Smelting your first batch: inputs, power, modules and disappointing ingots

Release cross-check before using the Demo reports

An October 28 release guide also describes two scrap/ore inputs and one overnight ingot. That supports using a small baseline, but does not independently resolve the older Flux-consumption conflict or establish our own tested Quality formula. Keep the live recipe and before/after consumable counts with your result. Release guide

Establish one batch before building a production line

Identify the exact machine and read its current input requirements. The September community guide Machinery and You reports a basic Furnace turning two raw-material units into one ingot with power over an overnight cycle. It discusses ScrapMetal and MetalOre as inputs. For a first comparison, use one compatible material type and follow the recipe shown in your game; the evidence does not establish that arbitrary mixed inputs work. Dated machinery guide

The community guide was posted on 21 September, updated on 24 September and adapted from Discord; its exact build is unspecified. Later comments describe different outcomes. If a current tooltip differs, follow the live requirement and record the difference instead of forcing an old ratio.

Run a small baseline and inspect the result

1. Record the machine and material. Note which furnace you have, the input’s displayed purity or grade, and the quantity required by its live recipe. Do not substitute a similar-looking machine’s recipe.
2. Check usable energy. Inspect actual battery charge against the installed setup’s requirement. A battery icon does not establish that the machine can complete its work. Use the power guide if the charging arrangement is uncertain.
3. Record installed modules and any Flux. Keep a before count of consumables. Avoid changing several modules while establishing the first comparison.
4. Allow the described overnight processing cycle. After reopening, inspect remaining input, actual ingot quantity and its displayed grade. Record any machine processing message as well as charge.
5. Compare one change at a time. Keep the same compatible material while testing a module, or keep the same setup while testing a different input grade. Otherwise you cannot tell which change produced the difference.

An ending battery number is a net balance after possible charging and use, so it does not reveal a universal processing order or prove that no charging occurred.

Separate the machine, its route and its modules

Choice	What the community guide reports	Practical consequence
Basic Furnace	Two compatible raw units produce one ingot in its described baseline	Compare with this machine’s live recipe, not a Blast ratio
Blast Furnace	A different reported baseline: three raw units to two ingots	Identify the machine before interpreting quantity; this is a dated report, not a current yield guarantee
JunkProcessing	Enables a special garbage-to-scrap route	Read that route’s accepted inputs in-game; do not treat every piece of garbage as ordinary ore
Quality	Concerns the resulting purity	Compare input purity and output grade before assuming an upgrade guarantees a target grade
Efficiency	Concerns energy use	Inspect changed power requirements; do not expect the label to promise better metal
Performance	Reported as ineffective on furnaces	It is not a supported fix for faster smelting; check the actual recipe, energy and other requirements

These are dated community descriptions. Check JunkProcessing’s accepted inputs and the module tooltips in your current build before choosing an upgrade. Machine and module descriptions

Why did upgraded inputs still produce a low grade?

First compare the input’s actual purity, the exact furnace, installed Quality-related setup and observed output. More modules do not by themselves prove a particular grade should result.

The guide’s comments provide a reason to test rather than promise: on 23 September, RustyToast reported 108% Quality plus advanced Flux still producing Fair metal. The author replied on 24 September that the effects did not combine as expected. A further Blast-related combination was discussed on 12 October. These are reports about particular setups, not proof that Quality is universally broken or that bonuses never combine. Guide and dated comments

If you want to evaluate an upgrade, compare two small batches with the same input and machine while changing only that upgrade. Record the displayed result rather than reverse-engineering a guaranteed formula from a single disappointing ingot. If the live description and repeatable result disagree, preserve both when asking for help.

Check Flux before and after; do not assume it is reusable

The sources conflict. The older 049 Rev3 metallurgy reference describes different consumption behaviour for basic and advanced Flux, while the older machinery material describes Flux as consumed. Those statements do not establish a reliable current rule for every Flux item or furnace. Older metallurgy account · Machinery account

For your batch, write down the exact Flux name and quantity before processing, then inspect what remains. Count an item as a recurring cost only when the observed process consumes it; do not budget unlimited reuse merely because an older guide says an advanced version persists.

Diagnose the failed batch

Observed problem	Next check	Avoid this shortcut
No ingot after the described cycle	Exact machine recipe, sufficient compatible input, usable charge and any processing feedback	Adding a Performance module without identifying the missing requirement
Quantity differs from an example	Basic versus Blast versus a special route, then the live recipe	Applying the basic two-to-one report to every machine
Grade disappoints despite upgrades	Input purity, exact modules, actual output; repeat one controlled comparison	Assuming a percentage guarantees a named grade
Flux disappeared unexpectedly	Exact item and before/after count in that machine	Treating the conflicting historical sources as a current reuse promise
Battery ends lower	Look for output and processing evidence alongside charge	Calling a net decrease proof that the charger never operated
Ingots accumulate while cash falls	Actual sale acceptance, price and recorded costs	Expanding a production line whose output you cannot sell

Is the batch worth running? Use actual costs

Fill in this worksheet from the batch you just observed. Blank fields mean not yet measured, not zero cost.

Record	Your observed value
Game build, furnace and installed modules	Record from your setup
Raw material quantity and acquisition cost	Record actual purchase or attributable cost
Flux or other inputs actually consumed	Compare before and after; include their cost
Energy or service cost you can attribute	Record what is known; keep unknown costs separate
Ingots produced and displayed grade	Record the completed batch
Quantity sold and credits actually received	Use a completed sale, not an asking price
Unsold inventory	Keep separate from realised receipts

For a completed sale, compare credits received with the costs attributable to the items sold. If costs or allocation remain unknown, you do not yet have a verified profit figure. Keep one-time equipment spending visible separately from recurring batch costs. The buyer and display guide helps with the next bottleneck: producing ingots is not the same as finding a customer who accepts them.