Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Design Fuel Consumption?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> War Room >> Design Fuel Consumption? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/21/2021 3:46:38 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 3033
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
I have not noticed until recently, but apparently the fuel consumption of a Vehicle engine depends on how heavily the engine is loaded.
When I noticed something like that for Airplanes I had asumed that was a Airplane specific rule, but it seems like it is actually a pattern that already exists for ground vehicles?

I think nobody has figured out any pattern for this yet. But I think if we gather some data across multiple games, we can figure something out.

Some information to start with:
Fuel Consumption on the Unit Card is per 1 Hex.
However the "Move Oil" cost stated under Management->Model->Op. Cost and in the Design Log seems to be per 10 hexes. So it is 10 times that.

Data Points:
3 instances of the "Cross Billy" buggy, where all 3 had the same Engine Design (wich simplifies this part), each of them with a different Fuel Consumption.

Starting Model:
Advanced MG, Medium Diesel Engine, 5mm Steel Plating
Stated Engine Consumption: 0.5
Fuel/Decihex: 9
Adjusted Engine Power: 270
Total Weight: 120
AEP/Weight: 2.25
Move Modifier: +15%

Model 2:
(I added 50mm Steel Plating)
Advanced MG, Medium Diesel, 50mm Steel Plating
Stated Engine Consumption: 0.5
Fuel/Decihex: 17
Adjsuted Engine Power: 270
Total Weight: 300
AEP/Weight: 0.90
Move Mod: -10%

Model 3:
(Upgraded engine to large Diesel over Model 2)
Advanced MG, Large Diesel, 50mm Steel Palting
Stated Engine Consumption: 1.0
Fuel/Decihex: 22
Adjsuted Engine Power: 360
Total Weight: 315
AEP/Weight: 1.14
Move Mod: +/- 0%

Noticeable things:
- Dropping the Relative Engine Power from 2.25 to 0.90 almost exactly doubeled Fuel Consumption
- Doubling the State Engine Fuel consumption did not double actuall consumption, as it changed the Relative Engine Power from 0.90 to 1.14
- between the 1st and 3rd Model, the Engines Stated Consumption Doubled. While the Fuel consumption more then Doubled, as the Relative Engine Power changed from 2.25 to 1.14
- the penalty for being underpowered is on another order of magnitude then the bonus for begin overpowered. This is a usual thing. It penalizes for being below the target and gives some bonus for being above - but without making being above a viable strategy
- the Engines Stated Fuel Consumption is off. Even if we asume a large modifier, I would say it needs to be multiplied by 20 or so.

Derived values:
I grew interested in:
- what would Stated Engine Consumption times 20 be and how far is the actuall consumption from it

Model 1:
20*Engine Fuel: 10
Actuall consumption: 9
Difference: -10%

Model 2:
20*Engine Fuel: 10
Actuall consumption: 17
Difference: +70%

Model 3:
20*Engine Fuel: 20
Actuall consumption: 22
Difference: +10%

While the Multiplier might be close to 20, it might not actually be 20. Let us try it again with 22:
Model 1:
22*Engine Fuel: 11
Actuall Consumption: 9
Difference: -18%

Model 2:
22*Engine Fuel: 11
Actuall Consumption: 17
Difference: +54.54%

Model 3:
22*Engine Fuel: 22
Actuall Consumption: 22
Difference: +/- 0%

Under thse calculations, it seems like the cost modifier is directly related to the Movement Cost Modifier.

Theory:
1. Take the engines stated Fuel Consumption, multiply it by 22
2. Take the Movement cost modifier
3. If Nr. 2 is a bonus, reduce Result from 1 by a equal amount*
4. If Nr. 2 is a penalty, increase the result from 1 by 6 times that amount*

*How to translate the known Modifiers into the Fuel one, is the tricky bit. I can say the penalty is very quickly increasing, while the bonus is very slowly increasing
Post #: 1
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/22/2021 5:08:55 AM   
GuardsmanGary

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 7/4/2020
Status: offline
In my own attempts to decipher fuel usage I've found that move mod, aka effective engine power (or adjusted engine power for your calculations), does not have any influence on fuel usage. Rather the three factors of fuel usage are size, weight, and engine type. How they all interact with each other to determine final fuel usage remains a mystery to me but I have no found any other factor that impacts fuel consumption. Other than fuel efficiency tech, obviously, but its effect is very visible and easily controlled for.

As you can see in the image below I have two light tanks, both with 650 weight and both using heavy diesel engines. Despite the Abraham III having very poor engine performance giving it -50% move mod it still uses the same amount of fuel as the Crusader V, which has very good engine performance giving it no move mod. You'll also notice that the medium tank shown, despite using the same engine, having 5 less weight, and possessing a better move mod penalty than the Abraham III uses more fuel than either light tank. The movement modifier is entirely incidental and has no impact or bearing on fuel consumption.


(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 2
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/22/2021 9:57:50 AM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 3033
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GuardsmanGary

In my own attempts to decipher fuel usage I've found that move mod, aka effective engine power (or adjusted engine power for your calculations), does not have any influence on fuel usage. Rather the three factors of fuel usage are size, weight, and engine type. How they all interact with each other to determine final fuel usage remains a mystery to me but I have no found any other factor that impacts fuel consumption. Other than fuel efficiency tech, obviously, but its effect is very visible and easily controlled for.

As you can see in the image below I have two light tanks, both with 650 weight and both using heavy diesel engines. Despite the Abraham III having very poor engine performance giving it -50% move mod it still uses the same amount of fuel as the Crusader V, which has very good engine performance giving it no move mod. You'll also notice that the medium tank shown, despite using the same engine, having 5 less weight, and possessing a better move mod penalty than the Abraham III uses more fuel than either light tank. The movement modifier is entirely incidental and has no impact or bearing on fuel consumption.



Thanks for this information, it avoids me going down the wrong track.

However I would not exclude engine power totally. It might still use the Engine Power before the Design Roll. Time to do more math it seems :)

As for the Vehicle size having a Impact:
- Each Vehicle Type has it's own inherent Weight and HP. So even with the same gear, a medium tank will be slightly tougher and heavier then a light one
- some models also use entirely different engine sets. Meaning that even with the same name, Engine Power and rated Fuel Consumption are not the same

(in reply to GuardsmanGary)
Post #: 3
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/22/2021 10:00:36 AM   
BlueTemplar


Posts: 887
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline
quote:

some models also use entirely different engine sets. Meaning that even with the same name, Engine Power and rated Fuel Consumption are not the same

Oh, come on, Vic !
Any examples ?

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 4
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/22/2021 10:21:17 AM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 3033
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

quote:

some models also use entirely different engine sets. Meaning that even with the same name, Engine Power and rated Fuel Consumption are not the same

Oh, come on, Vic !
Any examples ?

Buggies
Light Tanks
Mechanized Artillery

Similar to same engine names, totally differnet Fuel Consumption and Engine power.

(in reply to BlueTemplar)
Post #: 5
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/22/2021 11:02:22 AM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 3033
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
Okay, given the information that the Movement Modifier has apparently no impact this time I looked at raw engine power compared to weight:

Starting Model:
Advanced MG, Medium Diesel Engine, 5mm Steel Plating
Stated Engine Consumption: 0.5
Stated Engine Power: 300
Fuel/Decihex: 9
Total Weight: 120
SEP/Weight: 2.5

Model 2:
(I added 50mm Steel Plating)
Advanced MG, Medium Diesel, 50mm Steel Plating
Stated Engine Consumption: 0.5
Stated Engine Power: 300
Fuel/Decihex: 17
Total Weight: 300
SEP/Weight: 1.0

Model 3:
(Upgraded engine to large Diesel over Model 2)
Advanced MG, Large Diesel, 50mm Steel Palting
Stated Engine Consumption: 1.0
Stated Engine Power: 400
Fuel/Decihex: 22
Total Weight: 315
SEP/Weight: 1.27

Size Calculation:
Light Tanks have a size of 1 default and 5 from Light Tank/Quad MG. But I do not know if those are additive or replace one another. So I have to look at it from both 5 and 6 as value.

Let us divide weight by size:
Starting Model:
5: 24
6: 20

Model 2:
5: 60
6: 50

Model 3:
5: 63
6: 52.5

I have to run and finish this math later, but I see indications of a pattern compared to fuel...

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 6
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/22/2021 11:45:24 AM   
BlueTemplar


Posts: 887
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline
It's replaced (see popup).

What model are you looking at here, Mechanized Quad MG ?

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 7
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/22/2021 2:18:23 PM   
GuardsmanGary

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 7/4/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
some models also use entirely different engine sets. Meaning that even with the same name, Engine Power and rated Fuel Consumption are not the same

Buggies
Light Tanks
Mechanized Artillery

Similar to same engine names, totally differnet Fuel Consumption and Engine power.

I'm looking at it now in the design process and everything is the same for those model types. I've checked multiple saves started in different versions, checked on the latest beta build and the current release version and it's consistent across all of them. Do you have a screenshot?

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 8
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/22/2021 3:44:41 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 3033
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

It's replaced (see popup).

What model are you looking at here, Mechanized Quad MG ?

And of course I had forgotten that my sampel Data was with buggies as well. Size 3, not 5
So the corrected division is:

Starting Model:
Weight/Size: 40
Fuel/Decihex: 9
Fuel/WS ratio: 4.44
Weight/Fuel: 13.33

Model 2:
Weight/Size: 100
Fuel/Decihex: 17
Fuel/WS Ratio: 5.88
Weight/Fuel: 17.65

Model 3:
Weight/Size: 105
Fuel/Decihex: 22
Fuel/WS Ratio: 4.77
Weight/Fuel: 14.32

Extending the sample a bit over more models:

Guards Abraham III
Weight: 650
Size: 5
Weight/Size: 130
Fuel/Decihex: 20
Fuel/WS Ratio: 0.15
Weight/Fuel: 32.5

Guards Crusader V:
Weight: 650
Size: 5
Weight/Size: 130
Fuel/Decihex: 20
Fuel/WS Ratio: 0.15
Weight/Fuel: 32.5

Guards Allrounder:
Weight: 645
Size: 7
Weight/Size: 92.14
Fuel/Decihex: 23
Fuel/WS Ratio: 0.25
Weight/Fuel: 28.04

Starting light Armor:
Weight: 320
Size: 5
Weight/Size: 64
Fuel/Decihex: 16
Fuel/WS Ratio: 0.25
Weight/Fuel: 20

Mechanized Artillery 1:
Weight: 1020
Size: 7
Weight/Size: 145.71
Fuel/Decihex: 80
Fuel/WS Ratio: 0.55
Weight/Fuel: 12.75


New Results:
- we can exclude the size having anything to do with consumption directly. But it seems to play some role in the Formula after all.
- you can see almost a pattern for Model 1 and 3. However Model 2 is still a outlier and this is only for buggies
- at this point I am asuming the bulk of fuel consumption comes from weight - the engine consumption is simply added to that, wich would make it a negligible amount overall
- It seems to be something as simple as Weight/~13 or so
- there might be two formulas at play: One having the clearly scaling result and the other providing a "lower bound" for fuel consumpion

(in reply to BlueTemplar)
Post #: 9
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/22/2021 5:16:42 PM   
GuardsmanGary

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 7/4/2020
Status: offline
My tank designs were benefiting from 55% fuel savings, so that's going to throw off your attempts at finding a pattern using them in your data set. It's easily controlled for though, simply take the move cost: oil in the design log as that is what the fuel savings are applied to. Without any fuel efficiency tech the Abraham and Crusader has 45 fuel/decihex and the Allround 52 fuel/decihex.

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 10
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/22/2021 5:23:52 PM   
BlueTemplar


Posts: 887
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline
Just to be sure : is that 55% fuel savings, or 55% Fuel Efficiency, which should give around 36.7% fuel savings ?

(in reply to GuardsmanGary)
Post #: 11
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/22/2021 6:08:00 PM   
GuardsmanGary

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 7/4/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

Just to be sure : is that 55% fuel savings, or 55% Fuel Efficiency,

55% fuel savings.

(in reply to BlueTemplar)
Post #: 12
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/22/2021 6:36:34 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 3033
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
quote:

Without any fuel efficiency tech the Abraham and Crusader has 45 fuel/decihex and the Allround 52 fuel/decihex.



quote:

ORIGINAL: GuardsmanGary

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

Just to be sure : is that 55% fuel savings, or 55% Fuel Efficiency,

55% fuel savings.

But my math says:
36*55% = 19.8
42*55% = 23.1
so it would have to be 36 and 42 after removing the bonus.

(in reply to GuardsmanGary)
Post #: 13
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/22/2021 7:34:37 PM   
GuardsmanGary

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 7/4/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

But my math says:
36*55% = 19.8
42*55% = 23.1
so it would have to be 36 and 42 after removing the bonus.


A 55% savings means the fuel use is 45% of the original value, so it would be 45*0.45 = 20.25 for the lights and 52*0.45 = 23.4 for the medium. You can also divide the fuel decihex value by 0.45 to arrive at the original oil move cost, but you'll be working against rounding so it will be off somewhat.


(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 14
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/23/2021 1:33:16 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 3033
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
Okay, I think I have enough data to try a simple formula:
(Weight / [WeightDivisor]) + ([Engine Rated Fuel Consumption] * 10)

Buggies:
Let us asume a WeightDivisor of 25 for this model

Starting Model:
Advanced MG, Medium Diesel Engine, 5mm Steel Plating
Stated Engine Consumption: 0.5
Fuel/Decihex: 9
Total Weight: 120
120/25 + 5 = 4.8+5 = 9.8

Model 2:
(I added 50mm Steel Plating)
Advanced MG, Medium Diesel, 50mm Steel Plating
Stated Engine Consumption: 0.5
Fuel/Decihex: 17
Total Weight: 300
300/25 + 5 = 12+5 = 17

Model 3:
(Upgraded engine to large Diesel over Model 2)
Advanced MG, Large Diesel, 50mm Steel Palting
Stated Engine Consumption: 1.0
Fuel/Decihex: 22
Total Weight: 315
315/25 + 10 = 12.6+10 = 22.6

Result:
- the rounding behavior is inconsistent (indicating a more complex formula on the weight side), but beyond that it seems to be in the right ballpark
- the hypothesis that the Engines Rate Fuel * 10 is just added, is supported by model 2+3. It is a simple formula and the difference happens to be +5.
- at least the part about the Engines Consumption impact should be easy to verify

(in reply to GuardsmanGary)
Post #: 15
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/24/2021 3:26:08 PM   
GuardsmanGary

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 7/4/2020
Status: offline
I think I figured out why engines display different fuel consumption values in the design process sometimes but not other times. I noticed that in one of my games I was seeing the same inconsistency in the fuel consumption display between the same engine types on different models that zgrssd reported, which was contrary to my early reply in which I found that it was entirely consistent across all model types. Would you believe it if I said the culprit is if you have airforces enabled or disabled? The game I noticed the difference on I accidentally started it without airforces enabled while the all the games I based my earlier post on had them enabled. Some testing starting new games with and without airforces revealed that the inconsistencies only appear in games without airforces. If Airforces are disabled you will see a proper calculations of fuel usage while in the model design window. I also discovered that the fuel use value shown is accurate to the fuel cost per hex before fuel efficiency savings are calculated.

This has actually provided some pretty good insight on how fuel use is calculated:
- We now know the base fuel consumption of engines. Light diesel is 0.1, medium diesel is 0.5, heavy diesel is 1, double diesel is 1.5, and triple diesel is 2. This base value is just a flat addition to the fuel use derived from the models size/weight.
- Double diesel engines double fuel use and triple diesel engines triple it; as the names suggest it is literally two and three engines. This multiplication happens before the base fuel consumption of the engines are applied.
- Weight does not increase fuel use if the total weight is below 150. This means any fuel use below that weight has to be from the size rating of the chassis. A 105 weight buggy and a 135 weight buggy both use 0.4 fuel with a light diesel engine before base engine consumption is added. Similarly a size 2, 65 weight truck uses 0.2 fuel before base engine consumption.
- There are weight bands for fuel consumption. Any weight value inside these bands use a set amount of fuel. From 0 to 149 weight is the first band, 150 to 249 is the second band, 350 to 449 the third, etc. A 207 weight light tank uses the same amount of fuel as a 222 weight or a 237 weight light tank.

Edit: The above two points need a slight correction. There exists a "0th" band starting at 0 weight and ending at 49. In this band the fuel use is equal to only the engine base consumption value; size and weight have no impact on fuel use in this band. Between 50 and 149 only the size contributes to fuel use. The only vehicle that can exist inside the 0 to 49 band is a truck with a light electric engine. The formula still accurately predicts its energy usage, however, so there are no changes there.

Having discovered all this I think I cracked the fuel use enigma. Base fuel use of a design is its size divided by 10. You then multiply this base value by the 'weight band number' to reach a weight adjusted fuel use value. This is added onto the base fuel use value. Multiply this by the number of engines, and then finally you add the base engine consumption. Weight band can be determined by dividing the weight by 100 and rounding to the nearest whole number. This formula will tell you the fuel use per hex before any fuel savings from the fuel efficiency tech is applied.

FUEL USE FORMULA:
(SIZE/10) * WEIGHT BAND * Number of engines + Engine Base Consumption


Now for some examples:
Light tank 1
Size 5, 40mm howitzer, 5mm steel armour, light diesel engine
Weight:
50 base
+100 40mm howitzer
+25 5mm steel armour
+45 light diesel engine
220 weight. This design falls into weight band 2

Expected fuel use:
(5/10)*2*1+0.1 = 1.1 fuel use
Comparing this to an identical design in the game I get 1.1

Light Tank 2
Size 5, 60mm howitzer, 100mm steel armour, heavy diesel engine
Weight:
50 base
+150 60mm howitzer
+375 100mm steel armour
+75 heavy diesel engine
650 weight. This design falls into weight band 7

Expected fuel use:
(5/10)*7*1+1 = 4.5 fuel use
Comparing this to an identical design in the game I get 4.5.

Monitor Tank
Size 11, beam Gun, 400mm polymer armour, triple diesel engine
Weight:
110 base
+400 beam gun
+962 400mm polymer
+125 triple diesel engine
1597 weight. This design falls into weight band 16

Expected fuel use:
(11/10)*16*3+2 = 54.8 fuel use
Comparing this to an identical design in the game I get 54.8

< Message edited by GuardsmanGary -- 3/24/2021 7:59:02 PM >

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 16
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/24/2021 3:44:58 PM   
BlueTemplar


Posts: 887
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline
Wow, congratulations for figuring it out !

So, is this for games with or without Air Forces enabled ? What is the exact difference ? Do you think it's a bug ?

"Weight Bands" seem to be just rounding ? (Can you even go lower than 50 weight on a vehicle ?)

(in reply to GuardsmanGary)
Post #: 17
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/24/2021 4:11:38 PM   
GuardsmanGary

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 7/4/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar
So, is this for games with or without Air Forces enabled ? What is the exact difference ? Do you think it's a bug ?

I guess when vic added aircraft he did something to the code to disable the model screen from displaying the radjusted fuel usage. I also noticed models that lack either the option for a weapon or armour do not display the adjusted fuel use value with airforces enabled and disabled, it's just the base engine consumption values regardless.


quote:

"Weight Bands" seem to be just rounding ? (Can you even go lower than 50 weight on a vehicle ?)

Lightest vehicle is a truck with a light electric engine coming in at 40 weight. It has an energy consumption of 0.1, the same as the base value of the engine, meaning its weight band was rounded down to 0. How would you denote rounding in a formula, though?

< Message edited by GuardsmanGary -- 3/24/2021 4:12:03 PM >

(in reply to BlueTemplar)
Post #: 18
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/24/2021 4:24:31 PM   
BlueTemplar


Posts: 887
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline
Ah, electric engines, right...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounding
The general rounding sign is ≈ ... when it comes to a variable, I'm only aware of "round(x)" ?
For rounding up : ceiling : ceil(x) = ⌈x⌉
For rounding down : floor : floor(x) = ⌊x⌋

< Message edited by BlueTemplar -- 3/24/2021 4:27:13 PM >

(in reply to GuardsmanGary)
Post #: 19
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/24/2021 4:59:48 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 3033
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
quote:

Would you believe it if I said the culprit is if you have airforces enabled or disabled?

Yes.
Without a second of doubt even.

quote:

- We now know the base fuel consumption of engines now. Light diesel is 0.1, medium diesel is 0.5, heavy diesel is 1, double diesel is 1.5, and triple diesel is 2. This base value is just a flat addition to the fuel use derived from the models size/weight.

I guess we could call it the "Idle Consumption"? In the sense that it is not affected by weight.
Not a perfect match, as it implies this consumption happens every turn regardless of movement.

quote:

Lightest vehicle is a truck with a light electric engine coming in at 40 weight. It has an energy consumption of 0.1, the same as the base value of the engine, meaning its weight band was rounded down to 0. How would you denote rounding in a formula, though?

I do not think Formula support the rounding operation.
A algorythm description does support. (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.)
And we can just copy how it is written in EXCEL Formulas "ROUND(something").

I think the Algorythm notation is easier to understand and read.

(in reply to GuardsmanGary)
Post #: 20
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/24/2021 5:19:12 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 3033
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
quote:

- We now know the base fuel consumption of engines. Light diesel is 0.1, medium diesel is 0.5, heavy diesel is 1, double diesel is 1.5, and triple diesel is 2. This base value is just a flat addition to the fuel use derived from the models size/weight.
- Double diesel engines double fuel use and triple diesel engines triple it; as the names suggest it is literally two and three engines. This multiplication happens before the base fuel consumption of the engines are applied.
- Weight does not increase fuel use if the total weight is below 150. This means any fuel use below that weight has to be from the size rating of the chassis. A 60 weight buggy and a 90 weight buggy both use 0.4 fuel with a light diesel engine before base engine consumption is added. Similarly a size 2 weight 65 truck uses 0.2 fuel before base engine consumption.
- There are weight bands for fuel consumption. Any weight value inside these bands use a set amount of fuel. From 0 to 149 weight is the first band, 150 to 249 is the second band, 350 to 449 the third, etc. A 207 weight light tank uses the same amount of fuel as a 222 weight or a 237 weight light tank.

Using this I would write it as:

1. Note the Stated Fuel Consumption of the Engine as "Base Consumption". It will be added at the end.
2. Note if it is a single, double or tripple engine. This will be used as a Multiplier called "Engine Count".
3. Take the weight, substract 50, divide by 100, round true. This is the "Weight Band Multiplier"
4. Take the Base Weight divided by 10. This is the "Size Base Consumption"

Real consumption is:
Size Base Consumption * Weight Band Multiplier * Engine Count + Base Consumption

(in reply to GuardsmanGary)
Post #: 21
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/24/2021 5:24:55 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 3033
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
Let us take a look at my Mechanized Artillery to double check the values:
1. Base Consumption is 1 from heavy diesel Engine
2. This is a single engine I think, so 1 again
3. Weight is 1020. (1020-50)/100 = 9.7; Rounds to 10
4. Base Weight is 70, so Size Base Consumption of 7

7*1*1+1 = 8 expected fuel consumption
8 Fuel Consumption/hex was observed

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 22
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/24/2021 6:03:34 PM   
GuardsmanGary

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 7/4/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

3. Take the weight, substract 50, divide by 100, round true. This is the "Weight Band Multiplier"


Wouldn't this cause issues if the total weight is within 50 weight of the lower band limit? The Light Tank 2 example is 650 total weight, which places it just barely in the 7th band by 1. If you were to subtract 50 it would drop it down to the 6th band giving an inaccurate return.

quote:


Let us take a look at my Mechanized Artillery to double check the values:
1. Base Consumption is 1 from heavy diesel Engine
2. This is a single engine I think, so 1 again
3. Weight is 1020. (1020-50)/100 = 9.7; Rounds to 10
4. Base Weight is 70, so Size Base Consumption of 7

7*1*1+1 = 8 expected fuel consumption
8 Fuel Consumption/hex was observed


Wouldn't it be 7*10*1+1?

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 23
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/24/2021 6:54:29 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 3033
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
quote:

Wouldn't this cause issues if the total weight is within 50 weight of the lower band limit? The Light Tank 2 example is 650 total weight, which places it just barely in the 7th band by 1. If you were to subtract 50 it would drop it down to the 6th band giving an inaccurate return.

Then substract 49 instead.

"The two biggest problems in programming are naming things, cache invalidations and off-by-one-errors"

(in reply to GuardsmanGary)
Post #: 24
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/24/2021 7:59:56 PM   
GuardsmanGary

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 7/4/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

Then substract 49 instead.


That's still the same problem though. Subtracting any amount runs risk of dropping the weight into a lower band. In the case of that 650 weight light tank, which is a valid combination in the game, even subtracting 1 would give an inaccurate value. What is your reasoning for including a subtraction step?

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 25
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/25/2021 8:31:52 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 3033
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GuardsmanGary


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

Then substract 49 instead.


That's still the same problem though. Subtracting any amount runs risk of dropping the weight into a lower band. In the case of that 650 weight light tank, which is a valid combination in the game, even subtracting 1 would give an inaccurate value. What is your reasoning for including a subtraction step?

(199-50)/100 = 149/100 = 1.49 Rounded true, you end up at 1.
(200-50)/100 = 150/100 = 1.50 Rounded true, you end up at 2.

Substracting half the devisior then rounding true, is the same result as just dividing and rounding down.
But I try a rewrite anyway.

< Message edited by zgrssd -- 3/25/2021 8:32:31 PM >

(in reply to GuardsmanGary)
Post #: 26
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/25/2021 9:52:33 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 3033
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
Formula:
Total Consumption = Size Base Consumption * Weight Band Multiplier * Engine Count + Engine Base Consumption


- Size Base Consumption is the basic weight of the Model before any equipment is added, divided by 10.
- Weight Band Multiplier works as follows: Take the Total Weight.
a) If it is under 150, the weight band multiplier is 0
b) otherwise, the WBM is the weight, divided by 100, rounded down
- Engine Count is the number of Engines, usually single, double or tripple. For Airplanes it is propably based on the Models Engine count. This value is currently not listed in the Designer
- Engine Base Consumption is the value listed in the designer for each engine

Results:
- Total Weight is by far the biggest contributor to fuel use - move mass is expensive
- the second biggest factor is the model itself. Even the light truck is a x2 multiplier, with buggies already clocking in at x4. And it only becomes worse from here
- Engine base consumption is comparatively miniscule. However the number of engines has a massive impact on consumption

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 27
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/26/2021 7:12:19 AM   
GuardsmanGary

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 7/4/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
Total Consumption = Size Base Consumption * Weight Band Multiplier * Engine Count + Engine Base Consumption

Let's try this with a buggy equipped with a medium diesel engine and 50mm of polymer armour. Weapon options weigh 0 on buggies.

40 base weight + 100 for 50mm polymer armour + 60 for engine = 200 weight.
(40/10)*(200/100)*1+0.5
simplified:
4*2*1+0.5 = 8.5
In the game such a design would return 1.3. If you were to multiply the engine base consumption by 10 before adding it you would instead get 13, which is the "move cost" value as displayed in the design log.

Let's try a light tank with 40mm howitzer, 100mm steel armour and medium diesel engine.

50 base weight + 100 for 40mm howitzer + 375 for 100mm steel armour + 60 for medium diesel = 585 weight
(50/10)*(585/100, rounded down)*1+0.5
simplified:
5*5*1+0.5 = 25.5
In game such a design would return 3.5. Let's multiply the base engine consumption by 10 again to see if that gets us the "move cost" value: 5*5*1+5 = 30. That's still not right. It should be 35, not 30. It's off by 5 because we rounded 585/100 down to 5 instead of rounding it to the nearest whole number, 6. This effectively dropped it into the lower weight band, giving it an incorrect weight band multiplier.

quote:

- Size Base Consumption is the basic weight of the Model before any equipment is added, divided by 10.

Base weight is derived from the size of the model as simply size*10. Doing it this way is just taking a derived value and reverting it. It's adding and taking away the same number of zeroes. But more than that this is also why your formula gives values that are so much higher than what they should be, as the size base consumption is a full order of magnitude greater than it should be.

quote:


- Weight Band Multiplier works as follows: Take the Total Weight.
a) If it is under 150, the weight band multiplier is 0

The weight band multiplier is only 0 if weight is 49 or less, as is the case of a truck equipped with a light electric engine. Between 50 and 149 it has to be 1. If you treat weight below 149 as 0 then the size base consumption is also zeroed out; a 120 weight buggy with a medium diesel engine uses, as reported by the game, 0.9 fuel per hex. If you treat 120 weight as effectively 0 weight, and thus a weight band multiplier of 0, it would return 0.5 fuel use. This is obviously inaccurate.

quote:


Substracting half the devisior then rounding true, is the same result as just dividing and rounding down.
b) otherwise, the WBM is the weight, divided by 100, rounded down

Again, this is only causing inaccuracies for designs that fall within 50 weight of the lower limit of the weight band. A light tank with a 60mm howitzer and 100mm steel armour can be in either weight band 6 or 7 depending on what engine you pick. If the additional weight of all 3 engines put the tank in the 6th weight band, as would be the case if you subtract 50 or round down, you'd see a fuel use progression of 3.1 for the light diesel engine, 3.5 for the medium, and 4 on the heavy. Instead you see 3.1 on the light, 3.5 on the medium and 4.5 on the heavy. This is because the weight of the heavy diesel engine is enough to push the design into the 7th weight band, which adds an extra 0.5 fuel use to the design. Why do you believe a subtraction, or now rounding down, is necessary?

The formula as I wrote it in my original post:
(SIZE/10) * WEIGHT BAND * number of engines + engine base consumption
At the time I wrote this I wasn't even aware there was a "0th" weight band that only a light electric engine equipped truck falls into, yet it still accurately predicts the energy consumption of this edge case truck design. It also accurately predicts the fuel use of designs that are on the absolute edge of the weight bands. This formula consistently and accurately predicts fuel use for every design I've tested it against. It is, as far as all testing has revealed it to be, correct.

The only confusion that could come of this is not knowing what a weight band is, which can be fixed by amending the formula to read:
(size/10) * (weight/100) rounded to nearest whole number * number of engines + engine base consumption

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 28
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/26/2021 7:40:25 AM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 3033
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
quote:

(size/10) * (weight/100) rounded to nearest whole number * number of engines + engine base consumption

I definitely find "Number of engines" confusing, as I only ever have one engine module installed in the model and the only thing mentioning multiple engines are the Airplane Models.
But then I disagree with the multiplier in general, as it really makes no sense. I seriously thinkg it is a plain old mistake.

And Engine Base Consumption is not defined anywhere in the Manual. Best to give a definition for each value that is not inherently evident from the main card.

As for Size, I had checked if Size = BaseWeight/10 or vice versa, but thought I spotted a exception. But it looks like that was just my memory playing tricks on me.
Also you did write Size/10 both times wich is not quite the value.

quote:

The weight band multiplier is only 0 if weight is 49 or less, as is the case of a truck equipped with a light electric engine. Between 50 and 149 it has to be 1. If you treat weight below 149 as 0 then the size base consumption is also zeroed out; a 120 weight buggy with a medium diesel engine uses, as reported by the game, 0.9 fuel per hex. If you treat 120 weight as effectively 0 weight, and thus a weight band multiplier of 0, it would return 0.5 fuel use. This is obviously inaccurate.


I did get the 150 figure from your original text:
quote:

- Weight does not increase fuel use if the total weight is below 150. This means any fuel use below that weight has to be from the size rating of the chassis. A 105 weight buggy and a 135 weight buggy both use 0.4 fuel with a light diesel engine before base engine consumption is added. Similarly a size 2, 65 weight truck uses 0.2 fuel before base engine consumption.

(in reply to GuardsmanGary)
Post #: 29
RE: Design Fuel Consumption? - 3/26/2021 9:16:59 AM   
BlueTemplar


Posts: 887
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline
quote:

And Engine Base Consumption is not defined anywhere in the Manual. Best to give a definition for each value that is not inherently evident from the main card.

Yeah, isn't it *the only one* that the model designer shows ?
Funnily enough, it's (generally ?) the least important variable ?

< Message edited by BlueTemplar -- 3/26/2021 9:17:46 AM >

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> War Room >> Design Fuel Consumption? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.703