[SUGGESTION] Improvement of locale for ferrous/cupric processing chain

I am sorry to bring this back up, but I kind of disagree with some of the things that were implemented as a solution to #348

The English words "ferrous" and "cupric" are pure adjectives meaning "containing iron/copper", they don't work as nouns – hence it feels very unnatural to omit the "ore" from item "crushed ferrous ore". It is like just saying "crushed" instead of "crushed stone". If you don't like the "ore", then maybe "crushed ferrous mixture" or just "ferrous mixture" for the items. The recipes have something about "mix" in them already. But see thourth bullet point on that part.
For some reason in the ferrous/cupric processing chains, "ferrous sludge" is less refined than "ferrous slurry" – while for slag processing it is the opposite: mineral sludge is the product from filtering slag slurry. This feels inconsistent.
The recipe "Ferrous mixing solution" produces "Ferrous slurry". It is unclear why the ferrous slurry is not called "ferrous solution". This would in fact also provide a solution for previous bullet point.
The word "mix" appears in different recipes in different forms, and it is entirely unclear why this is the case.
Two of the steps involved have a single output, but names that are different from the output. This feels unnecessary.

A humble suggestion from my side addressing the points above:

Recipe name "Ferrous mix crushing" -> "Ferrous mixture" or "Mixing of crushed ferrous ores". Turning crushed saph/jiv/rub into "Ferrous mixture" or "Crushed ferrous mixture" if you prefer the latter.
Recipe name "Ferrous milling" -> "Milling of ferrous mixture". Turning "Ferrous mixture" into "Ferrous powder"
Recipe name "Ferrous mixed sludge" -> "Ferrous sludge". Turning "Ferrous powder" into "Ferrous sludge"
Recipe name "Ferrous hydro-refining" -> "Hydro-refining of ferrous sludge". Turning "Ferrous sludge" into "Ferrous dust"
Recipe name "Ferrous mixing solution" -> "Ferrous solution". Turning "Ferrous dust" into "Ferrous solution"
Recipe name "Ferrous solution filtering" should stay as it is. Turning "Ferrous solution" into "Ferrous seedling"
Recipe name "Ferrous anodizing" -> "Anodizing of ferrous seedling". Turning "Ferrous seedling" into "Anodized ferrous seedling".
Recipe name "Ferrous crystallization" -> "Ferrous crystals". Turning "Anodized ferrous seedling" into "Ferrous Crystals"

Analogously for the cupric processing chain.

Additionally, the recipe "crushed ferrous ore sorting" was never changed according to #348

I would like to respond to each of these directly here and state that these are my opinions on moderate examination.

cupric/ferrous not working as nouns... While true, im not sure if that would be inconsistent with the creatively named regular ores I am happy with the idea of changing it to "Crushed ferrous mixture"
Sludge to Slurry: I do not agree with the assertion here, the creation of mineral sludge is about creating a thickened mess from the slag, and does work in its process of adding slag to acid... The mixed-ore chains are working in the other way, removing impuritites through chemical processing, so that should move from sludge to slurry as it cleans up. The main reason this never really came across my vision, was that my main map has the mineral sludge processing recipes disabled by default, but on inspection, i really have no issues with it
I am less against this proposed change Only because the internal name suggests its original intention But I also think the current naming is correct.
The word mix may be used in various locations. A look at the localisation of some of the recipes in refining may yield a change in nomenclature going forward, would be nice, but may not be a priority at this point.
The single out recipes being referred to are fine (the last one is the only one i could possibly see as being blended with its precursor). However, that would break quite a few of the challenges associated with that recipe pathway. _I do agree that the recipe names should be updated to be that of the mainproduct an easy fix for that.

A humble suggestion from my side addressing the points above:

Recipe name "Ferrous mix crushing" -> "Mixing of crushed ferrous ores". ---------> Turning crushed ferrous ores into "Crushed ferrous mixture"

Recipe name "Ferrous milling" -> "Milling of ferrous mixture". ---------> Turning "Ferrous mixture" into "Ferrous powder"

Recipe name "Ferrous mixed sludge" -> "Ferrous dissolution". ---------> Turning "Ferrous powder" into "Ferrous sludge"

Recipe name "Ferrous hydro-refining" -> "Hydro-refining of ferrous sludge". ---------> Turning "Ferrous sludge" into "Ferrous dust"

Recipe name "Ferrous mixing solution" -> "Ferrous solution". I still prefer slurry here, but if im the only hold-out, im not going to veto it ---------> Turning "Ferrous dust" into "Ferrous solution"

Recipe name "Ferrous solution filtering" should stay as it is. ---------> Turning "Ferrous solution" into "Ferrous seedling"

Recipe name "Ferrous anodizing" -> "Anodizing of ferrous seedling". ---------> Turning "Ferrous seedling" into "Anodized ferrous seedling"

Recipe name "Ferrous crystallization" -> "Ferrous crystals". ---------> Turning "Anodized ferrous seedling" into "Ferrous crystals"

Analogously for the cupric processing chain.

I don't actually agree with the recipe descriptions you present (its not just a single item in for most cases, its the regular ore processing, and the previous mixed ore step added), i see where you are coming from though. On a personal note, id rather not use the word seedling outside of bioprocessing or gem processing, id almost rather concentrate here (although it is used to create a crystal... decisions, decisions...)

I don't quite see what you mean. Let me explain my confusion.

Let's take a step back and look at the current state of Angel's refining 0.11.16, with its current naming. Individual steps given as Input → Recipe name → Output, while additional ingredients and byproducts are omitted.

Slag processing chain:

slag_chain Slag → Slag slurry → Slag slurry (single output) Slag slurry → Slurry coal filtering → Mineral sludge Mineral sludge → Mineral catalyst → Mineral catalyst (single output)

Ferrous processing chain

ferrous_chain Crushed Saph/Jiv/Rub → Ferrous mix crushing → Crushed ferrous [no noun] (single output) Crushed ferrous → Ferrous milling → Ferrous powder Ferrous powder → Ferrous mixed sludge → Ferrous sludge (single output) Ferrous sludge → Ferrous hydro-refining → Ferrous dust Ferrous dust → Ferrous mixing solution → Ferrous slurry (single output) Ferrous slurry → Ferrous solution filtering → Ferrous seedling Ferrous seedling → Ferrous anodizing → Anodized ferrous seedling Anodized ferrous seedling → Ferrous crystallization → Ferrous crystals (single output)

Reply

First of all: I never suggested to change anything about the processes themselves. Only about the naming of stuff. The slag processing chain uses the name of the output for both of the steps which have a single output. The ferrous chain has four steps with a single output, but each recipe has a dedicated name. My suggestion is to get rid of the dedicated names, not to merge processing steps. You appear to agree on that part, do I read you correctly?

My biggest point of criticism is the inconsistency between the recipe name "Ferrous mixing solution" and its single output "Ferrous sludge". This just does not make sense in any way. What is a "mixing solution"? Why does the recipe refer to a solution when there is no such output anywhere in the processing chain? We should either change the recipe name, or change the name of the output, or both. My suggestion was to rename the output. I'd be just as fine with renaming the recipe, as you suggest. But I still don't quite understand why this is supposed to be a sludge at this step.

You said "mixed-ore chains are working in the other way". What I see in both cases: Starting point is a mixture of compound solids, halfway through you add acid, later you filter, in the end you crystallize. How exactly is this "the other way"? In both cases there is a filtering process, thus "removing impurities".

If I understand correctly, you want the words sludge and slurry to refer to a certain kind of consistency/texture of the fluid, sludge being closer to a solid. Or the other way around? On the one hand, Ferrous sludge is a powder suspension (larger grains) and ferrous slurry is a dust suspension (smaller grains). On the other hand Mineral sludge being the result of a filtering process. How do I see in an obvious way which one of these is supposed to be thicker/closer to a solid? Am I supposed to read this from the shape of the icon? A teardrop being more liquid, a teardrop with a puddle underneath being closer to a solid? Then the ferrous processing chain kind of goes both ways.

In both processing chains, slurry is what needs to be filtered. However in one case you get out a sludge, in the other case you get a … seedling? If these words are supposed to refer to flow properties, before and after filtering should not depend on what stuff you have suspended in the fluid. Speaking of which, seedling is the current naming. I don't have a big problem with it, which is why it is unchanged in my earlier suggestion. But you are right that maybe we should find a better term for it, restricting seedlings to bioprocessing. How about explicitly using "suspension" for this later step? By the way I personally still associate the word "seedling" with a solid object, but if you have enough tiny solids suspended in a fluid maybe that works, too?

Ferrous and cupric are existing English adjectives with a known meaning: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ferrous https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cupric The names of Angel's ores are all made up nouns, so you can attach whatever meaning you want and nobody can complain. I don't see why you say using existing adjectives with their common meaning could be "inconsistent" with made-up nouns. But we appear to agree on "Crushed ferrous mixture" :-)

Suggestion 2

Let me try another suggestion. Now I keep sludge earlier in the chain, but I still don't see how this is consistent with the slag chain.

Crushed Saph/Jiv/Rub → Crushed ferrous mixture → Crushed ferrous mixture (single output) Crushed ferrous mixture → Milling of ferrous mixture → Ferrous powder Ferrous powder → Ferrous sludge → Ferrous sludge (single output) Ferrous sludge → Hydro-refining of ferrous sludge → Ferrous dust Ferrous dust → Ferrous slurry → Ferrous slurry (single output) Ferrous slurry → Filtering of ferrous slurry → Ferrous suspension Ferrous suspension → Anodizing of ferrous suspension → Anodized ferrous suspension Anodized ferrous suspension → Ferrous crystallization → Ferrous crystals (single output)

Suggestion 2 looks good to me, but id use concentrate, not suspension...

but I still don't see how this is consistent with the slag chain

as you stated in the bit in Suggestion 1

If I understand correctly, you want the words sludge and slurry to refer to a certain kind of consistency/texture of the fluid, sludge being closer to a solid. On the one hand, Ferrous sludge is a powder suspension (larger grains) and ferrous slurry is a dust suspension (smaller grains).

Think of the distinction not as how much solid, but how much water... Sludge is indeed thick, so contains not much water (hence why the filter product in slag processing goes from slurry to sludge, you are removing water, less obvious with ceramic filtering) slurry-water=sludge (more likely the cause of larger particulates (crushed) or high non-dissolvables) sludge+water=slurry (more likely the cause of smaller particulates (powder)) Don't get me wrong, they are both quite thick suspensions, but it is about "flow" properties and suspended solids (how much does not actually dissolve) { i was tempted to start using TSS vs TDS as i have done quite a bit of work on water treatment in the past} in water treatment, sludge is generally referred to the super thick muck generally found after anerobic digestion, which is high in bio-matter, while slurry refers to the highly concentrated mineral waste fluid from clarifying Sludge is generally raked from the bottom of the pond, while slurry is pumped drop a hopper

For the ferrous/cupric systems, you are adding more concentrated, and finer materials to the acid, giving a "thinner" fluid as you move down the processing tree (hence, sludge->slurry->crystal seed{concentrate}) if you take a look at a fluid balance for these steps, you can see that the dust is still a bit "wet" and you add more fluid than you removed in the previous step.

If you think my logic here is incorrect, i won't stop you.

Am I supposed to read this from the shape of the icon? A teardrop being more liquid, a teardrop with a puddle underneath being closer to a solid?

In terms of the icons (some errors may exist, the update on these was quite extensive with the scripted process): droplet=thin droplet over puddle=viscous I would not read too much into these, they are just as likely to be different for readability/convenience...

Yes I do agree that the recipe naming for single-out products should be named as the product. The internal name being solution may have caused issues with the naming of the reicpe, but 99% of the time that will not be visible.

I now understand the logic with the sludge/slurry. Thanks for clarifying this. I like "concentrate" instead of seedling. I updated my pull request according to this:

Suggestion 3

Crushed Saph/Jiv/Rub → Crushed ferrous mixture → Crushed ferrous mixture (single output) Crushed ferrous mixture → Milling of ferrous mixture → Ferrous powder Ferrous powder → Ferrous sludge → Ferrous sludge (single output) Ferrous sludge → Ferrous sludge hydro-refining → Ferrous dust Ferrous dust → Ferrous slurry → Ferrous slurry (single output) Ferrous slurry → Filtering of ferrous slurry → Ferrous concentrate Ferrous concentrate → Anodizing of ferrous concentrate → Anodized ferrous concentrate Anodized ferrous concentrate → Ferrous crystallization → Ferrous crystals (single output)

Regarding the name being identical for single output: I have changed the recipe names so they match the name of the output. I believe the game will still provide a list of output products which has only one item (with the correct amounts). If you want to have the output name and amounts in the place where the recipe name goes, someone would have to touch the main_product of the recipes accordingly. Should I do that?

about suggestion 2 and 3, keep the verbs in the active form, an example: Milling of ferrous mixture --> Ferrous mixture milling Filtering of ferrous slurry --> Ferrous slurry filtering

Done. But this is not active vs passive.

Closing this since #378 is merged.

Arch666Angel / mods