How many ore nodes per prospected chunk are there? For tin/zinc etc

[Stooc]

If I prospect an area of , say, cassiterite and it gives a high reading of 0.2%. Does that mean, if there is in fact ore generated, that there will only be one ore node to mine or could there be multiple nodes spread amongst the chunk, and neighbouring chunks, with the same “high” reading from the prospecting pick?

[assassin_chad_23]

i tend to ignore the numbers and just look for the high or better rate.   With finding high for tin i have always found tin but using the other mode for the pick is key.  You will find it in that chunk but it may not be easy.   My method for searching is setting node search at 6 and doing a straight down hole 2x1 every 7 blocks i do a node search.   Then if you find some you know it is below and not above you. 

If you are unsure of the node search mode this is the command for it. 

/worldConfig propickNodeSearchRadius 6

[Streetwind]

Agreed, the number does not mean what most people think it means. It's more debug output than useful information. Pay attention to the wording only, and you'll be much more focused on what's actually important: the probability for ore to generate.

Each ore has a number of attempts to generate per chunk column. For example, cassiterite tries seven times. But this is modified by the spawn probability in each individual chunk column. If the prospecting pick does not indicate the presence of the ore, that probability is zero, and so all seven rolls are guaranteed to fail. If the prospecting pick detects a "miniscule" presence of the ore... then well, each of those seven rolls has a miniscule chance of succeeding. And if it detects "ultra high", then each roll has a near-guaranteed chance of succeeding. That is despite showing an incredibly low number of 0.2‰. Which is why you should forget the number and focus on the wording.

Note that even a successful roll doesn't mean that the ore will actually spawn. For example, it might choose to try spawning in the middle of a cavern, where there is only air. Or it might try spawning at a y-level where the wrong stone type is present, a stone type which cannot host cassiterite. That means that, even with an "ultra high" result, you'll likely get very different yields from digging in an area that has two sedimentary layers over one igneous, compared to an area that is all igneous top to bottom.

Additionally, there are ores that try fewer than once per chunk column. Iron ores in particular do this, with limonite at 0.8, hematite at 0.5, and magnetite at 0.3 tries per chunk column. In return, iron veins are massive, spanning multiple chunks. But it does mean that searching for iron (and particularly magnetite) is a bit different than searching for other kinds of ore. It's perfectly possible for multiple "ultra high" chunks to have nothing, whereas two chunks away where it reads only "decent", there's a successful spawn. You still want to check the highest probability areas first, but you have to understand that the game might not even have tried to roll at all in these areas. Searching all around the hotspot in a sparse grid (every fifty blocks is plenty) will yield results eventually.

 

Edited August 12, 2022 by Streetwind

[Maelstrom]

@Streetwind I'm having the darnedest time finding borax to begin steelmaking.  What do you recommend I do to have the highest degree of success in finding this elusive mineral?

[Sara Bell]

I have been more successful with mining if I take 2 pro picks. 1 is set to the first option (which I call long range) and the 2nd one is set to the second option (which tells you if ore is in a chunk)(I call short range). Also note I set the range of 4 blocks to pro pick when I started the map. This is a strange way of looking for ore but I find it better than keep switching the modes of 1 pic. Plus with 2 doing diff things, the pic's last longer.

[Streetwind]

49 minutes ago, Maelstrom said:

@Streetwind I'm having the darnedest time finding borax to begin steelmaking.  What do you recommend I do to have the highest degree of success in finding this elusive mineral?

Borax generates in every type of sedimentary rock except bauxite. It may spawn right at the surface, or pretty far down; it has a big range. But keep in mind that it does not generate in non-sedimentary rocks. So the moment the stone layer changes into something non-sedimentary, you don't need to bother with further digging.

It is one of the ores that will produce surface rocks if they spawn close enough to the surface. So I will typically follow my usual sparse grid prospecting methodology in a sedimentary area until borax shows up. I will then keep an eye out for surface rocks as I narrow it down. They look a lot like quartz does - plain white flecks in the stones.

Once I've narrowed down the hotspot, I'll canvass the surrounding chunks for surface stones one more time. Failing any results, I'll dig for it like regular ore.

But I almost always find it by surface stones, sometimes even accidentally when I'm not even looking for it.

[Maelstrom]

Thanks.  Pretty much everything I've learned so far.  Was hoping you might now something I didn't.

 

[Maelstrom]

@Streetwind update on my borax - harvested an ungodly amount of flax in what will become my southern outpost, made a full suit of gambeson armor and snuck off home to do some caving.  First cave I found (about 150 blocks from home) had borax.  

[Streetwind]

Ah yes. The good old "it was there all along" switcheroo.

[redram]

On 8/12/2022 at 3:09 AM, Streetwind said:

Note that even a successful roll doesn't mean that the ore will actually spawn. For example, it might choose to try spawning in the middle of a cavern, where there is only air. Or it might try spawning at a y-level where the wrong stone type is present, a stone type which cannot host cassiterite. That means that, even with an "ultra high" result, you'll likely get very different yields from digging in an area that has two sedimentary layers over one igneous, compared to an area that is all igneous top to bottom.

Streetwinds advice is good, but I'd just point out for clarity that insofar as the ppm mode is a 'statistical' result, while it may be true that in the end all attempts to generate nodes are made randomly even in non-valid areas of stone and y level, the propick does consider the amount of 'correct' stone and 'correct' Y level at the sample spot, and uses this in its ppm results calculation.  So if a given spot only has 10 valid blocks of height of the right stone type and y level, you'll get much lower ppm result (all else being equal) than if there were 50 valid blocks of height.  So I'd say that the propick does in fact take these into account in its results.  Keeping in mind that the ppm result is a statistical average, and the actual nodes generated can thus deviate from this average.

[Maelstrom]

1 hour ago, redram said:

Streetwinds advice is good, but I'd just point out for clarity that insofar as the ppm mode is a 'statistical' result, while it may be true that in the end all attempts to generate nodes are made randomly even in non-valid areas of stone and y level, the propick does consider the amount of 'correct' stone and 'correct' Y level at the sample spot, and uses this in its ppm results calculation.  So if a given spot only has 10 valid blocks of height of the right stone type and y level, you'll get much lower ppm result (all else being equal) than if there were 50 valid blocks of height.  So I'd say that the propick does in fact take these into account in its results.  Keeping in mind that the ppm result is a statistical average, and the actual nodes generated can thus deviate from this average.

I currently locate the highest reading by the description and only use the ppm results if I have multiple descriptions of the same level, i.e. very high.  Does the ppm result provide any benefit when used in such a way?

[Streetwind]

@redram Hmmm. And yet, I've always gotten the same (very low) numbers for cassiterite, regardless of whether the area was favorable (all igneous top to bottom) or unfavorable (only third layer is igneous). It's always 0.1‰ for most of the range, but it goes up to 0.2‰ on either high or very high (I forget). Considering the main spawn area of cassiterite is in the middle layer, and it requires igneous rock, shouldn't we get significantly different ppm results depending on whether or not that layer is igneous?

Could it perhaps be that the ppm calculation for cassiterite relies on the ultra-rare, ultra-deep large vein spawn? Since the third layer is always igneous, that would explain why it never changes; and since it spawns so rarely, that would explain why the reading produces such an abysmally low number, despite there generally being plenty of ore (of the regular, small, middle-layer kind) in practice when digging down in a suitable area. It has long mystified me how the ppm can be that small when I'm finding like 3-4 veins in the same chunk with an ultra-high reading.

[redram]

On 8/16/2022 at 10:19 AM, Maelstrom said:

I currently locate the highest reading by the description and only use the ppm results if I have multiple descriptions of the same level, i.e. very high.  Does the ppm result provide any benefit when used in such a way?

Ya each category of verbal descriptors covers a range of ppms.  So the ppm result can be used just as you say, to find the best spot of several with the same text description.  Though this doesn't work well with smaller deposits like cassiterite and bismuth, since they're so small a range that one decimal of ppm can encompass multiple verbal descriptors.  
And this becomes less important with ores that have less than 1 try per chunk.  Halite for instance, I've seen many cases where the densest center has nothing, but several deposits are in outlying areas.  This is, I think, due to the sheer number of lower density chunks.  You'll have a better chance at success in 200 chunks with a 1% chance each, than 10 chunks with a 5% chance each, for example.

[redram]

On 8/16/2022 at 10:27 AM, Streetwind said:

Considering the main spawn area of cassiterite is in the middle layer, and it requires igneous rock, shouldn't we get significantly different ppm results depending on whether or not that layer is igneous?

All else being equal, yes.  However the hidden variable, which the player cannot know, is the ore density map.  This value is modified by the other situational factors that you *can* know.  Since cassiterite, even under favorable conditions, only returns a very small range of ppm with almost no nuance, I would say it's likely that your area with much more igneous thickness simply had a weaker base ore map to start with.   And so the end result looked similar to another area with less valid rock depth, but a stronger ore map.

On 8/16/2022 at 10:27 AM, Streetwind said:

Could it perhaps be that the ppm calculation for cassiterite relies on the ultra-rare, ultra-deep large vein spawn? Since the third layer is always igneous, that would explain why it never changes; and since it spawns so rarely, that would explain why the reading produces such an abysmally low number, despite there generally being plenty of ore (of the regular, small, middle-layer kind) in practice when digging down in a suitable area. It has long mystified me how the ppm can be that small when I'm finding like 3-4 veins in the same chunk with an ultra-high reading.

I would assume large cassiterite veins are factored in (disclaimer, I'm not a coder), but the chance being so small, it shouldn't affect it too much.  A large cassiterite vein averages almost 6x as large an area as a normal size vein, but a normal vein occurs 70x as often.  The larger veins on average will contribute only 12% or so of the ppm reading, assuming large veins are included in the calculations.   In the scope of a range of 0 to .2, it won't affect what you see often.  The ppm reading is a result of, among other things, the multiplication of the tries per chunk by the average vein *area*.  Small veins that have several tries per chunk will produce many small veins.  Generally speaking the larger the vein size (radius), the fewer tries per chunk it gets.  So the result is fewer but larger deposits.  But this is not a direct relationship in terms of overall total ppm.  For the ppm results of the propick, it does not matter whether it's 10 veins of 100 blocks each, or one vein of 1000 blocks.  The ppm is the same either way, as far as the propick is concerned.

One other detail worth mentioning, is that the propick does not take into account caves.  So the more volume of caves in an area, the farther the reality will diverge from the statistical propick results.

[Maelstrom]

1 hour ago, redram said:

Ya each category of verbal descriptors covers a range of ppms.  So the ppm result can be used just as you say, to find the best spot of several with the same text description.  Though this doesn't work well with smaller deposits like cassiterite and bismuth, since they're so small a range that one decimal of ppm can encompass multiple verbal descriptors.  
And this becomes less important with ores that have less than 1 try per chunk.  Halite for instance, I've seen many cases where the densest center has nothing, but several deposits are in outlying areas.  This is, I think, due to the sheer number of lower density chunks.  You'll have a better chance at success in 200 chunks with a 1% chance each, than 10 chunks with a 5% chance each, for example.

Thank you for the halite example.  I have a halite reading with 35ish ppm and the surrounding chunks are 25-30 ppm each.  Didn't find anything in the highest rated chunk but will explore into the others as well.