jonnygozy Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 I suppose we need to make sure that when we post data points (say -71,67) with just integers that you in fact moved it to exactly -71.00000, 67.00000, otherwise we could be getting bad readings and wasting time and money. On another note, I'll be buying my moon colony tomorrow, any data points to try? On yet another note, I posted a question about the hotspot precision in the Question Center (http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=70679). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfprince Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 86% here Location: -74.77584, 133.59375 Hope that data helps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Zakharov Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 Are you sure that these are all the points that could fit???Do you have no problem with that 92% point? No problem with the 92% or any of the points. Yeah, I'm pretty sure the feasible region is correct. I actually just double checked it via another method: Instead of just defining one feasible region for the hotspot, we can define a feasible region with respect to any individual datapoint. The feasible region for a datapoint p is the set of points which, if they were the hotspot, would match p. This can be defined as an inequality: feasible(p) = {x : p.value <= eff(p,x) <= p.value+1} With this definition, the global feasible region is just the intersection of all the feasible region of each datapoint. The advantage of doing it this way, is we can use powerful existing tools for computing/graphing inequality equations. Here is a sequence of plots I produced using this method, zooming in closer and closer to the feasible region (in yellow). Each "band" is the feasible region of a single datapoint. I suppose we need to make sure that when we post data points (say -71,67) with just integers that you in fact moved it to exactly -71.00000, 67.00000, otherwise we could be getting bad readings and wasting time and money.On another note, I'll be buying my moon colony tomorrow, any data points to try? On yet another note, I posted a question about the hotspot precision in the Question Center (http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=70679). Great idea posting @ the question center. I don't have any ideas for points right now. If the question gets answered and we find out some information about the number of decimal places, I might be able to do something more; until then I consider the problem solved as far as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golan 1st Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 I like your analytic approach I am not the grapic type, so I am forced to used boring mathematics. After analyzing the points we already have, I assumed that the efficiency function is eff(p) = floor(100 - d(p, h) / 50). This functions "works" for all points of which efficiency > 90% using many points inside the 99% region (see examples below). Using (-70.9225, 67.01) as the hotspot, I get an efficiency of 93% for the 92% point (-79, 100) and 99% for (-71, 71.5), of which actual efficiency is 98%. For reference, I am posting my results using the following guesses: G1 = (-71, 65.1) G2 = (-71, 66.2) G3 = (-70.9225, 67.01) (your point) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnygozy Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 -70,67 gives 99% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golan 1st Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 I am now more interested in points with efficiency in the range of 51% - 90%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Zakharov Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 (edited) I assumed that the efficiency function is eff(p) = floor(100 - d(p, h) / 50). That's why you aren't matching the further-out points, the constant 50 isn't quite correct. The formula I came up with (using line fitting) is: eff(p) = floor(100 - 125*d(p,h)/pi) where d(p,h) is calculated with r = 1. I think it's better to do it this way so we don't need to know the actual number admin used for the moon radius. I quoted this formula in one of my earlier posts btw. If I work that formula into the same form as yours, it comes out to something like 43.6556 instead of 50, using 1737km for the moon radius. Edited October 6, 2009 by Provost Zakharov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golan 1st Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 Your constant does give better results /me goes back to the charts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slayer1557 Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 I bow before your efforts at a mathematical solution, good sirs. If it was me I would just randomly guess with the rest of you till I get kinda close. >.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golan 1st Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 If we are right and the coordinates are not integers, it seems that there is no way to get a perfect mathematical solution (efficiency 100%). Getting close to it, inside the 99% zone, is possible, and I think that the difference is insignificant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Zakharov Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 I was hoping that the points are still distributed on a grid, just with smaller spacing (like 0.01) so that we might still be able to find it. But, now that I think about it, I realize it would never monetarily be worth all the tries it would require to find it at that resolution. So I guess we can call the problem solved at this point. I'm looking forward to using our method to solve for a far away point next month =) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Colony Effectiveness: 94% Location: -63.00000, 70.00000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee Shock Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Test this spot: Lon= 67 Lat= -70.99999991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golan 1st Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 If Zakharov's constant is the right one (and I believe it is), then this cannot be the hotspot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Irwin Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 (edited) So I had all of my wonders at 97% (which likely means that it's not profitable to move them), but in the interest of furthering this exploration, I moved them all anyway. So here's what I have to contribute. Hope this helps for those of you trying to run the calculations! -68,72 ==> 97% -71,62 ==> 98% -71,63 ==> 99% -72,65 ==> 99% Edit: and yes, those were precise integer coordinates. I'm too lazy to type a bunch of zeros Edited October 7, 2009 by King Irwin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Zakharov Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Thanks guys, but we don't need more datapoints. We basically have it figured out now, and the conclusion is you can't do better than 99%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tushar Dhoot Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I have 97%. Is it worth moving it to get the 99%? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Zakharov Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 No, not worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiameseCat Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 If you find a moon hotspot, post the coordinates.Updated 10/2 89% On the western edge of the crater of the base location in this screen shot. 100% is probably somewhere south and west of the location in the screen shot. Ooh. That's purdy Sheldon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I have 97%.Is it worth moving it to get the 99%? Depends on your NS; usually no, especially if you're big. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elpadrino Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I demand a post like this one for the mars hotspots Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnygozy Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I demand a post like this one for the mars hotspots If you build it, they will come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedestro Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I demand a post like this one for the mars hotspots I wish I had Mars, just because it's more badass. But Moon is fiscally better, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elpadrino Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 (edited) I wish I had Mars, just because it's more badass. But Moon is fiscally better, Mars is cooler, there is water on Mars, in the Moon there is nothing but some hotspots. Edited October 9, 2009 by elpadrino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njero Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Oh good grief. I've tried moving my moon base three times, and I've managed to mess it up every time. First two times I wasn't paying close enough to the order, then sign, of the recommended coordinates. I guess that sort of thing is bound to happen when you're in a hurry. This time I had plenty of time, I was being duly cautious. Then, while highlighting the latitude number in the movement link I'd pasted to my address bar, I somehow managed to click and drag the address from the bar, to the bar. Third attempted move, and still at 50% efficiency! Next time I'll use notepad. Or maybe I just have to accept the fact that I'm a klutz and hire a team of trained Hotspot Relocation Technicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.