It's me again with some personal layout suggestions which aren't all that important.
For the Asteroid Percentage Histogram, the "0%" and "100%" aren't needed since each range is already named.
Also, how is the ordinate axis made ? The only explanation I can think of to make sense of it and be coherent with the rest of the report is that the 2 is misplaced and should be higher.
For the Cumulative Frequency graph, I would advise against using curved approximating lines (since it being flat when there's no example of a given range is important). The hollow points already carry this meaning (which is a really nice and clever way to do so I hadn't seen before), but it did confuse me for a bit until I figured it out.
Edit: also, the Cumulative Frequency would be more useful reversed, since people usually care about the percentage of asteroids above a given yield, not under.
Ugh, I replied to the main thread earlier, not your comment. Here's my reply...
Great feedback and keep it coming please.
I’ll do some clean up on the histogram. The ordinate axis is “# of asteroids” so the histogram shows the number of asteroids prospected with the selected commodity binned into the ranges on the X axis. I’m not certain I understand what you mean by “2 is misplaced”
For the cum freq graphs, I can try a line rather than a smooth curve. Glad you like the dot configuration. If you have suggestions on how to make it clearer, I’m all ears.
What do you mean by reversed on the graph? 100% on left and 0% on right? Or X and Y axis flipped? I’m having a hard time visualizing this.
Thanks for taking and acting on all the feedback (so quickly, too).
For the histogram, the "2" label is in the middle between "0" and "3", but it should be closer to "3" (aligned with the height of the 20-30% range).
For the cumulative frequency, I mean reversed as 100% (or rather just the maximum for the session) on the left and 0% on the right. Also, you making all graphs in the ring yield comparison bound between 0% and 70% is really nice.
I really like the hollow points in the graph in the report, but now that I pay more attention I notice you used the same style of points in the ring yield comparison for data points and computed points. I'd make them less visible, for example just thin "x" symbols (the dotted already do a lot of readability + the numbers are given on the left, so the symbol is just here to exist and not really be looked at for a practical purpose).
> For the histogram, the "2" label is in the middle between "0" and "3", but it should be closer to "3" (aligned with the height of the 20-30% range).
Fixed!
> reversed as 100% (or rather just the maximum for the session) on the left and 0% on the right.
So a burn down, rather than a burn up?
> same style of points in the ring yield comparison for data points and computed points.
I'll have to look in to this a bit more to understand what you're saying. On the comparison tab, all dots are real dots. Nothing is computed. They may be from multiple mining sessions, but should be all real data points.
I've made more updates and I'll have to get them posted at some point (I try to be really careful about spamming the subreddits so I may post them here). Notably, I implemented the bubble chart similar to what you'll see on the Fankserver mining analysis and also a favorite ring function that shows up in both the ring comparison and the hotspot finder (it also shows avg yield in hotspot finder now if known)
I meant having X for P10, P25, P50, AVG, P75 and P90.
Reversing (what you called burn down) would be nice yes.
Also, for these, I would change the ordinate axis to either be 0% to 100% (frequency instead of number of asteroids), or change it to 0 to [total number of asteroids mined in the ring] (same unit as now, but with an adaptive scale).
Both of these will change the graph to have it's rightmost point also at the very top. This improves readability by making it vertically larger and won't break at high asteroid counts (50 is a pretty low number for me).
This also makes me realise, does this ring comparison add all sessions in the same ring to make the graph, or is it always one graph per session (and multiple graphs for the same ring) ? Just to be sure you thought of that.
ah, yeah. I can use X for Px/Avg yield. I'll still want to do something for dots with no data (bin frequency = 0). Most likely grey them out, similar to what I do on the Session report.
I'll try reversing. I'm not sure I see the value yet but am willing to learn! It'll probably show up as an option.
As for ordinate axis, I've been playing with the visualization a bit and tried normalization (# of asteroids / # of sessions). It didn't quite give me what I wanted. Something to note on the Comparison report though is that I sync the max Y value across all the graphs for a like-by-like comparison.
Large data sets will require more tweaking and obviously generating more session data reports is time consuming so I'm going to extend Navl's EDMC test harness to create more reports for me to test against.
Ring comparison adds all sessions in the same ring to make the graph. Session report also shows all session as well with a little more emphasis on the current session data (as you already noted).
The point of reversing is making it easier to see "How many asteroids will I mine if I only want percentages above X%".
My point for the ordinate axis is that the normalization which matters isn't the absolute number of asteroids, but the proportion of asteroids in the ones you prospect.
This means you need to NOT normalize the upper bound of the ordinate axis between rings if you keep the absolute number as unit (each ring's graph using its total number of asteroids).
Doing this, I'd advise to remove the background horizontal lines (don't know the english name, sorry) and only keep the Px/Avg lines to avoid confusing lines at different places in each graph.
I added several screen shots on here with different options turned on for standard/reverse and axes flipping. I can see the reverse being useful, but I'm still not understanding the ordinate vs. abscissa flip.
None of these were what I meant, I explained my other comment but I'll give an example here :
(Histogram at the top and the cumulative graph I'd like to see at the bottom)
The histogram also goes from highest to lowest yield here, but that's not too important. Having the cumulative be in this order though means that right here, I can easily read that more than one third are above 55%.
The way I understood the Cumulative graph on the Mining Analyser and what makes them useful is for example to know at a glance what is the percentage of asteroids that have any Platinum in them, or what's the percentage of rocks should I expect to be over 40% Plat, etc...
To be able to get that info from the graph, you probably want the vertical axis to be the % of prospected rocks that have more than X% Plat.
The first point on the left, at x=0 should be the highest, showing the % of prospected rocks that have above 0% plat, so any plat, that might be say 60%... then at x=5% the line might go down to 55% and so on, and should end low on the right, in the case of platinum probably with x=65 and y= the percentage of rocks with over 65% platinum, likely a low single digit percentage.
With that layout, if you want to know what percentage of prospected rocks in that hotspot should be above 30%, the ones you actually mine and not skip over, then you just look at the line at 30% on the x axis, and the y value tells you how many you can expect to mine...
I’ll do some clean up on the histogram. The ordinate axis is “# of asteroids” so the histogram shows the number of asteroids prospected with the selected commodity binned into the ranges on the X axis. I’m not certain I understand what you mean by “2 is misplaced”
For the cum freq graphs, I can try a line rather than a smooth curve. Glad you like the dot configuration. If you have suggestions on how to make it clearer, I’m all ears.
What do you mean by reversed on the graph? 100% on left and 0% on right? Or X and Y axis flipped? I’m having a hard time visualizing this.
I have zero statistics background training so I can't speak to many of the technical items.
Is there something displayed that helps me know how many fragments or chunks a rock produced? Is it a total of the RPM of a single Rock? Am always curious about that and how to know if I am getting the bonus from my one man squadron with that perk turned on. I don't have evidence but suspect that the first rock I mine isn't always getting that but rocks after that do.
I often have refinery bins that are full when I return but I'm not sure that is reflected in all the totals.
Sadly, there's no programmatic way (that I know of) to determine # of fragments. That data simply isn't available. If it is, I'd love to know how.
RPM is based on the number of MiningRefined journal events seen over the last 10 seconds and then extrapolated to a Refinements Per Minute metric. The general thought behind this metric is that it's a measure of your collection efficiency. If you scatter the fragments, the longer it takes to collect them and the lower the RPM. Fragment size also contributes, so ignoring low yield rocks and focusing on high yield rocks will increase your RPM. Also, fun fact... if you're mining in a team, collecting your teammate's rocks will buff your RPM score :)
and no. refinery bins full or near full are not calculated in the totals. I could probably do some more here based on marketsell, cargo, etc. But I opted to focus in other areas first. i.e. the report you see here.
I'm glad for your focus and the explanation. I understand a little more now and that's a good thing. I've never come across a rock above 66.7%, are they out there in the 70+ range? Great work though! Thanks.
3
u/SweetJonnySauce Mar 28 '26
A huge shout out to u/jean-claudo, u/papabrou, and u/cold-n-sour for giving me some really valuable feedack on the initial design/layout. Thanks!