6/14/2010
So today I did a three tests using a Nexus and three workers. The method was simple, and is shown in the picture below.
The time was measured in HT counts, and shown in the form of gas. I recorded each of the time it took from the minerals until the minerals were actually gained. The location size and method used makes no matter on the type of worker. Mechanically they are the exact same size, use the exact same range, and move exactly the same. The only thing different is the graphics.
Having said that, I began recording the HT counts from gathering 1500 minerals until it ran out. It wasn't long until I discovered a pattern for each worker:
SCV: 64, 64, 64, 64, 65, 64, 61, 60, 60, 60 ...
Drone: 64, 64, 64, 64, 65, 64, 61, 60, 60, 60 ...
Probe: 64, 64, 64, 64, 65, 61, 60, 60, 63, 61 ...
SCV and Drone pattern is exactly the same, however, the Probe's was different. Very peculiar. But if we evaluate the average it all equals out to the same 313/5 for each worker, that's 62.6 HT counts/trip. This suggests that at the angle 0 radians all workers mine at exactly the same speed in a controlled environment.
In the data there are random numbers that appear at the start of the mining process, but typically the worker will fall into the pattern rather quickly. The variance of numbers were from 60 - 66, with 64 occurring the most and 66 occurring the least. If I take the average of it all I get these values:
SCV: 61.91
Drone: 62.27
Probe: 61.25
All in all, very close, and the difference is most likely due to errors having added up the numbers by hand. I will make a higher volume test that will be fully automated (it will keep track of the numbers for me) and will last longer and use 2x fastest speed.
CONCLUSION: There is no difference in mining speeds by different workers using a Nexus as a base.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 11 2012, 12:18 pm by Sacrieur.
None.