Damned, using dfprospector -ab was a bad idea
Should have recognized that during the early phase - later I was to occupied with the procedure and the observation that for high enough occurrence values there are ranges where the map results are the same.... nevertheless, the type data should still be worth something...
first the setting - I used my latest embark position (as I like that spot and the full prospector output is therefore at least useful to me)
[WORLD_GEN]
[TITLE:TEST]
[SEED:670747458]
[HISTORY_SEED:3661806564]
[NAME_SEED:4005890632]
[CREATURE_SEED:191702592]
[DIM:65:65]
[EMBARK_POINTS:4800]
[END_YEAR:2]
[BEAST_END_YEAR:100:80]
[REVEAL_ALL_HISTORY:1]
[CULL_HISTORICAL_FIGURES:0]
[ELEVATION:1:400:101:201]
[RAINFALL:5:100:101:151]
[TEMPERATURE:40:60:251:351]
[DRAINAGE:0:100:251:251]
[VOLCANISM:0:100:3200:3200]
[SAVAGERY:0:100:251:402]
[ELEVATION_FREQUENCY:4:1:1:1:1:1]
[RAIN_FREQUENCY:2:1:2:4:6:4]
[DRAINAGE_FREQUENCY:2:1:3:4:4:2]
[TEMPERATURE_FREQUENCY:2:0:2:8:2:0]
[SAVAGERY_FREQUENCY:2:15:4:2:2:1]
[VOLCANISM_FREQUENCY:2:2500:1:1:1:2500]
[MINERAL_SCARCITY:99930]
[MEGABEAST_CAP:4]
[SEMIMEGABEAST_CAP:9]
[TITAN_NUMBER:3]
[TITAN_ATTACK_TRIGGER:80:0:100000]
[DEMON_NUMBER:22]
[NIGHT_CREATURE_NUMBER:22]
[GOOD_SQ_COUNTS:12:64:128]
[EVIL_SQ_COUNTS:2:36:64]
[PEAK_NUMBER_MIN:3]
[PARTIAL_OCEAN_EDGE_MIN:0]
[COMPLETE_OCEAN_EDGE_MIN:0]
[VOLCANO_MIN:128]
[REGION_COUNTS:SWAMP:66:0:0]
[REGION_COUNTS:DESERT:0:0:0]
[REGION_COUNTS:FOREST:264:0:0]
[REGION_COUNTS:MOUNTAINS:528:0:0]
[REGION_COUNTS:OCEAN:528:0:0]
[REGION_COUNTS:GLACIER:0:0:0]
[REGION_COUNTS:TUNDRA:0:0:0]
[REGION_COUNTS:GRASSLAND:396:0:0]
[REGION_COUNTS:HILLS:528:0:0]
[EROSION_CYCLE_COUNT:850]
[RIVER_MINS:384:256]
[PERIODICALLY_ERODE_EXTREMES:1]
[OROGRAPHIC_PRECIPITATION:1]
[SUBREGION_MAX:5000]
[CAVERN_LAYER_COUNT:3]
[CAVERN_LAYER_OPENNESS_MIN:0]
[CAVERN_LAYER_OPENNESS_MAX:100]
[CAVERN_LAYER_PASSAGE_DENSITY_MIN:0]
[CAVERN_LAYER_PASSAGE_DENSITY_MAX:100]
[CAVERN_LAYER_WATER_MIN:0]
[CAVERN_LAYER_WATER_MAX:100]
[HAVE_BOTTOM_LAYER_1:1]
[HAVE_BOTTOM_LAYER_2:1]
[LEVELS_ABOVE_GROUND:6]
[LEVELS_ABOVE_LAYER_1:5]
[LEVELS_ABOVE_LAYER_2:4]
[LEVELS_ABOVE_LAYER_3:3]
[LEVELS_ABOVE_LAYER_4:3]
[LEVELS_ABOVE_LAYER_5:2]
[LEVELS_AT_BOTTOM:1]
[CAVE_MIN_SIZE:5]
[CAVE_MAX_SIZE:25]
[MOUNTAIN_CAVE_MIN:12]
[NON_MOUNTAIN_CAVE_MIN:36]
[ALL_CAVES_VISIBLE:1]
[SHOW_EMBARK_TUNNEL:2]
[TOTAL_CIV_NUMBER:12]
[TOTAL_CIV_POPULATION:15000]
[SITE_CAP:256]
[PLAYABLE_CIVILIZATION_REQUIRED:1]
[ELEVATION_RANGES:528:1056:528]
[RAIN_RANGES:64:528:264]
[DRAINAGE_RANGES:64:528:64]
[SAVAGERY_RANGES:512:64:12]
[VOLCANISM_RANGES:512:24:512]
Here the
Data for 108 samples - tab seperated cells, so not really readable inside the browser - just copy and paste into something like calc or excel.
I can't negate the assumption of some logarithmic curve, but IMHO a potential based curve is more fitting.
And the data for the total amount - well, haven't thought about that in detail - but my 1st guess is that it should have been all the same (pure volume of stone/ore/minerals) and the difference is only accounting to the various layouts (empty spaces) of the caverns.
Ok, here is the plot for all entities from inorganic_stone_layer and inorganic_stone_soil removed from the data
For further tests I think more samples for the lower values are needed - and I am not sure what to do with all the noise for the higher ranges (no, no fourier or higher degree polynomal operations please)