Topic on User talk:Cheldra

Bothering you again. My math implies that cows > horses because of the milk production, your edits says otherwise. Might be a mistake (by either of us) or different assumptions. Unsure. Care to take a look?

Also, nutritional efficiency is important when you're feeding them/have limited pen space but when they can graze to their hearts content then straight nutritional output (in milk/eggs/male offspring meat [if only new females are kept]/total offspring meat [if herd size = constant]) is the more important stat. Likely should be added to analyses. I can get around to that myself if you prefer to leave it though.

I've had a look at your maths - our numbers agree for horses (and chickens which I checked using your formulas), but disagree on cows. There are two differences between the way we've calculated it:

• You've done meat/(cons - milk), whereas I did (meat + milk)/cons.
• You've done everything in per offspring, whereas I've done everything in per day. I don't think this should matter, as it cancels out in the division.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around which formula is correct - both make sense intuitively.

I think nutritional efficiency still matters most when choosing what animal to use, since you can always expand the herd size until you reach the limit of the pen, but you're right in that the analyses should include something like the number of colonists that each animal can sustain.

I've had more of a think over the problem, and meat/(cons - milk) and (meat + milk)/cons are fundamentally different formulas. I would say that if you define nutritional efficiency as nutrition_out/nutrition_in, then the (meat + milk)/cons that I did is correct. It's also a more useful number, as it can tell you exactly how much nutrition your getting out in ingredients for the meat component of meals for each nutrition in. If the cows could drink their own milk, then meat/(cons - milk) might be more useful.

Wrt to herd size, thats not necessarily correct because 1) herd growing takes a non-negligible amount of time 2) not everyone has PCs capable of arbitrary herd sizes 3) there are different strategies that don't really care about nutritional efficiency. I'm not saying nut eff isn't useful, because it clearly is, I'm just saying that both values are.

I'll have another look at the math when I get more time. I think you're right though.

Khitrir, one of the users on the Unofficial Rimworld Discord, asked if I could ask you to take a look at the wiki suggestions channel there. Something about user Bork discovering the gestation period was wrong. Both have helped out with the wiki in the past, so I thought it fair to pass it along.

Invite here: https://discord.com/invite/UTaMDWc

Thank you for passing it on to me! From the screenshot shared, it looks like the ages listed in the def files (and in the info boxes here) is actually age from the start of gestation. Since the age given in the ingame info windows is age from birth, should we just subtract gestation from ages everywhere in the wiki via infobox_main?

Oh. Thats weird. Why count from gestation? Thats unnecessarily confusing.

Keep the input value the same so it can be copied straight from the XMLs but either the title in the infobox should clarify that its from gestation with hover text (like manhunter chance does for example), or it should be displayed as since birth, or maybe best still displayed like real grow time with both values presented and explanation on the difference

I can implement it later, or you can if you'd like to.

I'll do it tonight I guess. I also need to check if egg-layers are affected the same way.

So I did some investigating, and the weirdness with the ages doesn't actually have anything to do with gestation times. The real adult age is actually (1-1/e)×adult_age, and (1-1/e^(juvenile_age/adult_age))×adult_age for real juvenile age. Check the discord channel if you want to see why.

I've also included an explanation in Template:Actual Age