Higher tier items are not based on multipliers.  You need the lower tier item to produce it and you basically "upgrade" that item with few materials.

Its a good start though.

Material efficiency works linearly on cost (which allows to compute easily the resources used by multiple successive production cycles), but that's the easy part.

The real question is how factory parameters (efficiency and relation) work on the cost (assuming extensions only affect the formers parameters).

Also how the producing cost (in NIC) is computed would be a good question. At least it's not directly proportional to the number of material used, maybe there is a weight to apply to each material, or maybe it's hard coded for each item (which I doubt).

I guess we need more data here.

Ahh good someone else sees my problems.  I was hoping within a day of posting this thing someone would come forward and call me an idiot for not understanding how that works and give me the answer, but alas it has been more than a day and no such troll has come forward. 

  If anyone totally understands every factor that goes into making the final Material effeciency number, let me know please, I will put it in and call it Hiro and (your name)'s ore calculator, and it will be way more useful. 

   If you dont understand that, but know a little (more than just the ME on the CT) post it here and I'll try to incorporate it.  Otherwise I'm going to have to put points into industry to figure it all out, being a combat character that will make me unhappy. 

  As it stands right now, the easiest way to make this thing accurate, is to make a cheap CT yourself in game, see how much it costs, then adjust the factory effeciency on my sheet until the numbers match up.  After that you can assume that number is spot on correct for any CT you have of the same effeciency rating.  I'm not sure if you can just say a 5% more effecient CT is going to be 5% more effecient mineral wise after that though... I think the extensions modify the CT effeciency by a percentage, as I think does the factory effeciency. 

Ideally, I want this to eventually allow you to put in your relevant extension levels along with your CT effeciency, and then it will produce the exact same numbers you get in game (probably a line for each level of factory).  Along with how much extra you are going to need for less effecient future runs.
   
At any rate, you are correct I need more data.

the material ratio displayed in the top right corner of your factory window is NOT the % that is applied to your production.

ATM it shows you just how much of the possible ME you got. (if you have trained 50% of your extensions, it will show you 50%)
This is still under developement.

sum up your extension bonus manually

Ok, so to attempt to figure out the factory numbers I equipped a character with a 50% ct of a small mining module.  at 0 extensions the module costs 600 titanium in a lvl 1 factory.  I tried it in a level 2 and 3 factory and there was no change.
this is a list of the costs with increasing amounts of extensions.  and the percentage of the previous number each works out to

0    600   
1    588    0.980000
2    577    0.981293
3    566    0.980936
4    555    0.980565
5    544    0.980180
6    533    0.979779
7    522    0.979362
8    513    0.982759
9    504    0.982456
10    496    0.984127
11    488    0.983871
12    480    0.983607
13    472    0.983333
14    465    0.985169
15    458    0.984946
16    451    0.984716

as you can see.. while it starts off as .98 per number it changes.  multiplying each number by .98 will give you the wrong answer many times.. can anybody make sense of this?

If you are refering to the factor 1/(1+bonus), it doesn't work here either.

Of course it works for small values of the bonus, but that's only because 1/(1+x) = 1-x + o(x) near 0...

My guess is that the successive ratio between the values is monotonously increasing (and that the local decreases you are observing are caused by the rounding errors).

...

Graphed, without the .98 constant term, and with a linear regression of the values:
http://s3.postimage.org/69tejqtw4/linear.png
I mean, we can see the rounding at work here

Or you had something else in mind? (and I'm asking that because it's 2 AM here )

Those numbers all came from the same 50%ct never used just plugged in to get the quote and canceled

sorry, i dont get that graph.

for me roundup[(basevalue / CT quality)/(1+sum of extension %)] gave me the exact the result i saw in the factory.
after then everything / standing bonus and i got it +/- 10 pcs due to rounded standing display. (that for heavy mechs, which need tons of mats)

Easy, its based on the time required.

I'd say more but I feel like it's giving away corporate secrets

I have one rep for ICS (the place I'm in) thats negative, the rest of my reps for ICS are all positive.. most of them 1-2+

Hey guys, has any progress been made at figuring out how to get the actual material required values?

So far none of the formulas above work, or are off by a good 3 or 4 % one way or the other..  Is this entirely attributed to rounding issues or are we still trying to figure out the actual math?