Chef Archive

---

SandLizard wrote:

---

0nyx wrote:

---

SandLizard wrote:
Anyone notice any discrepancies that I haven't fixed yet?

---

Fabulous tool! Hope Trokk gets you the archive

Only thing I noticed is that it isn't pulling over the Fungi for some reason. One to use for testing database pull is Accarragm for Kettemoor. The abbreviation appears correct and there are a number of current fungi spawns listed on SWGCraft.

---

Good catch! 'Twas an error with windows end-of-line characters, and then 'nix end-of-line chars that I didn't account for. A little dos2unix, a little chomping, and it's all fixed!

Basically, it should (and does) work now. Glad you caught that, it was not only failing on Fungi, but on Greens, and probably a few more that were 'right at the end of the line' where I do some groupings. Thanks!

-Orske

---

Hehe. Been there, done that

Holy Hell, This saves me a bunch of times that I can use to making food. I have to spend like 30 to 45 minutes, reviewing throughout the swgcraft.com current resources so that I can see what is good and what is not good. I know that it is a lot of time to spend on those freakin' planets with all those resources but I like to be through.

Many thanks for making my life so much easier by providing this.

---

NASCARjay wrote:

Found it. I hope this helps.

This is from our chef stickie for FAQ and References: Bugged foods

Bugged experimentation description

The majority of foods have this experimentation stat contribution:
Personally I would have to say all foods follow this formula and I've made everything on the possible list except Starshine Suprise. Other experienced chefs please comment if you think this is a bad assumption at this point in our profession.

• Filling: 25% OQ, 75% DR
• Flavor: 66% Flavor, 33% OQ
• Nutrition: 66% PE, 33% OQ
• Quantity: 25% DR, 75% PE

---

[ Orske Kel'Raethe - {OK Shipwright, Corellia, -4000 -2300} - Starsider ]
{*}                     ___                   ___                     {*}
\\\\\\\                /\|/\    ___/@\___    /\|/\                ///////
\\\\\\\         {--+--}_ /_\_____/_\ _{--+--}         ///////
\\\\\\\\  /-\/|\/_/    \   /    \_\/|\/-\  ////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\        \_/       /////////////

---

NASCARjay wrote:

Awesome!

Thank you very much for helping us Chefs out.

Buffalo

---

[ Orske Kel'Raethe - {OK Shipwright, Corellia, -4000 -2300} - Starsider ]
{*}                     ___                   ___                     {*}
\\\\\\\                /\|/\    ___/@\___    /\|/\                ///////
\\\\\\\         {--+--}_ /_\_____/_\ _{--+--}         ///////
\\\\\\\\  /-\/|\/_/    \   /    \_\/|\/-\  ////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\        \_/       /////////////

---

SandLizard wrote:

---

NASCARjay wrote:

The majority of foods have this experimentation stat contribution:
Personally I would have to say all foods follow this formula and I've made everything on the possible list except Starshine Suprise. Other experienced chefs please comment if you think this is a bad assumption at this point in our profession.

• Filling: 25% OQ, 75% DR


• Flavor: 66% Flavor, 33% OQ


• Nutrition: 66% PE, 33% OQ


• Quantity: 25% DR, 75% PE

---

All foods and drinks now follow the above values (I *think*, I just did a :1,223s:/old/new/ on it ). So, they should now fit in with what the values *should* be regardless of what is displayed in your tool when crafting (Due to bugs; I had to do the same thing to some shipwright schems some time back).

Though, don't take my word for it. Look at it with a critical eye, let me know what you find. Hopefully all is well now!

-Orske

---

the only one i can think off the top of my head that hasa different description when crafting and i don't *think* it's a bug, things like pica thundercloud where only 1 of the 3 resources has PE at all, so nutrition is 66 dr/33 oq and following that formula does get me better results.

---

KMad wrote:

the only one i can think off the top of my head that has a different description when crafting and i don't *think* it's a bug, things like pica thundercloud where only 1 of the 3 resources has PE at all, so nutrition is 66 dr/33 oq and following that formula does get me better results.

---

[ Orske Kel'Raethe - {OK Shipwright, Corellia, -4000 -2300} - Starsider ]
{*}                     ___                   ___                     {*}
\\\\\\\                /\|/\    ___/@\___    /\|/\                ///////
\\\\\\\         {--+--}_ /_\_____/_\ _{--+--}         ///////
\\\\\\\\  /-\/|\/_/    \   /    \_\/|\/-\  ////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\        \_/       /////////////

---

SandLizard wrote:

---

KMad wrote:

the only one i can think off the top of my head that has a different description when crafting and i don't *think* it's a bug, things like pica thundercloud where only 1 of the 3 resources has PE at all, so nutrition is 66 dr/33 oq and following that formula does get me better results.

---

in this case, where only one of three has PE, try just solid OQ crafting, you should see best results if I'm correct (someone verify?).

this tool will notice that PE is not a stat on resources when it's 'required' and will skip it in the case of computing the 'best' value, so the resource is still weighted correctly. Basically, it doesn't compute it as '0' but more that it just doesn't exist, and therefore doesn't screw up the weighting algorithm

---

well i've seen that in some cases where the tool does say that PE matters but some ingredients don't have PE. but in *this* case i do think that the tool's description of 66 dr/33 oq is right. here was my test:

3 ingredients, neutronium steel (has no PE), radioactive (has PE and DR but i used the same in both cases so that should cover it, i used oq 934/pe 789/ dr 656 steel). my only variable was the fruit, same steel and radioactive in both cases...

when i used oq 930/pe 220/dr 907 fruit i hit 98. when i used oq 999/pe 865/dr 353 fruit (which in almost all foods would be better) i capped at 96. i completely admit that i know nothing about the math compared to sciguy-types so if i tested it wrong please let me know, thanks