Pxtl wrote:neddiedrow wrote:The metal generator shouldn't be efficent, from a logical standpoint. Think about it - you are generating metal out of, functionally, *nothing*. It shouldn't be more efficent than metal makers, which involve the application of energy to matter to generate metal...

Well, I think the idea of the metal generator is that it's a solar-collector energy supply with a built-in metal maker. Which would logically be _more_ efficient since the energy is not being transported.

Besides that, while the generator is more convenient and space-efficient(less micro to build them) it's less versatile. Power + MM can make either, a generator is metal-only. Considering the MMAI, that's very significant.

Considering the trade-offs, I think the generators should be roughly equivalent in cost to their more complex counterparts.

Well, As every1's speaking from logic, I'll use mine:

We know Einsteins famous E=MC^2 equation. Now if we apply this to BA, E = Energy, M = Mass & C is speed of light. Now to find out how much energy it takes to make 1 Metal, we substitute M=1 and c = 3x10^8

E= (3x10^8 )^2) = 9x10^18 = 9000000000000000000

Now ofcourse this process is not 100% efficient, but say it was a more realistic 50% efficient it will require twice as much energy.

Therfore by using faultless logic, I

DEMAND that you make metal makers use 18000000000000000000 Energy per second!