calculation, for people who depend on their own BPCs.
Don't really understood yet how to make this correctly. There is no meaning to add it to manufacturing time, because blueprint copying uses lab slots, not factory slots. So they not directly affect you manufactoring throughput. May be I should add them to Invention time instead and make a "profit per invention day".
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2009.12.15 12:38:00 -
[35]
I forgot to add one last feature request - a big one, but potentially really useful: import meta 1-4 item prices (and show which ones are the most profitable to use).
Regarding copy time: it's a separate stage of the process for people who don't buy BPCs, so it should just work like this:
profit per hour = (income - costs)/(total build time + copy time + invention time)
If you want to buy BPCs, you can add their cost via the existing meta item cost field. If you make your own, the time to do so should be added on the bottom half of the equation along with the build & invention time. The idea is to let people see whether there is better profit/hr from buying BPCs or from making their own.
This can be quite significant - e.g. for cloaks, it takes a week to make a max run T1 BPC, comparable to the length of time needed to build the T2 cloaks. Freighters are even worse (I miss the old 0-run BPC exploit  ).
---
34.4:1 mineral compression |
FroschForscher
Caldari
The German Star-Fighters
United European Star-Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.15 12:55:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
profit per hour = (income - costs)/(total build time + copy time + invention time)
this only applies for the first process because you wont have a copy to begin with. after that you will copy while you invent and built.
so i¦d say divide by...
...copy time (if copy time is higher than (invention time + built time (all runs of the bpc))
...built time (all runs) (if built time is higher than copy time + invention time)
i think its always the built time thats highest. so you can copy and invent the next bpc while you built from the last one
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2009.12.15 13:30:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 15/12/2009 13:30:09
Originally by: FroschForscher
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
profit per hour = (income - costs)/(total build time + copy time + invention time)
this only applies for the first process because you wont have a copy to begin with. after that you will copy while you invent and built.
Invention and copy jobs are both affected by the limit on concurrent research jobs per character, so if you want to invent at full capacity, you have to do copying in advance. Even if you have the capacity to do it in parallel, it's still x slot-hours of work that has to be done, so it should count towards a 'profit per slot-hour' figure.
It would be far simpler just to leave this as a 'profit per slot-hour' figure, adding together time needed on all the different types of slots, rather than a 'profit per hour via critical path' estimate, which would have to take into account a lot of complex scenarios. It's still a (very useful) benchmark.
---
34.4:1 mineral compression |
CSI Eve
Caldari
atomic comic
|
Posted - 2009.12.15 13:52:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 15/12/2009 13:30:09
Originally by: FroschForscher
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
profit per hour = (income - costs)/(total build time + copy time + invention time)
this only applies for the first process because you wont have a copy to begin with. after that you will copy while you invent and built.
Invention and copy jobs are both affected by the limit on concurrent research jobs per character, so if you want to invent at full capacity, you have to do copying in advance. Even if you have the capacity to do it in parallel, it's still x slot-hours of work that has to be done, so it should count towards a 'profit per slot-hour' figure.
It would be far simpler just to leave this as a 'profit per slot-hour' figure, adding together time needed on all the different types of slots, rather than a 'profit per hour via critical path' estimate, which would have to take into account a lot of complex scenarios. It's still a (very useful) benchmark.
i agree with you that the additive approach is far simpler.
however, the inventor has to do network planning and critical path analysis to maximize his profit (and for the perfect pos setup in the first place).
the question is, would an item that is the most profitable based on the simple approach still be the best item after a critical path analysis? if both profit lists (simple/critical path) for all items give (almost) the same result then i¦d say lets keep it simple.
if the lists show huge differences then i¦d say lets follow the critical path or skip the profit per... aproach completely
|
aruchra
|
Posted - 2009.12.15 19:42:00 -
[39]
datacore calculation was so wrong :(
the first datacore is rite calculation, but the 2nd and 3rd is wrong, i dont calculate the other line after it again.
i will link the picture here
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/0912/InvCalcWrong.jpg
My question is did i do something wrong ? or the software is wrong ??
|
anatolix
Rage and Terror
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.12.15 21:02:00 -
[40]
Originally by: aruchra
datacore calculation was so wrong :(
the first datacore is rite calculation, but the 2nd and 3rd is wrong, i dont calculate the other line after it again.
i will link the picture here
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/0912/InvCalcWrong.jpg
My question is did i do something wrong ? or the software is wrong ??
Strange. Looks like a bug. How to get it? I cannot reproduce.
|
|
|
R'SMP
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 14:42:00 -
[41]
I think the original version is missing Salvager II, Codebreaker II and Analyzer II - can you add those?
|
anatolix
Rage and Terror
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 14:51:00 -
[42]
Originally by: R'SMP
I think the original version is missing Salvager II, Codebreaker II and Analyzer II - can you add those?
And also small and medium sized rigs. Yes but not tomorrow. I already said this above - it will require a lot of time to make import from dominion from scratsh. So I will do this as soon as I will have waste of free time :)
|
Brim Stargazer
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 14:56:00 -
[43]
I am receiving a bug where by the max size the window can increased is not big enough to contain all the text.
For example in the items edit Items window anything to the right of the import prices from EVE central check box is cut off and the window cannot be resized past this point (horizontally). A similar problem occurs where half of the invention profits box is cut off (vertically).
I can run version 0.45 without these problems
I hope I have explained the problem clearly. I am using Windows 7 with 2560x1600 res.
Can the limit on the size windows can be extended to be removed? or something similar to fix this problem. The program is unusable for me in the current form  |
Rotarn Nele
|
Posted - 2009.12.18 14:00:00 -
[44]
Assome job continuing the good deed.
I still get a problem on startup though. It reads "Error reading NewItems.dat: invalid item". And then there are no Items in the Main Window list too select for invention jobs.
I am running Visa 64 on german settings. Tried changing the seperator etc. didnt work. Deleted the old folder etc.
A slightly confused looking computer boon here ^^
|
Lacolo Basema
Kotar Engineering
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 13:27:00 -
[45]
This is really awesome, mad props for fixing it! I've been addicted to the old edition, it simply is the best invention calculator in my book.
|
shadowtrekker
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 05:07:00 -
[46]
This is a great tool and I really appreciate you updating it for Dominion.
I do have a few feature requests perhaps if you are able:
1. Add more items to the columns selection on the main screen, mainly Single run copy time, Max run copy time, Invention installation, Build installation, and Revenue for this item. I'd really like to see these in the table format because it would be a lot easier to then compare items and see really which is the best for me to manufacture. I realize that since there are sometimes multiple T2 items for each T1 item, that this might be easier said than done, but some ability to see all the data at once would be really nice so that it is easier to compare profit. Perhaps if adding more column items is hard, could there just be an export all pricing data feature where it puts everything currently listed in the main window into a single file with one row per T2 item, so multiple rows of the same T1 item?
2. Currently I can simply use Snagit to capture the text from the main table and move it into excel and then sort it how I like, but a .txt output of the table as tab delimited would be awesome as well.
3. Add some extra keyboard shortcuts for things like "Extra > Invention Results > Add Invention Result, Extra > Shopping List > Add T2 item to list, and Extra > Shopping List > Add invention to list"
4. The original version of this software ran in one single program on the taskbar, but now it seems to have multiple windows listed on the task bar, starting with the main window and then what seems like a blank cmd window that has to remain open, along with new windows for each of the things like invention results, items, etc. Perhaps this is by design to be able to move between open windows more easily, but it just seems to clutter up the task bar quickly.
Thanks,
ShaddowTerkker
|
Ruby stardust
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 08:01:00 -
[47]
Thanks for the hard work. Just a few small concerns.
I compared all the source code with the originals files and the source changes looks good. Exactly what you would expect however,
As I couldn't find a free dephi compiler that worked out the box I uploaded your exe to www.virscan.org to which scans using 30 different virus scanners. Unfortanately it returned a couple of positive Trojan results. http://www.virscan.org/report/0083b6414735faa4d8b7629d890f1345.html
For comparision the old previous invention calculator recieved no positives.
http://www.virscan.org/report/0b2e197ef83a3ab6886a13a344559172.html
The orginal exe was also 1.6 mb where your program is over 7 mb. Thats probably just a compiler setting.
|
C'ompass
|
Posted - 2010.01.06 19:18:00 -
[48]
recompiled
http://leteckaposta.cz/852759874
|
Barakkus
Caelestis Iudicium
|
Posted - 2010.01.07 00:38:00 -
[49]
If you need help with fixing anything let me know, I program in delphi for a living ;)
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2010.01.07 11:39:00 -
[50]
The new version is apparently clean:
http://www.virscan.org/report/748a628a660897e6a52639dfe1afa2ee.html
Barakkus - if you're volunteering, the feature requests mentioned earlier in the thread are probably worthy of your attention.
---
34.4:1 mineral compression |
|
|
anatolix
Rage and Terror
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.01.11 12:26:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Ruby stardust
Thanks for the hard work. Just a few small concerns.
I compared all the source code with the originals files and the source changes looks good. Exactly what you would expect however,
As I couldn't find a free dephi compiler that worked out the box I uploaded your exe to www.virscan.org to which scans using 30 different virus scanners. Unfortanately it returned a couple of positive Trojan results. http://www.virscan.org/report/0083b6414735faa4d8b7629d890f1345.html
For comparision the old previous invention calculator recieved no positives.
http://www.virscan.org/report/0b2e197ef83a3ab6886a13a344559172.html
The orginal exe was also 1.6 mb where your program is over 7 mb. Thats probably just a compiler setting.
I think it is just virus scan bug. Many trojans written in dephi, my Antivirus(NOD32) says nothing. Size is increased because of debug version.
|
anatolix
Rage and Terror
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.01.11 12:45:00 -
[52]
Edited by: anatolix on 11/01/2010 12:50:16
Originally by: Barakkus
If you need help with fixing anything let me know, I program in delphi for a living ;)
Source code are with a program, feel free to implement any feature request here :)
And btw, in my version of Delphi TTabSheet don't have ExplicitLeft property, while burchov dfm contains it. I thing it is cause issue with form sizes reported here. Does this property introduced in some Update pack? Look like I have same Delphi version as Burchov?
|
Nekerjsemmit
|
Posted - 2010.01.14 12:42:00 -
[53]
The T2 materials for T2 ships seem to be wrong on the shopping list. If you set any ME with decryptors, and add them to the shopping list, the amount displayed for manufacturing of some components are wrong. They are correct, if you click the build cost on the main screen, but seem to be wrong when adding to the shoppinglist.
Otherwise great job!
|
Galyrion
Alcatraz Inc.
Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 12:57:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Galyrion on 15/01/2010 13:00:30
My account was just hacked cos of this program, STAY AWAY!
This is how u play AAA? Realy low RAT, didnt thing u went into this kind of metagaming
|
Nekerjsemmit
|
Posted - 2010.01.20 09:50:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Galyrion
Edited by: Galyrion on 15/01/2010 13:10:34
...
"..." was the right answer :)
Sorry, it was my mistake, I didnt realise that the main window shows the max run inputs :(
Keep up the good work!
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.01.24 00:52:00 -
[56]
Don't know if this is a bug or because it's Windows 7 64Bit.
But the Meta levels do not update the chance of success.
Also Deep Core Mining Laser I doesn't have an invention type e.g. Ship, Rig, Normal, it's N/A :)
This is with the 0.49D (Dominion Fix) version.
Amarr for Life |
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.01.24 01:16:00 -
[57]
Originally by: CSI Eve
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Originally by: FroschForscher
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
profit per hour = (income - costs)/(total build time + copy time + invention time)
this only applies for the first process because you wont have a copy to begin with. after that you will copy while you invent and built.
Invention and copy jobs are both affected by the limit on concurrent research jobs per character, so if you want to invent at full capacity, you have to do copying in advance. Even if you have the capacity to do it in parallel, it's still x slot-hours of work that has to be done, so it should count towards a 'profit per slot-hour' figure.
It would be far simpler just to leave this as a 'profit per slot-hour' figure, adding together time needed on all the different types of slots, rather than a 'profit per hour via critical path' estimate, which would have to take into account a lot of complex scenarios. It's still a (very useful) benchmark.
i agree with you that the additive approach is far simpler.
however, the inventor has to do network planning and critical path analysis to maximize his profit (and for the perfect pos setup in the first place).
the question is, would an item that is the most profitable based on the simple approach still be the best item after a critical path analysis? if both profit lists (simple/critical path) for all items give (almost) the same result then i¦d say lets keep it simple.
if the lists show huge differences then i¦d say lets follow the critical path or skip the profit per... aproach completely
Either way, for each individual JOB it requires a copy time at the number of runs, and if successful requires the amount of manufacture time of a SINGLE RUN.
Technically the "time" sunk into profit for a simple T2 invented item is as followed.
Manufacture time + Invention time + (Copy time / T2 BPC Runs)
For example (Using the 0.49D version) a Hulk would be this.
6H 28M (A single copy) + 6H 28M (Invention time) + 2D 15H 20M (Manufacture time)
However, a Mod would be (100MN MWD) You get 1 T2 Run per 30 Run copy of the T1 BPO. So time is..
1M 18S * 30 (30 run copy) + 6H 28M (Invention Time) + 21H 6M 40S (Manufacture time)
Amarr for Life |
Talmeric Eratirel
|
Posted - 2010.01.30 18:27:00 -
[58]
Just FYI, the patch & app works perfectly under linux + wine.
I don't know if there is some bug in the calculations (I'm still trying to figure what does all the shiny numbers exactly means, as I'm not english, I guess it will a pain in the ass to read the entire original thread), but there isn't any obvious bug (except for the help window, who just refuse to show).
Anyway, when I'll be rich, I'll send you some ISK for this great work (SoonÖ ?)
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2010.01.31 00:01:00 -
[59]
Originally by: SencneS
Either way, for each individual JOB it requires a copy time at the number of runs, and if successful requires the amount of manufacture time of a SINGLE RUN.
Technically the "time" sunk into profit for a simple T2 invented item is as followed.
Manufacture time + Invention time + (Copy time / T2 BPC Runs)
One invention attempt can generate a BPC with multiple T2 runs, so your brackets are misplaced. If you also allow for failed attempts, it becomes:
Slot time per T2 run = T1 Build time + T2 build time + (Invention time + copy time)/(T2 runs * success chance)
Remove T1 build time and copy time if you don't do those yourself.
---
34.4:1 mineral compression |
LogicSequence
|
Posted - 2010.02.07 03:48:00 -
[60]
Unfortunately, if you use any kind of font DPI scaling on your computer the patch renders invenction calculator unusable because the words run off the window, and the program appearently has a hard coded resize limit, which forbids you to make the windows bigger to compensate :(. Would sure love it if this was fixed.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |