EVE Search - Extraction output units/hr for PI

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Science and Industry

Extraction output units/hr for PI

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Gamingloser1	Posted - 2011.01.19 04:02:00 - [1] First, this isn't a complaint about about the inability to make p3 on one planet. This is a complaint about output per hour seems to jumping around: I've placed my ECU and a nice "hot zone." I then added 8 extractor heads. The output per hour is rated at 90k units when I do a one hour cycle. None of the units are overlapping (no red % number off). When I install the program it gives me way lower number (70k per hour) than originally said. Even worse...if I cancel that cycle and restart another the number is completely different again (44k for instance). There is no logic to what how many I will get....making planning near impossible. Is the cancelling of the cycle causing the output to change? tl;dr output estimate vs. output actual does not match. What's the point of having an estimate if it isn't even close? Planning near impossible.
Mirac Factar Gallente Hypergolic	Posted - 2011.01.19 04:23:00 - [2] The estimate is based of what your planetology skills indicate the distribution of resources is i.e what you see on the heatmaps too The output is based on the Actual distribution of minerals is. The better your planetology and advanced planetology skills are the closer these numbers will get. This just in, the energizer bunny has been arrested and charged with battery.
Gamingloser1	Posted - 2011.01.19 04:29:00 - [3] Originally by: Mirac Factar The estimate is based of what your planetology skills indicate the distribution of resources is i.e what you see on the heatmaps too The output is based on the Actual distribution of minerals is. The better your planetology and advanced planetology skills are the closer these numbers will get. Isn't that a big swing as far as percentage. Both of my planetology skills are at a 4. Getting less than 50% of estimate is a big swing.
Hellaciouss Genco	Posted - 2011.01.19 04:31:00 - [4] Originally by: Mirac Factar The estimate is based of what your planetology skills indicate the distribution of resources is i.e what you see on the heatmaps too The output is based on the Actual distribution of minerals is. The better your planetology and advanced planetology skills are the closer these numbers will get. He'a at 4/4 (as he mentioned in another thread) and I am at 4/4. I'm sorry but having both at 4/4 should not show you as mining 80k when in fact you're only mining 40k. Maybe only level 3 in basic planetology should do this but at 4/4 I expect far better results...a drop in 40k is just dumb when you have 4/4, so I am going to still assume something is completely screwed in the system until ccp shines some light on the subject.
Gamingloser1	Posted - 2011.01.19 04:46:00 - [5] Just moved the extractor to another location.....similar results. 90k estimate....less than 62k was the initial result. So thats about 1/3 drop. First install 90k estimate 61500 actual. Canceled 1 hr cycle. Second install 90k estimate 60297 actual. Canceled 1 hr cycle. Third install 90k estimate 56520 actual. Canceled 1 hr cycle. Four install 90k estimate 52242 actual. Canceled 1 hr cycle. Fifth install 90k estimate 48498 actual. Canceled 1 hr cycle. So the pattern is obvious. It seems like the units are depleted and wasted if you end up canceling a program. I'm going to wait an hour and re-run the program to see what effects it has on extraction rates.
Hellaciouss Genco	Posted - 2011.01.19 04:55:00 - [6] ok on a 5 hour cycle with 4/4 scanning skills I went from 297k total to 202k total. That is not an acceptable drop with 4/4...
Sam Brockson Gallente	Posted - 2011.01.19 04:59:00 - [7] Originally by: Gamingloser1 This is a complaint about output per hour seems to jumping around: If you are referring to the numbers under Output (Output per hour and total output) on the bottom right of the ECU survey screen, the Per Hour number displayed is a percentage of the Total Output and at best used as an average to keep your extractors running. I have noticed on a 5 hour run, the Per Hour percentage displayed is 20% of the Total Output and 10% on a 10 hour run. So far, from my experimentation, it's best to move the drill heads around for maximum output - usually only one head is in the center of a red spot, a few are on the fringe between red and orange, and the rest between orange and yellow.
Gamingloser1	Posted - 2011.01.19 05:13:00 - [8] Edited by: Gamingloser1 on 19/01/2011 05:14:28 Originally by: Sam Brockson Originally by: Gamingloser1 This is a complaint about output per hour seems to jumping around: If you are referring to the numbers under Output (Output per hour and total output) on the bottom right of the ECU survey screen, the Per Hour number displayed is a percentage of the Total Output and at best used as an average to keep your extractors running. All of my numbers have been strictly using a one hour cycle. So units per hour = units total. So I exited out of planetary mode and went back to planet that I was quoting 90k/hr. Now it is quoting 79501 unit/hr (again 1 hr cycle). I did not move any pins or and I have not started any other programs. So again.....units/hr is quite dynamic. If this is truly the way CCP intended....units per hour is a waste (confusing at best) and should not be used for planning purposes. Any PI newbs out there want give us some quotes on actual vs estimate? Please be sure to list levels of both planetology skills?
Gamingloser1	Posted - 2011.01.19 05:45:00 - [9] Just installed another one hour program: Estimate was 79501 and actual was 47166. Pins/ECU were not moved.
Ilena Grace Power and Friendship and Heroism	Posted - 2011.01.19 06:48:00 - [10] Edited by: Ilena Grace on 19/01/2011 06:48:40 the hourly output figure in the survey window is the AVERAGE hourly output (of the complete extraction cycle), it is NOT the output of the moment.

Steve Thomas Minmatar	Posted - 2011.01.19 07:10:00 - [11] ok one last time before I simply advise you to DELETE all of your characters and accounts so your never ever tempted to come back to EVE online, LOOK AT THE GRAPH that is sitting RIGHT IN THE BLOODY MIDDLE OF THAT SCREEN you notice that the curve is not a simple semetrical curve and that it has bumps and spikes in it, often that first set of spikes is HIGHER than your initial production run. Aparently someone went on break and chuckged down a keg of red bull syrup or something now compare that FIRST colum to your output, It should match exactly. Now look at that number to the far right, depending on how long you set it it will be either lower or higher than that innitial run. because its the average of ALL of the production cycles for that Extractor head. if you set it for a fairly short run, the odds are quite good that it will be a bit higher than your first produciton output as your production hits that first spike. If its a longer cycle, then obviously its going to be a lot lower than your actual output on that first production cycle, (unless you set a 2 or 4 hour cycle. Also, that right side per hour is PER BLOODY HOUR! your first run can be as short as 15 min, or 30,so do the math and see how "off" it is. Now If after I explained it to you you STILL feel the need to say "But Im not getting the production I was promised by that right hand number!!!!!1!!1!!!1" then just follow the following steps to correct your problem, Go to your log in screen, Bio mass all of your characters Wait 10 hours complete termination Log out of EvE online Go to the account management screen and cancle your accounts. find a game thats more your speed and base comprehension level. may I recomend a game like wow or Free relms. No I am not kidding. your obviously not smart enough to play EvE online. end of line.
Sigras	Posted - 2011.01.19 07:14:00 - [12] Im having an interesting and unique problem, im mining a gas planet in 0.0 for Ionic Solutions. All of my Hats are in place and my program time is 5 days 18 hours (138 Hours) the Output after the job has been started reads: Per Hour: 12,112 Total: 1,671,592 This seems right to me because 1,671,592 / 138 = 12,112.98 (so im getting ripped off one unit per hour) Im on cycle 3, so cycle 2 is clearly over, but something is wrong; when I mouse over cycle 2, (my highest cycle) it says: Cycle 2 85,772 units Accumulated: 151,787 Units 4 Hours 37,946 Per Hour which also makes sense because the first hour is 66,015 units making the total of the two hours the accumulated, and the average per hour correct too, however the place that Ive routed the materials to is empty, and the only draw is two basic industry units making electrolytes. Each one uses 6,000 units per hour, so in the two hours since they've received cycle two, (assuming they were empty when the cycle finished) they could have used at most 30,000 units, so where did the other 55,000 units go?
Steve Thomas Minmatar	Posted - 2011.01.19 07:21:00 - [13] Edited by: Steve Thomas on 19/01/2011 07:23:26 did you account for each processors buffer? each processor can hold 3000 P1 units before fireing off a production run. if they filled exactly on the first run then thats where it went. oh and what did you use for storage?
Steve Thomas Minmatar	Posted - 2011.01.19 07:28:00 - [14] and one last thing, you did make sure that you have product going out of the ECT to storage, and from storage to the processor(and that your Not useing the CC for storage in that setup given that it can only hold 50,000 P0 units to start with)
Sigras	Posted - 2011.01.19 07:28:00 - [15] Edited by: Sigras on 19/01/2011 07:29:03 Originally by: Steve Thomas Edited by: Steve Thomas on 19/01/2011 07:23:26 did you account for each processors buffer? each processor can hold 3000 P1 units before fireing off a production run. if they filled exactly on the first run then thats where it went. oh and what did you use for storage? I used a storage facility for storage, so it isnt for lack of space, and yeah they can hold 3k units of the P0 mat before starting a run, but when I looked at them, they were empty and also that still doesnt account for the missing 49,000 P0 the graph indicates I should have had . . . perhaps im reading something wrong? but im pretty sure im not. Oh and BTW Planetology 4 Advanced Planetology 4 Originally by: Steve Thomas and one last thing, you did make sure that you have product going out of the ECT to storage, and from storage to the processor(and that your Not useing the CC for storage in that setup given that it can only hold 50,000 P0 units to start with) Yeah the reactor is routed, i made sure of that.
Steve Thomas Minmatar	Posted - 2011.01.19 07:31:00 - [16] Edited by: Steve Thomas on 19/01/2011 07:33:00 Originally by: Sigras Originally by: Steve Thomas Edited by: Steve Thomas on 19/01/2011 07:23:26 did you account for each processors buffer? each processor can hold 3000 P1 units before fireing off a production run. if they filled exactly on the first run then thats where it went. oh and what did you use for storage? I used a storage facility for storage, so it isnt for lack of space, and yeah they can hold 3k units of the P0 mat before starting a run, but when I looked at them, they were empty and also that still doesnt account for the missing 49,000 P0 the graph indicates I should have had . . . perhaps im reading something wrong? but im pretty sure im not. Oh and BTW Planetology 4 Advanced Planetology 4 Did you double check that each step (From extractor to storage and storage to processor then back to storage) had product going to the next step. Ive dumped entire days extraction at the head from forgetting to make sure had all my links set edit missed your reply im a bit stumped, you did get the finished goods back from the first run right?
Steve Thomas Minmatar	Posted - 2011.01.19 07:42:00 - [17] http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Stevethomas/A_longer_guide_to_PI.pdf Go to page 13 to see what I ment earlyer. then double check your extractor. If its showing that everything was routed it will show up in one line white. if only part of it was routed for some reason or if you changed the production run after doing a test setup (Ie moved the heads and added heads) it will sometimes purge the routing data because it assumes you changed the production completly and may need to rebuild the route. or if you simply stoped, changed the production time and then restarted it may be sending the wrong amount to the storage and then dumping the rest, just purge the existing rout and reset it.
Sigras	Posted - 2011.01.19 07:55:00 - [18] Edited by: Sigras on 19/01/2011 07:58:11 Originally by: Steve Thomas Edited by: Steve Thomas on 19/01/2011 07:33:00 Did you double check that each step (From extractor to storage and storage to processor then back to storage) had product going to the next step. Ive dumped entire days extraction at the head from forgetting to make sure had all my links set edit missed your reply im a bit stumped, you did get the finished goods back from the first run right? Yeah I double checked all of the routes, theres a route going from my ECU to my storage facility, and one from my storage facility to each processor, and yes I am getting my electrolytes from my processors, so it seems that everything is in working order, its just that my ECU isnt producing enough. Interesting that when I click on routes, it says 15,566 as the quantity; I have no idea where theyre getting that number from as that doesnt seem right at all. Im fairly certain im doing this right but I have no idea why this isnt producing the result im expecting. EDIT: Unfortunately this is my only example as this was the only extractor/processor set that was empty at the time of this PI reset.
AS LordASB	Posted - 2011.01.19 09:22:00 - [19] Edited by: AS LordASB on 19/01/2011 09:24:11 hi P = level 5 AP = level 4 remote sensing 4 command center 5 interplantary 5 i am also getting the same, got a planet making biomass, placed 5 heads down, on 14days i have had 2 completed runs so far of 4 hours each, each 4 hour set is listed as 40957 per hour for each hour of that 4 hours, second one is 39844 per hour. now in the bottom right its listed as 7716 units per hour i emptyed the lunchpad so i know how much biomass has been made at 220 which is 11 completed runs of 3000 units via 2 factories, this totals only 33000 units of p0 total production. looking at the chart its listed as accumalated total units as 318759 units on cycle 2, but i can only account for 33000 units. looking again at the output per hour which is in the bottom right at given 4 hour x2 cylces completed i should have 61728 p0 make based on this number looking at the extractor control unit its listing the currect cycle output as 154931 and its 2:57 minutes into the 3rd 4 hour run. which is right... i worked off the 7716 number thinking that would provide that each hour for the 4 hour run, thus giving me 61728 p0 per 4 hours, or if you look at the graph more at the start e.g. the 150k + units which are shown, my lauchpad should be rammed right about now ready for when the extractors are only making less than 50k per cycle per hour. to say its confusing is an understatment at present. and yes i did try this on sisi as well having the same result... edit: going to file a report anyway cause if nothing else they need to explain it better... or edit what we see so its right.
Horror Master Preeternal Spark SOLAR FLEET	Posted - 2011.01.19 09:54:00 - [20] 1. Fill a bug report. 2. Tells us what's CCP answer is? Thank you :)

AS LordASB	Posted - 2011.01.19 10:15:00 - [21] yep will do. just added some more info the bug report at the request of BH Eriweal
Random Statistic	Posted - 2011.01.19 11:38:00 - [22] Have you checked that the link can handle the volume on the largest cycle - not the average for the installed run?
AS LordASB	Posted - 2011.01.19 11:52:00 - [23] yes or it would not let me route the product in the first place.
Gamingloser1	Posted - 2011.01.19 14:34:00 - [24] Originally by: Steve Thomas ok one last time before I simply advise you to DELETE all of your characters and accounts so your never ever tempted to come back to EVE online, LOOK AT THE GRAPH that is sitting RIGHT IN THE BLOODY MIDDLE OF THAT SCREEN you notice that the curve is not a simple semetrical curve and that it has bumps and spikes in it, often that first set of spikes is HIGHER than your initial production run. Aparently someone went on break and chuckged down a keg of red bull syrup or something now compare that FIRST colum to your output, It should match exactly. Now look at that number to the far right, depending on how long you set it it will be either lower or higher than that innitial run. because its the average of ALL of the production cycles for that Extractor head. if you set it for a fairly short run, the odds are quite good that it will be a bit higher than your first produciton output as your production hits that first spike. If its a longer cycle, then obviously its going to be a lot lower than your actual output on that first production cycle, (unless you set a 2 or 4 hour cycle. Also, that right side per hour is PER BLOODY HOUR! your first run can be as short as 15 min, or 30,so do the math and see how "off" it is. Now If after I explained it to you you STILL feel the need to say "But Im not getting the production I was promised by that right hand number!!!!!1!!1!!!1" then just follow the following steps to correct your problem, Go to your log in screen, Bio mass all of your characters Wait 10 hours complete termination Log out of EvE online Go to the account management screen and cancle your accounts. find a game thats more your speed and base comprehension level. may I recomend a game like wow or Free relms. No I am not kidding. your obviously not smart enough to play EvE online. end of line. Thank you for your excellent advice. I completely agree someone should give up if they can't understand drastic changes to an industry system that has very little confirmed documentation within one day of implementation. So let me detail this again....just built a fresh planet: Deleted all old structures. Yes even the spaceport. Placed ECU unit on planet. Submitted. Placed 8 pins on in "hot zones." Since all of my cycles I've quoted above are only 1 hr cycles my estimated units per hour is 91,098 and total units says 91,098. No pins are overlapping. No pins have the negative red percentage. Click install program. Submit. Should be good to go right? When I look at the graph in the BLOODY MIDDLE OF THE SCREEN it says my output per hour has CHANGED to 60766/hr. So again the graph in the BLOODY MIDDLE OF THE SCREEN is about one third less than the program that I installed. I understand how to read a graph. It is the actual output versus the initial program quote that is confusing people (more than just myself). advanced planetology 4 CCU 5 IC 5 Planetology 4 Remote Sensing 3 How dare any of us try to discuss something in a forum. I should be ashamed.
AS LordASB	Posted - 2011.01.19 15:09:00 - [25] since 9:30 am this morning and i am still waiting to hear any news... i agree gamingloser i would not be bothered if it just made some sence, ie what it thinks i should be getting and what i am really getting out the other side. even if they just made a updated video / help it might go some way to cutting down the confusion but hay we are just the paying customer....
Dirk Smacker United Space Marine Corp	Posted - 2011.01.19 15:15:00 - [26] Originally by: Mirac Factar The estimate is based of what your planetology skills indicate the distribution of resources is i.e what you see on the heatmaps too The output is based on the Actual distribution of minerals is. The better your planetology and advanced planetology skills are the closer these numbers will get. This is what I love about the new PI system. That and the way the hotspots deplete on you coupled with the ability to stop and change programs at any time.
Nomex	Posted - 2011.01.19 16:02:00 - [27] Have to admit I'm 'baffled' about the new PI units/hr thing. What confuses me more is the scan data appears to have no relation to the yield, either. I have Planetology and Advanced Lv4.
Una Achura	Posted - 2011.01.19 17:27:00 - [28] Originally by: Mirac Factar The estimate is based of what your planetology skills indicate the distribution of resources is i.e what you see on the heatmaps too The output is based on the Actual distribution of minerals is. The better your planetology and advanced planetology skills are the closer these numbers will get. Butbut... The estimate seems to vary independently of the heat map.. I'm at 4/4 and consistently get higher estimates in the reds than in the whites so something is wierd (can't see any other players extractor heads interfering eighter). I kinda like it, but it would be nice to know what if any is the more reliable of the heat map or the estimated number. Time will tell I guess.
Cassina Lemour Minmatar	Posted - 2011.01.19 17:42:00 - [29] Edited by: Cassina Lemour on 19/01/2011 17:45:20 Originally by: Sigras Edited by: Sigras on 19/01/2011 07:24:44 Im having an interesting and unique problem, im mining a gas planet in 0.0 for Ionic Solutions. All of my Hats are in place and my program time is 5 days 18 hours (138 Hours) the Output after the job has been started reads: Per Hour: 12,112 Total: 1,671,592 This seems right to me because 1,671,592 / 138 = 12,112.98 (so im getting ripped off one unit per hour) Im on cycle 3, so cycle 2 is clearly over, but something is wrong; when I mouse over cycle 2, (my highest cycle) it says: Cycle 2 85,772 units Accumulated: 151,787 Units 4 Hours 37,946 Per Hour which also makes sense because the first hour is 66,015 units making the total of the two hours the accumulated, and the average per hour correct too, however the place that Ive routed the materials to is empty, and the only draw is two basic industry units making electrolytes. Each one uses 6,000 units per hour, so in the two hours since they've received cycle two, (assuming they were empty when the cycle finished) they could have used at most 30,000 units, so where did the other 55,000 units go? EDIT: Cycle 3 just finished; the graph says it should produce 72,886 units. The two reactors that draw from it just filled themselves, and they were empty before, so thats 6,000 units, and the storage facility now has 3,570 units in it. Am I missing something? 6,000 + 3,570 != 72,886 Arent the numbers supposed to be estimates before I start the program and absolute after? or is the graph always an estimate and we just get what we get because from the numbers above, it seems im getting around 13.13% of what the graph indicates; perhaps I should fire the people giving me the estimates as they seem WAY off. I'm getting the same issue, Some ECU actually seem to produce nothing, and some only 10% of what they should be. What actually appears in the storage is also only 10% of what the extraction program popup says was extracted when you hover over the cycle. It looks like somebody got a dp in the wrong place somewhere during the transfers.
Arwen Ariniel Gallente Shaolin Legacy Preatoriani	Posted - 2011.01.19 18:19:00 - [30] Originally by: Sigras ... so where did the other 55,000 units go? Having the same problem. With longer cycles (1 hour or more), the ecu apparantly does not allow you to route all materials and most of the earlier cycles is wasted. --- If it floats, and it doesn't say 'quack', sink it!

Maplestone	Posted - 2011.01.19 18:25:00 - [31] The rate at which resources are depleted is also pretty brutal - after one 5 hour cycle, the output of the entire areas around each of my colonies was down to between half and 2/3 of what it was on the first cycle - my focused mining projects went from being hotspots on the planet to being dead zones. It's an interesting and more realistic concept, but it's hard to get past that first impression thought that it's a lot more work for a lot less output.
Onibrak	Posted - 2011.01.19 18:32:00 - [32] The hotspot depletion seems to be the biggest problem here. We need some hard numbers and CCP is going to wait for someone with the time and dedication to spreadsheet reverse engineer it before they acknowledge a valid issue and make any changes. I work in 0.0, just making effing mech parts. I found a gigantic hotspot and set up my extractor. With the exact same scan settings the hotspot is entirely gone today when I logged on. Previously devs have stated that hotspots won't move, just empty and refill. That doesn't seem to be the case any more. Previous hotspots would deplete slowly over the course of a long period of time, now they can literally disappear if you stop and restart a cycle, which is ****ed up. I should have to actually mine for a while for the area I'm mining to go from white to green, but that is no longer the case. Is the intent here to force us to relocate the ECU? With link cost and so on, with spending money on ECUs, this seems impractical. With the ECU cost it's impossible to spread your heads out over a larger area. ECU needs to cost CPU only, and heads need to be what takes up power grid. With that change PI would be functional again, multi material producing would be viable again, and we could set up enough heads to cover multiple hot spots easily while still retaining the current system. As it stands, forcing you to pick one hot spot and then having that spot deplete from white to green or yellow in less than a 24 hour cycle is making production unworkable. I used to be able to sustain 10 processors on a single P1 producing planet and have them working pretty much the entire 24 hours with repeated 5 hour cycles. Now I can't even fit 10 processors on a planet with enough extraction to keep them working with my current set of skills. Something's gotta give, PI was going to be one of my primary sources of income, I don't mind having to move heads around a bit and stuff, but having to put the extra work in and getting less out of it than I did before is unacceptable, considering repeated dev posts saying they didn't want to affect extraction rates. You have, guys. Badly. I'm producing about 75% of what I used to on the same planets.
Funesta	Posted - 2011.01.19 18:49:00 - [33] Here's the scandalous solution to the depletion problem: After you mine out one resource with your ECU with a day-long program, swap to mining a different resource the next day. By day two, your depleted initial resource will be back to normal. The ECUs are flexible for a reason. The schematics on processors can be swapped for a reason, too. This is commonly called crop rotation, and it's a concept that has been around for a very long time.
Onibrak	Posted - 2011.01.19 18:55:00 - [34] Originally by: Funesta Here's the scandalous solution to the depletion problem: After you mine out one resource with your ECU with a day-long program, swap to mining a different resource the next day. By day two, your depleted initial resource will be back to normal. The ECUs are flexible for a reason. The schematics on processors can be swapped for a reason, too. This is commonly called crop rotation, and it's a concept that has been around for a very long time. Minerals are not crops, and stopping the harvesting of a field of corn to switch up how you're harvesting it does not make a third of the corn in your field magically disappear. But thanks for being a condescending ******* about a very specific problem.
Euporie	Posted - 2011.01.19 18:55:00 - [35] Edited by: Euporie on 19/01/2011 18:55:54 ^^^^ Exactly the same issue as Onibrak, hot spots deplete in a matter of hours!!! I also am in 0.0 and now I can't sustain my P1 production no matter what. And when you have set up all basic processing facilities in one place, you would have to move the head across half the planet to get to the other hot spot...and it will deplete in a matter of 24h... Previous system was clickfest, but it worked...now it's totally broken.
AS LordASB	Posted - 2011.01.19 19:14:00 - [36] @ the last 2 posters are you getting all the stocks from your mining units? some of us at the start seam to be missing large amounts of output from what it says we should be getting and what is in launchpad at the end of p1.
olsted	Posted - 2011.01.19 19:19:00 - [37] So morning after. Not only am I not getting the originally quoted amounts (I now understand that suddenly our P/AP skills matter), Im getting nowhere near what the bargraph says I should be getting. Theoretically I should be pulling close to 100k/hr. In reality, im not even keeping my 3 basic factories fed. WTF? Some documentation on how this is supposed to work would be good. That way we can atleast determine if its us or the system that is broken. All we have now is observation and assumption, leading to petitons which are closed with "working as intended". -O.
Euporie	Posted - 2011.01.19 19:25:00 - [38] Yeah, on theory the output I get from the program should be able to sustain my P1 processing but it's NOT. Not to mention that on a 5h job I can't get near the P0 I used to be able to get whit old PI. And the depletion ratios or are absurd.
Zircalla	Posted - 2011.01.19 19:29:00 - [39] It seems the 'new' (I assume) depletion rates are in place to nerf 5 hour (or any very short cycle) extracting unless you are also willing to move the heads (or even ECU). From my (albeit limited) experimentation so far, it seems that a 3-day cycle seems like it will be the best balance between depletion and production. I will tell you if it looks like I am right in about 3 days....
Ludacrys	Posted - 2011.01.19 19:47:00 - [40] OK i understand the installed amount is lower than the surveyed amount due to planetology skills I also understand the number of units per hour is the average of the entire cycle WHAT I DONT UNDERSTAND IS THIS: second 1 hour cycle finished and according to the graph i should have accumulated nearly 60k units but on my launchpad (i triple checked all routes, links are not full either) i only have like 7k What is going on?

olsted	Posted - 2011.01.19 19:56:00 - [41] In reading back through this thread and checking my own colonies, I'm seeing the same behavior. Specifically, although the extractor SAYS its extracting 100kunits/hr, the products window which lists the incoming materials ammount you make your route from only shows about 15k. That is the route I created to my Launchpad-Hub from which all of the rest of my routes go. It seems we may have found the problem? You can extract minerals like mad. You just can't route them. There must be tons of materials all over the ground around the extractor. Wish I could go pick em up. -O.
Cergorach Amarr The Helix Foundation	Posted - 2011.01.19 19:59:00 - [42] I'm currently using 17-18hr cycles instead of the 23hr cycles I ran under the old system, I'm actually producing more at the moment. The moving of the heads is more interesting than the darned clicking (even with a mouse that has a special button to double click with a single click). So that's great! One thing that's problematic, under the previous system you saw exactly where the other PI players had placed their extractors, now you don't see the ECU nor the mining heads from the other players on the same planet. So it might be entirely possible that the folks are experiencing less output due to overlapping ECU/extractorheads interfering with each other. As for the depletion, I think it's going to be a serious issue, I'm getting the feeling that I'm capable of depleting an entire solar system with a dozen characters or so. Would seriously hamper PI around the trade/mission hubs. Would mean folks would need to spread out or produce less, longer travel times, means less interest (folks will stop doing PI). Probably mean an increase in prices...
Tay Silvermoon	Posted - 2011.01.19 20:05:00 - [43] A couple of questions (or info it would help to have to pinpoint): if everyone started including their skills in the issues - we could see if it was related to planetology/advanced training issues if everyone would include information on the setup a) ecu to storage link level?, b) maximum cycle amount during the program?, c) program length? d) average hourly rate during program?, etc Whats being reported has so many variables and so little information provided - there's not even a place to start to try to figure out what's going on. It would be nice if dev's added back in some sign on the setup if the routing changed after it was installed, since you can route it before you set the extraction cycle/rate and it won't show that there is an issue unless you recheck. It'd be nice to know if we actually trained planetology/advanced planetology to 5 - do the survey amounts match closer for example.
AS LordASB	Posted - 2011.01.19 20:10:00 - [44] just to update my post i am now showing i should have extracted 752k in p0 and be on 30k per hour. present biomass in launchpad 550 units which is 27.5 lots of 3000 p0 =82500 p0 so currently missing 669500 p0 or taking the other number of 7716 * 20 completed hours = 154320 so currently missing 71820 p0 if i take the currently routed number of 17317 and take that per 4 hour cycle that would be 69268 p0 production, in which case i have magicly made 13232 units from nothing. answers on a post card
Berikath	Posted - 2011.01.19 20:18:00 - [45] Originally by: Gamingloser1 Just moved the extractor to another location.....similar results. 90k estimate....less than 62k was the initial result. So thats about 1/3 drop. First install 90k estimate 61500 actual. Canceled 1 hr cycle. Second install 90k estimate 60297 actual. Canceled 1 hr cycle. Third install 90k estimate 56520 actual. Canceled 1 hr cycle. Four install 90k estimate 52242 actual. Canceled 1 hr cycle. Fifth install 90k estimate 48498 actual. Canceled 1 hr cycle. So the pattern is obvious. It seems like the units are depleted and wasted if you end up canceling a program. I'm going to wait an hour and re-run the program to see what effects it has on extraction rates. Is this high-sec extraction? If so, I would guess that it might be a peculiar manifestation of the "depletion" mechanic. If there are a bunch of players all extracting from the same spot, you might be seeing the values change because stuff is being extracted in between your cycles, depleting the area and decreasing your yields. * [ SIG] * Wish list for PI: One-click input routing Copy product, inputs & outputs in factories *Launchpad upgrades: twice the space, twice the cost, half the hassle! [ /sig ]
Ludacrys	Posted - 2011.01.19 20:20:00 - [46] it has nothing to do with depletion, the ECU is just not routing the full amount, has anyone tried upgrading the links? Did that help?
AS LordASB	Posted - 2011.01.19 20:24:00 - [47] my routed amount is still the same from this mornings photo. at 17317 and the link is still claiming to be only 17% used at 43.2925 m3/hour
olsted	Posted - 2011.01.19 20:35:00 - [48] OK this has to be a bug. Heres some observed data which simply doesnt line up. - After the program is submitted and happily chugging along. The extractor says its pulling 53218 units this cycle which is a 2 hour cycle. 53218/2 hrs = 26609unit/hr = 266.09m3/hr - The route I am allowed to create from the "products" window is for 19765 units. Although, once selecting the destination facility (in this case my launchpad), I am allowed to specify the # of units in the route, the option lists X/19765, allowing me to only change the value of X. If I enter anything over 19765, the field resets to 19765. It is not clear from this window if this is a /hour value. I am assuming it is. 19765 route (/hr?) = 197.65m3/hr - The link connecting the extractor to the launchpad shows a utilization of 98.825m3/hour. link size is 250m3/hr. 98.825 is not 197.65 and its not 266.09 (which it shouldnt allow anyhow). So as far as I can tell, the routing mechanic is broken and we are all spewing extracted raw material all over the planets surface. -O.
AS LordASB	Posted - 2011.01.19 20:44:00 - [49] my current shown output cycle shows 83913 on a 4 hour run i am showing the 17317 in the launch pad incoming routing table as well
AS LordASB	Posted - 2011.01.19 20:58:00 - [50] next planet test results 5 pins taking noble metals on 15 minute cycle 18 completed cycles so far claimed accumulated output of 198055 claimed output per hour 34341 routed amount leaving extractor 20856 routed amount entering launchpad 20856 nothing leaving launchpad yet! total in storage 188479.0 (volume 1884.79) expected output based on claimed output 18 cycles = 618138 expected output based on routed amount 18 cycles = 375408 missing stock from routed amount 186929 missing stock from clained output 429659 photo to follow

Yorinar	Posted - 2011.01.19 20:58:00 - [51] Originally by: AS LordASB if i take the currently routed number of 17317 and take that per 4 hour cycle that would be 69268 p0 production, in which case i have magicly made 13232 units from nothing. I'm just pulling this out of my bum but I'm guessing 17317 is a 20-minute routing cycle. 17317 x 9 = 155853 which is close to your current cycle output of 154931 (x 9 since there were 9 20-minute cycles in the 3-hours you've had it running in the cycle in your screenshots)....
olsted	Posted - 2011.01.19 21:01:00 - [52] Originally by: Yorinar Originally by: AS LordASB if i take the currently routed number of 17317 and take that per 4 hour cycle that would be 69268 p0 production, in which case i have magicly made 13232 units from nothing. I'm just pulling this out of my bum but I'm guessing 17317 is a 20-minute routing cycle. 17317 x 9 = 155853 which is close to your current cycle output of 154931 (x 9 since there were 9 20-minute cycles in the 3-hours you've had it running in the cycle in your screenshots).... that might work for her but it does not explain the significant difference between mats being produced, mats being routed, and capacity used in the link. Something is still screwy here.
AS LordASB	Posted - 2011.01.19 21:15:00 - [53] Yorinar can you explain a little please as i dont understand your comment about 20 minute routing, given its 4 hour cycles and should route out from extractor to storage at the end of the cycle.
Gamingloser1	Posted - 2011.01.19 21:31:00 - [54] Originally by: Berikath Originally by: Gamingloser1 Just moved the extractor to another location.....similar results. 90k estimate....less than 62k was the initial result. So thats about 1/3 drop. First install 90k estimate 61500 actual. Canceled 1 hr cycle. Second install 90k estimate 60297 actual. Canceled 1 hr cycle. Third install 90k estimate 56520 actual. Canceled 1 hr cycle. Four install 90k estimate 52242 actual. Canceled 1 hr cycle. Fifth install 90k estimate 48498 actual. Canceled 1 hr cycle. So the pattern is obvious. It seems like the units are depleted and wasted if you end up canceling a program. I'm going to wait an hour and re-run the program to see what effects it has on extraction rates. Is this high-sec extraction? If so, I would guess that it might be a peculiar manifestation of the "depletion" mechanic. If there are a bunch of players all extracting from the same spot, you might be seeing the values change because stuff is being extracted in between your cycles, depleting the area and decreasing your yields. Its low sec (.3) It seems to be the depletion mechanic. Those previous hot spots are gone. In fact the whole planet seems to be dead if you compare it to what I was getting from that planet.
olsted	Posted - 2011.01.19 21:50:00 - [55] I think hes suggesting that the routing numbers are based upon a 20 minute cycle. If this is the case, then the /hr numbers (for me) would be 59295 units/hr which far exceeds what the extractor says its pulling (53218/2 hr cycle = 26609 units/hr) and even further exceeds the link capacity as that would be 592.95m3/hr crossing my little 250m3/hr link (that says its only using 98.825m3/hr). Now that im thinking along those lines tho... 98.825m3/hr of utilization = 9882.5units/hr of mats crossing the link. Thats nowhere near either the extractor stated cycle ammount OR the extractor to launchpad route amount crossing that link. Something is STILL not right in Denmark. -O.
Yorinar	Posted - 2011.01.19 21:51:00 - [56] Originally by: AS LordASB Yorinar can you explain a little please as i dont understand your comment about 20 minute routing, given its 4 hour cycles and should route out from extractor to storage at the end of the cycle. yeah, i don't really know and i can't confirm on my own setups until I get home in a few hours, but my guess was just that the number in the routing is based on the product that passes through every 20 minutes. If that is true, the 20-minute cycle is just some arbitrary time period CCP uses for routing.. So that routing amount x 3 = your hourly output that's getting routed from that building. Hopefully that makes more sense, the more I write, the less it makes sense to me.. :) any other theories?
AS LordASB	Posted - 2011.01.19 23:02:00 - [57] @ Yorinar i can see what you are saying about this 20 minutes and as i can see you also cant make the numbers add up, something seams very wrong with all the different numbers which are being shown to the user. if this extractor was a car, and in the advertising had stated 4 different numbers for its mpg/mpl on the same page you would woundered if the people making it knew what they where doing at the time of writing said advertising. this is effectively what is happening, you are given so many different numbers, none of which turn out to be the real level of output, thus very frustating (sorry for any spelling errors its late in case there are any.) ps, i have updated my bug report to show the new info on the second planet,and full details i have posted on this as replies, also posted a linky to this post. sadly i am going to be away for a few days due to an op, but will try and check for replies from ccp from me hosiptal bed. (you never know) if you get anymore info or evidence and dont mind posting photos or detailed numbers please do so as it might help. at least with photos other people can see my numbers of which i am working from.
Sigras	Posted - 2011.01.19 23:04:00 - [58] It seems I can confirm, the only outputs that are messed up are the ones whos cycle time > 1 hour. It seems theres a problem with the output trickle or CCPs calculations for transferring large amounts of mats at once.
AS LordASB	Posted - 2011.01.19 23:08:00 - [59] @ Sigras planet setup 1 is running 4 hour cycles planet setup 2 is running 15 minute cycles both are faulty while i have other planets running 30 and 1 hour and 2 hour cycles i cant give clear numbers as i had stock on planet and stock in factories. these 2 planets are the only ones i can talk about from a clear fresh point of view as i reset the factories and emptyed the launchpads. i can see some errors in the numbers mind against these other cycle time scales for me personnaly.
Pohbis Neo T.E.C.H.	Posted - 2011.01.19 23:19:00 - [60] Edited by: Pohbis on 19/01/2011 23:24:06 Originally by: olsted that might work for her but it does not explain the significant difference between mats being produced, mats being routed, and capacity used in the link. Something is still screwy here. Have you tried actually looking at your ECU program after it has run a few cycles? I just installed a 12 hour program. Estimated output per hour 80k. Checking the ECU program after 2 hours and the output per 15m cycle has dropped to 11k. So 44k per hour. The resources simply deplete insanely fast, and the ECU program does not take this into account when showing you the program on initial installation... which would indicate a bug in the replenishing of the resources. That, or CCP really thought that giving players info that changes while they are offline is indeed a good game mechanic.

Sigras	Posted - 2011.01.20 00:30:00 - [61] Upon further inspection of my planets, Ive found that most of my ECUs are not producing the correct amounts, but some are . . . now im very confused . . . It does seem though, that the problem is exacerbated by longer cycle times.
olsted	Posted - 2011.01.20 05:23:00 - [62] Heres some screenshots illustrating the brokenness of extraction and routing. Firstly, heres a grab showing my extractor happily chugging along on a program. Note that its on a two hour cycle and that it claims to be harvesting 82015 units this cycle. Note also that in the products window which I have selected, I am able to create a route for 19339 units only. Nowhere is it said what that 19339 units translates into, but it is not an even multiple of 82015. Between the first and second grabs, I route the 19339 units to the launchpad. Now look at the second grab. This shows the properties of the link connecting the extractor to the launchpad, across wich the route I just created flows. Note that this is a L2 link with a max capacity of 1000m3/hr and that it is only transiting 96.695m3/hr. At the size of the non-cs crystals (0.01m3/ea), this works out to 9669.5units/hr transiting this link. This number is exactly half of the units being routed above. My conclusion based upon this is that the route units are per cycle as their volume fits the utilization listed for the link. What is broken here is that this extractor is supposed to be generating 82015 units this cycle, but I am only allowed to route 19339 of them, dropping the rest all over the planets surface. Please someone from CCP chime in here and say if this is broken or if I am missing something fundamental here. As it stands, PI seems to be non functional.
Chelone Junkyard Gunners	Posted - 2011.01.20 05:46:00 - [63] Originally by: Gamingloser1 Isn't that a big swing as far as percentage. Both of my planetology skills are at a 4. Getting less than 50% of estimate is a big swing. I've not yet contaminated myself with the filth that is the new PI. However, I can tell you from my experience prior that the planetology skills were very POOR indicators of the real hotspots. I had several characters already setup on a planet, so I knew where the real hotspots where from trial and error with lots of test extractors. That was the best way to do it, by the way. One of my characters was about to finish a level of Planetology so I thought "this will be fun, I can see how far the colored 'hotspot' moves to the actual hotspot when I level up." After leveling up, the visible hotspot had moved AWAY FROM THE REAL ONE. Judging from what you're saying, it seems nothing has been improved in this respect. Seems you're not getting anywhere near accurate information even with "good" 4/4 planetology skills. If there's still any way to find the real hotspots with test extractors, I'd try that. However, if you would have to keep paying the cost of the destroyed extractors, now not just one time before the long-term placement but instead every !%$# time you extract, I don't know if that would be worth it. If it's even possible anymore.
Natan Tragovian	Posted - 2011.01.20 09:20:00 - [64] I thought I was going crazy then I came on here and saw this thread, with everyone having the exact same problem. I don't know who at CCP thought up this system, or why it was even allowed past the idea phase. To be honest, I would rather have the old clickfest back. At least we knew how to do it and it wasn't a guessing game. The new mechanic doesn't even make sense from a realism standpoint. You put down an extractor setup on Tuesday, and on Wednesday you have to move it a thousand kilometers because you extracted all of the 7,500 m^3 node? Seriously?
AS LordASB	Posted - 2011.01.20 10:19:00 - [65] hi fokes sending this from mobile so hanging if formatting pants i have had a reply to my bug report, see copy below Hello lordasb, Thank you for your bugreport - ID:105832 Title: problems with output levels in PI We are already aware of this problem, and have added your bugreport to the existing issue in our defect tracking system. The BugHunter Team andy
Rykuss	Posted - 2011.01.20 10:30:00 - [66] Originally by: Sam Brockson Originally by: Gamingloser1 This is a complaint about output per hour seems to jumping around: If you are referring to the numbers under Output (Output per hour and total output) on the bottom right of the ECU survey screen, the Per Hour number displayed is a percentage of the Total Output and at best used as an average to keep your extractors running. I have noticed on a 5 hour run, the Per Hour percentage displayed is 20% of the Total Output and 10% on a 10 hour run. So far, from my experimentation, it's best to move the drill heads around for maximum output - usually only one head is in the center of a red spot, a few are on the fringe between red and orange, and the rest between orange and yellow. This strategy seems to work best for me as well.
Horror Master Preeternal Spark SOLAR FLEET	Posted - 2011.01.20 11:00:00 - [67] Originally by: AS LordASB hi fokes sending this from mobile so hanging if formatting pants i have had a reply to my bug report, see copy below Hello lordasb, Thank you for your bugreport - ID:105832 Title: problems with output levels in PI We are already aware of this problem, and have added your bugreport to the existing issue in our defect tracking system. The BugHunter Team andy Thanks for update, hope they fix this soon.
AS LordASB	Posted - 2011.01.20 12:38:00 - [68] i would agree, at least we have some word that there is a problem and we are not all going loopy
Kile Kitmoore	Posted - 2011.01.20 18:38:00 - [69] Originally by: AS LordASB hi fokes sending this from mobile so hanging if formatting pants i have had a reply to my bug report, see copy below Hello lordasb, Thank you for your bugreport - ID:105832 Title: problems with output levels in PI We are already aware of this problem, and have added your bugreport to the existing issue in our defect tracking system. The BugHunter Team andy Thanks for the update. The old PI system, clickfest, was fun during the planning and building stage but once you start managing your planets it became mundane really quick. The new system appears better but my biggest problem is trusting numbers and information presented to me so I can make decisions. In the old system your trying to maintain an equilibrium between extractors and processors which was the challenge at first. The new system looks like it will be much easier to establish this equilibrium but only if the numbers are accurate and the UI doesn't get in our way. Depletion is fine but if my extraction is reduced by something like another player the UI should inform and describe the degree. Reading all these threads on PI it seems like everyone is guessing what the devs intentions were toward one thing or another. They don't want P3-P4 manufacturing on a single planet? More interaction? Reduced output? Undermine any botting? I think a devblog documenting the new system but also the design philosophy would be helpful. Hopefully once the new system is a bit clearer and the bugs are worked out it could be a foundation which to build upon. I guess we will see.
olsted	Posted - 2011.01.20 19:04:00 - [70] Thx for the update. Time to stop my PI till they fix the routing. No point in depleting my hotspots for nothing. -O.

JAG Solex GunStars	Posted - 2011.01.20 20:53:00 - [71] Hi folks. Late to the thread, but I wanted to give my feedback. I'm doing a 1 day program with 15 min. cycles. I'm just extracting right now, so it's pretty easy to follow what's happening. So far my program is giving me exactly what it says it should be. When you move your mouse over the program segements it tells you the cycle count, how much being extracted on this cycle as well as the total accumulated so far. That is dead on for me. The routing though seems fubar. It always displays the same amount, and doesn't seem to have any relation to anything. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [GNSTR]
SirFur Caldari Elite Force Apocalypse Now.	Posted - 2011.01.20 22:15:00 - [72] Edited by: SirFur on 20/01/2011 22:20:05 Originally by: Steve Thomas ok one last time................... .......... end of line. Steve you really need to calm down a bit, mate. Answering a concern like that won't do anyone any favours and will just simply aggravate the situation. If someone doesn't understand something when someone explains it to them it's usually not being explained properly, or the explanation is incorrect and telling folks to quite EvE as a result is a little silly. Sometimes folks take time to realise what the problem is, but either way if you find it so annoying having to answer such concerns or questions as you think them trivial then please don't comment. --------------------------- Life is a Gift: Use it Wisely
Drahcir Nasom Independent Manufacturers Independent Manufacturers Alliance	Posted - 2011.01.20 22:55:00 - [73] I agree with JAG Solex. Running 24hour programs with 15m cycles, quantity of P0 being delivered to my lauchpad match exactly with what the graph says. I have all PI skills at lvl 5 If I click on the ECU, the figure shown for Current Cycle Output is the quantity transferred at the end of the last cycle, nothing to do with the quantity for the current cycle. Clicking on a link, the routing figure doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to anything, for example on one planet, I have 2 ECUs connected to my launchpad, each with a dedicated link. In the first 2 cycles, ECU1 extracted and transferred 16147 and 15386 units of P0, and the route is showing 16349, 654.76m3 per hour. ECU2 transferred 9252 and 8802 units of P0 and the route is showing 15701, 628.04m3 per hour. I've done 6 of my 24 planets so far (2 straight after patch which have now completed 24h programs). Bear in mind all I'm doing on each planet is making P1 for export, and I'm using Elite CCs. I deleted all my old colony except the CC and launchpad each time. I placed an ECU either side of the LP as close as I could get them, then 6-9 (based on what I had before) basic processors split equally above and below (I use the slightly less efficient square layout rather than the hexagonal one). Link both ECUs to the LP, then 1 link up and 1 down to the groups of processors. Upgrade the processors links to Lvl1, and the ECU links to Lvl2. Depending on the planet type, and the number of processors I have, I can then generally lay down 10-12 extractor heads split evenly between the 2 ECUs. Then using the Output Per Hour figure in the lower right of the program screen I add/remove processors/extractor heads until the total Output Per Hour of the 2 ECUs is roughly equal (or preferably slightly higher) than 6000 * the number of processors. I have found that so far this calculation is 100% accurate. The cost of an extractor head doesn't vary depending on the distance the head is from the ECU, it is a fixed amount now, compared to before where putting extractors further away cost you in terms of the link grid/cpu usage. Hence why I put my ECUs right up next to my LP, minimize grid/cpu costs for the links, especially as you virtually HAVE to upgrade a link coming out an ECU because the link has to be able to handle the maximum output form all the heads, which can be considerably more than the average output if you are running long programs. Under the old system, I had my planets set so if I ran 5h cycles I would have a surplus of P0 and with 23h cycles a deficit. So far under the new system I've managed to get all 6 planets having a surplus of P0 from a 24h cycle and the number of processors has either stayed the same as before (4 planets) or I've managed to get an extra processor down (2 planets). My only complaint with the new system is that under the old system I could restart extractors on 24 planets in under 25m with one of my mouse buttons remapped to double-click (Microsoft Intellimouse Explorer 3.0 4 button mouse) because the hotzones hardly moved. It's going to take a lot longer to make sure the extractor heads on 24 planets are in the optimal position for the next 24h program. Drahcir
JAG Solex GunStars	Posted - 2011.01.20 23:15:00 - [74] Originally by: Drahcir Nasom My only complaint with the new system is that under the old system I could restart extractors on 24 planets in under 25m with one of my mouse buttons remapped to double-click (Microsoft Intellimouse Explorer 3.0 4 button mouse) because the hotzones hardly moved. It's going to take a lot longer to make sure the extractor heads on 24 planets are in the optimal position for the next 24h program. Drahcir Yup. This is going to be a pain in the ass with the current depletion rate. Not only am I extracting 1/3 less than I used to from 5 hr cycles, but moving heads to get another hotspot will take more time. We will have to see if it's worth the effort. Maybe it will be if the price of PI goes up. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [GNSTR]
Biirk	Posted - 2011.01.20 23:23:00 - [75] In, My, experience ,,. (with 30 min, and one hour cycles) The first expected yield figure, relates closely to the 'colormap'. ('exactly', I expect - it takes a reading from the center of the dot) What you get when you install the program, relates to where the 'colormap', 'Really' is. The 'routing amount number' (to storage) is an HOURley amount. And it should be about the average hourley rate in the ECU thingy. Mine was allways a bit lower. When I calculated one time it was 4% lower. [:shrug:] The Routing amount and the number of units delivered per cycle, and/or hour, have NOTHING to do with the individual cycle you just completed. The stuff must be 'held in storage' at the ECU and sent 'home' in the constant, managable, average hourley rate. So. All that fancy ghraph is just an indicator of how much more depleted the area will be after you complete, (or delete) the 'program' I certainly can be wrong. And I have not experimented all that much. (nore payed attention that closely when I was ) But that how it looks to me. _______ All Our Base Are Belong To Them
Borgholio Minmatar Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2011.01.20 23:27:00 - [76] I too am having the same issue. The number of units extracted per cycle on the survey screen do not even come close to the number of units actually delivered to my launchpad. When clicking the ECU and clicking on "route" then the number shown there IS in fact accurate. With my current setup, all 8 heads should pull around 45k Non-CS Crystals per cycle. In actuality they're pulling about 5k. A slight difference there... So I ran a test with a short (1 hour) program. With the 1 hour program, at least, the first 15m cycle was perfect. Right on the money in terms of the amount quoted on the Survey Screen and the amount on the Route tab. Aside from being a nasty bug, I think that the issue may be link capacity. If I went back to my original setup where I'd pull 45k crystals every 4 hours, then that means every four hours there would be a burst of traffic on the link worth over 450m3 of space. That's more than a Level 1 link can support. So I re-started the program with 4 hour cycles and upgraded my links to support that burst traffic. I'll report back with the results. ----------------------------------- You will be assimilated...bunghole!
AS LordASB	Posted - 2011.01.20 23:41:00 - [77] @ biirk if the routed amount is hourly, taking my second planet test and your answer to this problem which you believe to be right. i reworked the numbers stock which i have at present total in storage 188479.0 (volume 1884.79) stock which your calcs should say is in my launchpad based on 4.5 hours or 4.5 routed shipments, means i should have 93852. so even that for me does not work.
Biirk	Posted - 2011.01.21 00:02:00 - [78] Well ,,. 93852 x 2 = 187704 Reasonably close to 188479.0 For 15 minute cycles, maby the routing number is for 30 min transfers? "shrug: _______ All Our Base Are Belong To Them
Biirk	Posted - 2011.01.21 01:34:00 - [79] Edited by: Biirk on 21/01/2011 01:35:35 Ok. I went back and tried 15 minute cycles, and the 'routed number' seems to be for a 30 minute delivery schedule. My 30 minute cycles seemed to route in hour deliveries. as did my hour cycles. Anyway. My point is. It doesnt look to me if the routed amount is changing. And most of my confusion, was due to my expectation that it would change with the graph. _______ All Our Base Are Belong To Them
CaldeteisX Caldari Aurora Polaris The Babylon Consortium	Posted - 2011.01.21 01:58:00 - [80] I'm having similar issues to most of the posts i've read so far in this thread, my best example was an extimate hourly cycle time of 13k, upon installation this changed to just under 1k per hour. NOT just the first part of the graph of overall cycles, they were all below 1k per hour...pretty big difference between estimate and actual. Only seemed to be happening on one planet though which was very weird. I do remember seeing, CCP Tuxford i think it was, saying that the new changes to PI should not have much of an effect on our resource gathering ability compared to post patch. Well, seems thats complete wrong though.

Syralithia	Posted - 2011.01.21 04:47:00 - [81] After a bit of investigation, it looks to me like the routing amount code is indeed at fault. As for exactly how it's going wrong, the stories sounded like some random amount was being used and not updated each cycle. I gave own my planets another look and came up with a theory as to where that random routing amount was coming from. I have two ECU on a planet, both placed over the sites of old extractors and so both in a hotspot area. They deliver roughly what the old extractors did, even though the programs say they should be delivering much more than they are. The history says the completed cycles are correct, and the average works out ( total extraction/cycles/#heads). The links can handle the capacity produced even in full flood, but the routing amount shows to be a serious chokepoint, and hasn't changed yet after 24 hours+. When I looked at the ECU positioning, it occurred to me that what if the new ECU is only using the resources directly under itself and building the route maximum based on that ( as old extractors did ) instead of what the heads are actually producing and delivering to it in their maximum cycle? If the ECU was an expanded version and using the same base code as the old extractors, maybe it 'ran home to mommy'? This seems to be borne out by asking around to other PI users I've asked so far. How does this theory fit with your planets?
Miyah Putredas	Posted - 2011.01.21 06:16:00 - [82] I just started one of my planets on a 14 days cycle, as I happened to have enough pg an cpu for 8 extraction heads. The first two 4 hour cycles should have produced about 280k units each, but I currently have only 293k units in my launchpad, with my factories taking up 12k units/h. So there is something seriously wrong. This cycle should produce about 262k units, but there are only 29k units routed. This will mess up my whole program. Since I didn't get the thrust of materials at the start, my factories will run out of materials when closing the end of the program. So, for the sake of survival of our POS, please fix this. =)
olsted	Posted - 2011.01.21 15:09:00 - [83] bump
amego Caldari Fromage Frais Industries Imajiaca	Posted - 2011.01.21 17:26:00 - [84] nutshell...its borked, fix it, and an official response would help us to feel that something has been realised to be wrong. time is precious.
amego Caldari Fromage Frais Industries Imajiaca	Posted - 2011.01.21 17:29:00 - [85] Originally by: Miyah Putredas I wonder why ccp didn't notice this on their test servers. it all worked fine on the test server
Tau Cabalander Caldari	Posted - 2011.01.21 18:39:00 - [86] I'm being far less analytical about it. 1. Move the heads to maximize extraction. 2. Let the program run. 3. See what ends-up in the spaceport. I'm currently ending-up with more P1 than I used to, so I really don't care about any of the other numbers.
Durin Sarga	Posted - 2011.01.21 20:10:00 - [87] From CCP StevieSG in the Incursion 1.1.0 Issues Thread Quote: General Known issues: PI extraction and routing amounts are not correct. So they know about the issue with the routing. Probably will fix it in a patch soon. Until then I have dropped my extraction nodes to 2 day programs and spread out the nodes to minimize depletion. As long as the extraction per cycle stays at or near the routing per hour everything flows smoothly. Don't try to max out, try to average out.
Karl Reese Caldari	Posted - 2011.01.22 04:04:00 - [88] For what it's worth, I remember that on at least my first program that I ran I got the correct amounts of materials in the launchpad, but I didn't notice this issue until two or three programs later. Too lazy to offer hard data, but I'm pretty sure my first program added up.
AS LordASB	Posted - 2011.01.24 20:56:00 - [89] still no news on my bug report
Borgholio Minmatar Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2011.01.25 01:20:00 - [90] Originally by: AS LordASB still no news on my bug report CCP has added the extraction amount bug to their Known Issues page. Expect it to be fixed in an upcoming patch. ----------------------------------- You will be assimilated...bunghole!

Kerr avonn Minmatar Standard By 10	Posted - 2011.01.25 07:01:00 - [91] Edited by: Kerr avonn on 25/01/2011 07:02:50 Originally by: Mirac Factar The estimate is based of what your planetology skills indicate the distribution of resources is i.e what you see on the heatmaps too The output is based on the Actual distribution of minerals is. The better your planetology and advanced planetology skills are the closer these numbers will get. The OP stated... Quote: When I install the program it gives me way lower number (70k per hour) than originally said. Even worse...if I cancel that cycle and restart another the number is completely different again (44k for instance) So it has nothing in THIS case with the skill lvl, its to do with PI being broken
Gamingloser1	Posted - 2011.01.25 18:38:00 - [92] This is what I received from CCP: Hi, This is an update going out to all players who are having issues with, or questions about, planetary interaction. For general information on planetary interaction, please refer to this article: http://wiki.eveonline.com/wikiEN/index.php?title=Planetary_Colonialisation_and_Production 1. The Only Option for Extractors is to Destroy Them All extractors that were placed before the latest changes to planetary interaction were made cannot be put back into an active state. The way extractors work has been changed and all old extractors first need to be destroyed before extraction can continue using the new system. The old extractors were not destroyed automatically, which allows everyone to review their own setups before destroying them. New extractors can be build using the new Extractor Control Unit. When old extractors are removed the ISK cost will be reimbursed automatically. 2. Powergrid/CPU Requirements The job done by the old extractors is now being done by Extractor Heads. These extractor heads are the units that extract the resources from the planet. These heads, in turn, are controlled by an Extractor Control Unit; this is where the extraction program is installed. Aside from the extractor heads the control units also have their own powergrid and CPU requirements. This means that if you had 3 extractors in the old setup, it may not be possible to place 3 extractor heads now as you need to pay powergrid and CPU for both the heads and the control unit. Upgrading the Command Centre will give you increased powergrid and CPU. 3. Imperfect Data Some players are experiencing a discrepancy between what the expected extraction yield of a setup is and what the true yield is. This can have several causes, but all have to do with the fact that you do not work with perfect data. First, the projections that are given can deviate, depending on your skill level in Planetology and Advanced Planetology. Second, while the projections take resource depletion into account caused by your own extractors, they do not take resource depletion into account that is caused by the extractors of other players. Thus if many players use the same planet for the same resources, actual yields may be drastically lower than the projected yield, as the resources are depleted at a much faster rate. Lastly, when the range of extractions between extraction units overlap each other you use efficiency, causing a lower yield. If none of these explanations tackle the issue that you are dealing with, please update your petition with a reply and we can look into the matter in further detail. With kind regards, The EVE Online Customer Support Team It seems #3 is the probably the one that I'm experiencing. It still doesn't seem right.
Verkala Ven	Posted - 2011.01.25 19:46:00 - [93] Edited by: Verkala Ven on 25/01/2011 19:48:56 Originally by: Gamingloser1 Second, while the projections take resource depletion into account caused by your own extractors, they do not take resource depletion into account that is caused by the extractors of other players. Thus if many players use the same planet for the same resources, actual yields may be drastically lower than the projected yield, as the resources are depleted at a much faster rate. Wow. Did they really create a system where our extractors screw each other, BUT WE CAN'T EVEN SEE THEM??? Bloody hell.
Nhi'Khuna Black Serpent Technologies R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.01.25 21:04:00 - [94] Originally by: Verkala Ven Edited by: Verkala Ven on 25/01/2011 19:48:56 Originally by: Gamingloser1 Second, while the projections take resource depletion into account caused by your own extractors, they do not take resource depletion into account that is caused by the extractors of other players. Thus if many players use the same planet for the same resources, actual yields may be drastically lower than the projected yield, as the resources are depleted at a much faster rate. Wow. Did they really create a system where our extractors screw each other, BUT WE CAN'T EVEN SEE THEM??? Bloody hell. Frankly, it makes sense. Why wouldn't CCP set up the potential of a passive pvp-like system where players have to vy for limited, depleting resources? Dust 451 requires a need to have players on the ground to destroy rival colonies and the only way to do that is by providing a limited resource base.
Verkala Ven	Posted - 2011.01.25 21:10:00 - [95] Originally by: Nhi'Khuna Originally by: Verkala Ven Wow. Did they really create a system where our extractors screw each other, BUT WE CAN'T EVEN SEE THEM??? Frankly, it makes sense. Why wouldn't CCP set up the potential of a passive pvp-like system where players have to vy for limited, depleting resources? Dust 451 requires a need to have players on the ground to destroy rival colonies and the only way to do that is by providing a limited resource base. The concept of having to compete for resources is fine. But doing it blindly?? A system where you can't even tell if the numbers you're getting are because of other players or not? Where you can't see them to try and avoid them, since that's really the only option you've got? Where you can't even coordinate with allies, because it's almost impossible to figure out where the two of you are if you're on the same planet, and end up stealing resources from each other rather than spreading out?? How can you possibly defend that?
ChaoticDemon	Posted - 2011.01.25 21:12:00 - [96] Edited by: ChaoticDemon on 25/01/2011 21:13:56 I've been using 2 day 1.5 hour cycles 1st cycle after starting process says output 69k+ but will only let me route about 39k using link upgraded to lvl 3 or 4 is at 2000m3 and not using anywhere near full capacity also was using 2-3 materials extracted/planet before now can only do 1-2
Nhi'Khuna Black Serpent Technologies R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.01.25 21:19:00 - [97] Originally by: Verkala Ven Originally by: Nhi'Khuna Originally by: Verkala Ven Wow. Did they really create a system where our extractors screw each other, BUT WE CAN'T EVEN SEE THEM??? Frankly, it makes sense. Why wouldn't CCP set up the potential of a passive pvp-like system where players have to vy for limited, depleting resources? Dust 451 requires a need to have players on the ground to destroy rival colonies and the only way to do that is by providing a limited resource base. The concept of having to compete for resources is fine. But doing it blindly?? A system where you can't even tell if the numbers you're getting are because of other players or not? Where you can't see them to try and avoid them, since that's really the only option you've got? Where you can't even coordinate with allies, because it's almost impossible to figure out where the two of you are if you're on the same planet, and end up stealing resources from each other rather than spreading out?? How can you possibly defend that? I didn't say that it was a finished product, and by no means, as far as project implementation is concerned it is wanting, but I do see where they are headed. <shrugs> In the meantime, my income levels haven't dropped by anything appreciable. The more folks who get out of PI the more isk for me in the long run.
MongerMan	Posted - 2011.01.26 00:05:00 - [98] Edited by: MongerMan on 26/01/2011 00:05:48 Originally by: Verkala Ven Originally by: Nhi'Khuna Originally by: Verkala Ven Wow. Did they really create a system where our extractors screw each other, BUT WE CAN'T EVEN SEE THEM??? Frankly, it makes sense. Why wouldn't CCP set up the potential of a passive pvp-like system where players have to vy for limited, depleting resources? Dust 451 requires a need to have players on the ground to destroy rival colonies and the only way to do that is by providing a limited resource base. The concept of having to compete for resources is fine. But doing it blindly?? A system where you can't even tell if the numbers you're getting are because of other players or not? Where you can't see them to try and avoid them, since that's really the only option you've got? Where you can't even coordinate with allies, because it's almost impossible to figure out where the two of you are if you're on the same planet, and end up stealing resources from each other rather than spreading out?? How can you possibly defend that? You can see there facility and there ECU's. Right click anywhere on the planet and you will see the option. From there you can guess the area there ECU will cover. Its not just resources you're now fighting over, its space. So ya totally defend-able.
Ulstan	Posted - 2011.01.26 00:42:00 - [99] Edited by: Ulstan on 26/01/2011 00:45:57 Skills This discrepency cannot be attributed to skills. If 5/5 are perfect, then 4/4 would be at about 80% of perfect. I'm not even sure the skills work. As others have noted, when levelling up the skills for the first time on subsequent characters, I would examine a planet with known hotspots (found by trial and error) and frequently a better level of the skill would move the hotspot further away from where it was supposed to go. Secondly, it would be absolutely *****ed to have the skills mean the numbers you see are unreliable. That's not the way it worked before. What it means is the graph of the hotspot* you see isn't guaranteed to be where the hotspot actually is. The numbers coming back for your extractors should be 100% accurate, with or without perfect skills Other people's networks are reducing your output and you just can't see it! This would be a bone crushingly idiotic decision, and it's not one that CCP made. You can see other peoples PI installations on a planet. If you aren't seeing them, make sure you don't accidentally have it turned off. Right click on the planet and you'll see a choice for 'show/hide ohter character's networks'. Routing math is JUST PLAIN WRONG 23 hour program. 15 minute cycle. 1,015,000 units pulled out over the course of the program. (which jumped to 1,046,000 after I hit 'install job') That's an average of 45,521 per hour. Or, given 15 minute cycles, 11,380 per cycle. What do you see when you click on 'Products' or 'Route' on the ECU? 26229 What do you see when you click on the link itself? 2,000 m3 per HOUR limit, capacity used is 1049.16 m3 per HOUR. None of these numbers match up in the least. The volume is .01 m3. So if there really WERE 26229 units travelling per hour the m3 used would be 262.29. Which is wrong. So the 26229 is actually the PER CYCLE armount. 262.29 * 4 = 1049.16 But where on earth is the 26229 coming from? It's not the average per cycle (that is 11,380). It's not what the ECU identifies as the current cycle (which is 14,561) It's not the max per cycle. The graph clearly indicates the MAX per cycle is 18,510 units. Which would be be a max route traffic of 740 ish, meaning I wouldn't have had to upgrade the route again. As you can see, the route traffic required is much more than you actually need. What the ECU identifies as the current cycle amount is correct as you can observe by examining your storage facility after a cycle completes.
Gheeveetto Meyargen	Posted - 2011.01.26 01:18:00 - [100] PI is borked. They know it. But they tell the players that PI is not an exact science and the numbers are not supposed to add up. It may be your skills, it may be other players, hey it may be seizemic shifts within the core. It's a work in progress. This smells of (stinky stuff) to me. well i guess it allows them to continue doing what they are doing, without 'allocating resources' to fix something that is now less playable than before, and call it a success. Customer Relations 101.

Gamingloser1	Posted - 2011.01.26 02:12:00 - [101] Some additional thoughts I have: 1. Give us back our ship controls when viewing in planet mode. I know the hotkeys still work (f1, f2, etc.), but PLEASE let me see the status of my modules! 2. Allow us to move our command centers. I don't use mine for anything in my processing chain. The strategy for PI has changed and I'm sure many of you have had to move your operation on the planet. How much do you enjoy it focusing on the other side of the planet? Another option would be to allow us to set an "anchor" for where it would focus on when you load planet mode. Which brings me to number 3... 3. No more planet spin animation when loading into planet mode. I don't need something fancy planet spinning when I'm in null or low and having to worry about whether I'm cloaked or not (see #1). Just load to the freaking point.
Verkala Ven	Posted - 2011.01.26 04:45:00 - [102] Originally by: MongerMan You can see there facility and there ECU's. Right click anywhere on the planet and you will see the option. From there you can guess the area there ECU will cover. Its not just resources you're now fighting over, its space. So ya totally defend-able. No, you can't. Try it. Use an alt and set up colonies on the same world, and try to find them. The capability is theoretically there, but whether through design or defect it simply doesn't work.
Ulstan	Posted - 2011.01.26 06:00:00 - [103] For me, nothing shows up until I click on the enemy control center, and then his network of extractors and processors and storage pads is revealed too.
Verkala Ven	Posted - 2011.01.26 07:03:00 - [104] Originally by: Ulstan For me, nothing shows up until I click on the enemy control center, and then his network of extractors and processors and storage pads is revealed too. It's very erratic. I know I have colonies on the planet, but can't see them. Sometimes I'll see other command centers. Other times I'll just see a random extractor off in the middle of nowhere, with nothing else around it. And even when it does show you the entire colony, it's not accurate - it lays it out in a different geometric pattern. I used to think everyone else was an idiot at setting up colonies early, because when I saw them on other worlds they were very spread out, with uselessly long links between everything. But they weren't, it just doesn't show right. A game of Battleship gives you better information for competing with other players.
AS LordASB	Posted - 2011.01.27 16:02:00 - [105] post fix i am looking at every PI planet and seeing unrouted stock now waiting to be routed!!! so things look to be working for me, will need to do rechecking of numbers once i clear production from planet and reset the tests.
AS LordASB	Posted - 2011.01.27 16:26:00 - [106] mind you i do wounder if its bit OTT at present having to set some of my links to 2000 m3 to cope with amounts being extracted. which is strange
Argonaught Minmatar Cabbage Tea	Posted - 2011.01.27 17:00:00 - [107] Edited by: Argonaught on 27/01/2011 17:01:31 PI is still borked, they didn't fix routing from ecu to storage. 29964 units should be routed as 7491 x 4 cycles = 29964 Whats actually being routed is 9909 a routing loss of 20055 units (Note: Items being routed are done once an hour as routes aren't dynamic in that way) It's all well and good fixing the ECU extraction rates but the materials aren't even making it out of there into storage. CCP. What did you actually fix in PI on this patch? Argo. ------------------------------------------------ Coming soon or never.sig
Vo'Nguyen Giap	Posted - 2011.01.27 17:30:00 - [108] I am just frustrated that I dont have to just move my extractor heads, I have to move my entire setup, 2 launchpads 8 factories and my ecu head with 10 extractors, it really eats up those spots with 1day cycles, I thought we would see hot spots re-occur on the planets, why are we basically eating up all these planets to nothing, making them all worthless in the end.
Lost Hamster Hamster Holding Corp	Posted - 2011.01.28 08:50:00 - [109] Design flaw with routing?? I found an odd behavior: When you set up your extractor, set up the job, create the route - let's say the hourly rate is: 8000 unit - for this amount. Two days later you change your extractor points, and now you will get 9000 unit /hour. What will happen now? 8542 unit will be transported to the storage, the additional ~1000 unit will stay in the extractor as an extra. What apparently you can not move out. What would you say? You where stupid, why did not you upgraded the route. It's true. However what can you do, when in the first cycle in a job you get 8000 unit (you set up the route), and in the third cycle you get 9000 unit. That means in the third cycle you will loose the extra amount, as you can not set up a higher rate as the current amount is. So dear CCP: Please allow us to set up a higher route amount as the current cycle is. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shields are like pants, they're supposed to come off. Armor is like the condom once its gone ur ****ed
Chetverikov Evgeniy	Posted - 2011.03.01 16:54:00 - [110] before start programm: After start programm:

Inspiration	Posted - 2011.03.02 11:42:00 - [111] The routing numbers are per production cycle, except for m3 capacity used per hour. They function as allocation for the available link capacity, so you can divide a link according to plan and route multiple goods over it that do not hinder each other. It being allocation, there is no real need to allocate more m3/hour (specify 50% of it on half hour cycles, etc) then the actual plan (after starting the program) specifies. Once the program started, the resources displayed in the plan are correct, for each and every extraction cycle!!! To save some grid, you might want to take a small loss on the initial cycle, if this means not having to upgrade a link and being able to put an extra extractor head to work elsewhere. I been doing PI ever since the new system came out and it is working perfectly, and I have been adapting and refining my PI style to the way things work. I can say it is reliable, but there is some initial degradation over time if you started out on virgin ground. Nothing unexpected or unreasonable. The people I see complaining are generally trying to max the extraction rate by using the shortest cycles possible. Obviously, depletion becomes an issue then and you should change strategy and not cling to initial estimates so much. Find a good low or null sec system to do your PI on and set up for longer cycles when possible. To compensate for any fluctuations, you can have one of two "flex" planets running shorter cycles, that you more actively maintain and change as needed. Trying to do the flex approach for say 30 planets is asking for RSI and a mental bill :). It is time for people to adapt and improve instead of complain, this is EVE after all, a sandbox. I honestly can tell I made quite an evolutionary path in the way I work. And I am still finding ways to improve my results!!! So the plain and simple answer to the complainers is....you are doing it wrong!
Chetverikov Evgeniy	Posted - 2011.03.02 12:30:00 - [112] Losses more than 50% it not small. Line upgrade 2 lvl. I laid out screenshot not simply so. From 24 planets only 3 behave not clearly. On small cycles the error is more distinct is visible.
Rokkan	Posted - 2011.04.11 12:58:00 - [113] I just set up PI on two new planets. When you click on an ECU after it is up and running you will see "CURRENT CYCLE OUTPUT" in the bottom right corner with a number. That is exactly how many units are going to be produced. For example I got a number of 23907. When I went to route after setting up that extraction program the route window had a maximum of 34680. That is way too much (I get roughly 140% to 185% of the actual output in the route window). I am assuming that this is because some extraction programs extract more at different points in the cycle than in others and this is an allowance for future higher production? On one planet I upgraded the routes to permit the higher route number to be successful and on the other planet I simply put in 25000 (for a L1 link) and left the rest unrouted. The unrouted remainder did not stick in the ECU or anything, I got less than 25000 at my launchpad - I got the smaller predicted number at the ECU. tl;dr - ECU numbers are accurate, route numbers are stupid overestimates.
Rividien Calennand	Posted - 2011.04.12 16:35:00 - [114] Edited by: Rividien Calennand on 12/04/2011 16:39:08 Originally by: Chetverikov Evgeniy before start programm: ... After start programm: ... this is what happen and why the yield/hour is lower than what you expect it to be when placing the heads, but you can notice that it changes right after you click on "start program" and before you click on "submit" to effectively make the program start with the first cycle, so you can actually check it again to be sure you are receiving the amount you desire, if that depends on your scanning skills or not i don't know: i have low skills and i expect it to change a lot, but as someone said even with 4/4 it does change a lot (i've 0/0 and my yield lower for about the same % as someone with 4/4 said in this thread). while (as rokkan said and analized) the routes are ****ed up, the outcome from the ECU shown on "routes" tab is completely different from what it is for real, CCP should make it so that the routes updates themselves after every ECU cycle so that you have a real amount of income and outcome displayed on your storage facility. anyway, you can work checking the amount per hour and total shown on the ECU panel. <--- bad eng, not native speaking, but it should be understandable enough.
Jacked One Anninen	Posted - 2011.04.15 16:44:00 - [115] Output Per Hour: 24,230 (is the last cycle of the program) Total output: 455,223 (is the total output of the program) It seems to me that everyone is upset about the Output Per Hour value. Ifyou put your mouse on the last cycle of your program you will see where that number comes from. Its not an avg. or est. it is simply the amount the last cycle will produce in that program.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.