|
|
Post by xade on Sept 6, 2012 20:34:21 GMT -5
Reckon it's not counting the windmills in the power drain Rast.
Old Pollution: 5
Power: 1
LF (-35%) -3
------------------
New Pollution 3
Wind powered buildings 2
Reckon that -3 is assuming an 8 pollution starting point (prior to the -2 coming off for the windmills), cause it's currently draining 50%!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rasteroid on Sept 7, 2012 0:32:39 GMT -5
Don't you see the "Wind powered buildings 2" ?
Windmill pollution drain is not counted in the main calculation, because it is not guaranteed: It has to be triggered, either manually or by autoharvest.
|
|
|
|
Post by xade on Sept 7, 2012 0:40:02 GMT -5
But the initial reduced 2 are! The two that lower the power.
Without my windmills, it would have looked like this
Old Pollution: 5
Power: 3
LF (-35%) -3
------------------
New Pollution 5
And that -3 from the LF would have made sense.
As it currently stands, the -3 from LF is a 50% reduction, then the 2 wind powered buildings come in on top of that!
|
|
|
|
Post by xade on Sept 7, 2012 0:40:30 GMT -5
My cats name is mittens.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rasteroid on Sept 7, 2012 12:11:04 GMT -5
Mittens? That's standard crazy person talk.
5 (old pollution) and 3 (power) are 8,
35% of 8 is 2.8, which rounded up is 3: 3 pollution will drain thanks to industry
5 + 3 - 3 = 5, the predicted pollution.
Starting a windmill-powered building at any time simply reduces the pollution by one, which is an unrelated operation except of course that if pollution changes, the pollution chart will change all its numbers.
Windmill's other effect, that of lowering power overall, has already been considered in the power chart.
|
|
|
|
Post by xade on Sept 8, 2012 1:57:18 GMT -5
5 (old pollution) and 3 (power) are 8, 35% of 8 is 2.8, which rounded up is 3: 3 pollution will drain thanks to industry Exactly, that's what it should say right? But it doesn't! It says: Old Pollution: 5 Power: 1 LF (-35%) -3Power is only 1! 35% of 6 should not be -3. |
|
|
|
Post by Rasteroid on Sept 8, 2012 2:06:20 GMT -5
35% of 6 is 2.1, or 3 rounded up. So the first set of numbers makes sense too.
|
|
|
|
Post by xade on Sept 8, 2012 3:18:08 GMT -5
So it is... carry on then. Just looked strange with the 50% drop off a 6 pollution!  |
|
