| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Space Wanderer
   |
Posted - 2009.03.11 00:15:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Space Wanderer on 11/03/2009 00:24:44
Here is a close approximation of the formula employed by the game to evaluate the combined scan strength of four (or less) probes. This is what could be derived by trial and error on the last patch on Sisi. I suppose it should still be valid for Tranquillity.
Reflections about new formula for scan strength
The formula proceeds in separate steps:
1) Evaluate the scan strength of each probe.
2) Evaluate the angles of each couple of probes with site.
3) Choose the probes (four or less) that will be involved in evaluating the sig strength.
4) Evaluate the total signal strength.
1) Evaluate the scan strength of each probe.
This proceeds roughly as it has already been determined:
sig-str% = Size * probe-str * distance-modifier / 2
where probe str = prob-base-str/range modifier (1, 2, 4, 8... depending on the range the probe has been set to), and distance-modifier is the same in the old formula e^-((Target Range / Max Range)^2). Note however, the "/2" factor, which actually makes SINGLE probes half as effective as they used to be before.
2) Evaluate the angles of each couple of probes with site.
No changes here, too. First, the angles are counted only up to 90 degrees. Any angle larger than 90 degrees is actually counted as 90 degrees. So in essence, a 100 degree angle is counted as a 90 degree angle, a 120 degree is counted as a 90 degree, etc. Less than 90 degrees will lead to sig str reduction, while more won't have any beneficial effect.
3) Choose the probes (four or less) that will be involved in evaluating the sig strength.
By the words of greyscale, only the "best" four probes are employed to evaluate the signal strength. How would the server choose which of the potentially eight probes are the "four" best probes? In my observation this is how it goes:
a) First the game chooses which probes are the "better" to use. This is probably* done by creating a ranking of probes. This ranking is certainly not based either on the 1 probe sig str, nor on the best angles. In my observations it seems to be based on a combination of both, according to the following formula: rank-value = (angle1 + angle2 + angle3+....)*sig-str. The highest ranked probes are chosen. Note that this formula does not guarantee to always choose the probes that give you the best sig str. I have been able to force the game to choose suboptimal probes.
b) Once a ranking has been established among probes, the game choose how many probes are to be employed. This is probably* done in the following way: the amount of all angles between probes is summed. If it is larger than 270 (6 angles at 45?), four probes are employed. If it is more than about 180 (three 45/50 angles), three probes are employed. If it is less than that two probes are employed. If the sum of angles is less than 135 degree the usual X separate 1-probe signals are given. Note: this special case formula is ONLY valid in case we have four probes or more available. You can read formula formula generalized to less probes cases in the post below.
4) Evaluate the total signal strength.
Once the probes have been chosen, it follows basically the formula already defined, with a couple of variants:
combined-sig-str% = (average of 1-probe sig-str)*2*(average of the highest 4 angles).
Note that in my observations only the 4 highest angles between probes are used in the calculations. Note also that the "*2" factor rebalances the "/2" factor introduced in the 1-probe signal strength.
|
Space Wanderer
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 00:16:00 -
[2]
Reserved
|
Casiella Truza
Ecliptic Rift
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 01:27:00 -
[3]
Ah, nice work. How confident are you in the angle piece of it?
--
IC Twitter |
Miss Moonwych
Formedian Shadows
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 05:14:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 11/03/2009 05:16:52
Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 11/03/2009 05:16:08
Ah well. Lets make this the MEGA probe and wormhole thread! 
This is my post from the dev forums about maximum target strength given the 8 types of signatures encountered in the game using all possible probe ranges for core and deep space probes.
Update: all is now based on precise target sizes (no estimation anymore). Also fixed the grav rig bonus due to stacking.
Update 2: added a new base class site (0.07%), Virtue implants added and changed to better name (Max strength).
Update 3: Probes ranges have changed and their single probe strength is divided by 2. Keep in mind that multiple probe strength is double the single probe strength. Also the 82.2% penalty has been removed. Also added tip for determining the group a signature belongs to.
---
Classifying signatures when searching for exploration sites and wormholes has now become harder due to the effect of skills/implants/rigs/launcher have on detected strength.
I've created a small Excel file to calculate the max sig strength for different classes of targets.
Max Target Strength Calc v0.4.xls (alternative link)
Here a screenshot (link):
As you can see you can fill in your own skills, implants and equipment. By using the numbers from the list you can determine which class of signature you are dealing with in a solarsystem. Keep in mind that these are maximum strengths: when the probe is on top of the target. If the probe is relatively far away from the target the site might appear to be of a lower strength, so its best to use the longest ranged probes (best is 256 AU now) or to move around the probe to see how high the strength gets.
Why?
Look here for what we aready could determine based on the base strength of a target (on the test server, its a bit old now but gives an idea). And here for the possibility that certain base strengths might indicate wormholes to unknown space (0.16% and 0.26%).
You can also estimate quite well how far away a probe is from a target if you know its class (determined by a larger probe). That way you don't have to rely (solely) on the highly deviating distance reported by the probe.
Regards,
M.M.
Tip: if you use two probes around a planet (eg a probe above and below it) you only need a singe probe strength of 12.5% to see what group signatures belong to (you'll get 25% with the two probes). And in wormspace all "Unknown" signatures are wormholes and have a target size of 10 .
|
Miss Moonwych
Formedian Shadows
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 05:38:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 11/03/2009 05:46:37
To clarify: we've tested a lot on the Singularity test server and the above is the result of that. Nothing is written in stone just yet but we're pretty confident that -after the last changes by CCP- the above is pretty accurate.
General tips for placing probes around a (deviating) target:
- Make sure you surround the target evenly. Usually your target will be the red of yellow dot as a result form an earlier scan. As mention by Space Wanderer this is a tetrahedron if you use 4 probes.
- Do not place your probes too close to a red or yellow dot. The dot is an estimated location of your target. Putting your probes too close can really screw up the angles which hurts your result.
Regards,
M.M.
|
Jazric
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 09:01:00 -
[6]
Are you sure about the non added strength when using multiple probes? I have found my best results comes from using 4-6 probes (tetrahedron or cube) and using a final probe in the middle at double the range. I seem to come out with more accurate results, ie a red circle versus a sphere or a spot instead of a circle.
Perhaps the additional scan strength is like stacking modules, the return is never the same as the sum of the parts and decreases with the more you put in.
Finally I like to use those extra probes to mark the locations of sites I will scan out next.
|
Space Wanderer
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 10:00:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Space Wanderer on 11/03/2009 10:01:59
 Originally by: Miss Moonwych
To clarify: we've tested a lot on the Singularity test server and the above is the result of that. Nothing is written in stone just yet but we're pretty confident that -after the last changes by CCP- the above is pretty accurate (although step 3 still needs some work I think).
Originally by: Casiella Truza
Ah, nice work. How confident are you in the angle piece of it?
You mean step 2, and its modifiers? We are very confident on it. Less than 90 degrees generates a alinear handicap on sig str. More than 90 degrees has no additional effect. The only doubt is whether the minimum angle before obtaining separate one-probe signals is 45 or 50. I think it is 45, it would make more sense, IMO.
Originally by: Jazric
Are you sure about the non added strength when using multiple probes?
Pretty much, yes. This is one of the things we have tested extensively, as it is EASY to test. However, note that putting at least TWO probes effectively DOUBLES the maximum sig str. Only MORE than two probes has non-additive effects. The increased effects you observe is most likely due to non-proper placement of probes, which reduces some angles. By placing more probes you increase the amount of angles that the game can choose from, thus improving your chances to obtain the maximum theoretical sig str.
Originally by: Jazric
I have found my best results comes from using 4-6 probes (tetrahedron or cube) and using a final probe in the middle at double the range. I seem to come out with more accurate results, ie a red circle versus a sphere or a spot instead of a circle.
The form of the result (circle, sphere, or spot) is NOT affected by the sig str. If putting more probes change it, it simply means that the site was not in range of one or more of your probes, and the additional ones covered it. Remember the site MUST be in range of 4 probes (in some special cases 3 is enough, but don't count on it).
Originally by: Jazric
Perhaps the additional scan strength is like stacking modules, the return is never the same as the sum of the parts and decreases with the more you put in.
Unless they seriously changed the design from the last Sisi patch that is not the case. Maximum theoretical strength can observed with two probes (provided the angle is larger than 90 degrees). Or you can scan with one probe and double its scan strength value. This has the advantage to not be affected by angles (still affected by distance though).
Originally by: Jazric
Finally I like to use those extra probes to mark the locations of sites I will scan out next.
Very creative way to use them. Just remember that the dots deviate pretty much from the real site position at low scan strengths.
|
Jalum Krayal
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 20:51:00 -
[8]
So if I'm understanding this correctly...
I plug in my info into the excel spreadsheet. I then drop a single 32AU probe covering the system and analyze. At that point, I compare the strengths of the signatures to the chart, and if I want a wormhole that goes to highsec, I look for one of the numbers in the 0.40% column? I'm sorry for sounding daft, but I'm at my wits' end trying to get my gang out of a wormspace. :D
|
Miss Moonwych
Formedian Shadows
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 21:03:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 11/03/2009 21:05:51
Originally by: Jalum Krayal
So if I'm understanding this correctly...
I plug in my info into the excel spreadsheet. I then drop a single 32AU probe covering the system and analyze. At that point, I compare the strengths of the signatures to the chart, and if I want a wormhole that goes to highsec, I look for one of the numbers in the 0.40% column? I'm sorry for sounding daft, but I'm at my wits' end trying to get my gang out of a wormspace. :D
Almost. All wormholes in wormspace have a sig size of 10. So yes its about the 0.40% column. But there is lots of other stuff in wormspace that has a sig strengt of 10. You will have to get a 25% strength on each of them to see if they are "unknowns" (group column in scanner). If you can you should use deep safe probes so you can do this many at a time (they have much longer range). But anyway if you find an unknown you can be assured its a wormhole and scan it down to 100%.
|
Arsen Lupin
Caldari
Warped Mining
Strip Mining Club
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 00:06:00 -
[10]
Great topic, but it just makes me feel dumb.
Could anyone try to translate all this valuable information in plain english ? Like "exploration for dummies" ? The OP already made me feel like an idiot :p
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The speed of light being faster than the speed of sound, some seem brilliant before they open their mouth. |
|
|
Miss Moonwych
Formedian Shadows
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 02:50:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Arsen Lupin
Great topic, but it just makes me feel dumb.
Could anyone try to translate all this valuable information in plain english ? Like "exploration for dummies" ? The OP already made me feel like an idiot :p
You mean something like this?
|
Qwyp
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 03:55:00 -
[12]
ok probably dumb question that I have overlooked, but scanning for ship using combat scanner probe, I finally got 100% strength on 2 ships, but I could not warp to them I right clicked in the scan results but no menu, nothing, I could see 5 drones out, 2 ships all at 100% but no matter what I did I couldnt get option to warp to.
I must be overlooking something... :(
|
Jbobj
Minmatar
Valklear Guard
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 06:00:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Miss Moonwych
Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 11/03/2009 21:05:51
Originally by: Jalum Krayal
So if I'm understanding this correctly...
I plug in my info into the excel spreadsheet. I then drop a single 32AU probe covering the system and analyze. At that point, I compare the strengths of the signatures to the chart, and if I want a wormhole that goes to highsec, I look for one of the numbers in the 0.40% column? I'm sorry for sounding daft, but I'm at my wits' end trying to get my gang out of a wormspace. :D
Almost. All wormholes in wormspace have a sig size of 10. So yes its about the 0.40% column. But there is lots of other stuff in wormspace that has a sig strengt of 10. You will have to get a 25% strength on each of them to see if they are "unknowns" (group column in scanner). If you can you should use deep safe probes so you can do this many at a time (they have much longer range). But anyway if you find an unknown you can be assured its a wormhole and scan it down to 100%.
Looking at the chart, I see no distance. Does the distance for a single probe to the site no longer affect the scan str? Is it just the sites size and player skills now?
Also, on that chart, you don't consider using sisters probes. Since they have a base scan strength 10% higher then normal probes (44 vs 40), I assume using them is more effective then using the scan probe launcher, and the scan implant, due to them effecting the base scan strength, before its multiplied.
|
Miss Moonwych
Formedian Shadows
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 06:13:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 12/03/2009 06:16:27
Originally by: Jbobj
Looking at the chart, I see no distance. Does the distance for a single probe to the site no longer affect the scan str? Is it just the sites size and player skills now?
As mentioned the excel file concerns maximum strength. Distance still matters which is essentially the same as it was before. The formula posted by Space Wanderer contains the distance element (see step 1).
Originally by: Jbobj
Also, on that chart, you don't consider using sisters probes. Since they have a base scan strength 10% higher then normal probes (44 vs 40), I assume using them is more effective then using the scan probe launcher, and the scan implant, due to them effecting the base scan strength, before its multiplied.
True those probes are not explicitly mentioned in the excel file. I'm sure you can add it when you buy them.  Or when using them fill in 15.5 at the sisters scanner field (assuming you also have that one). It has the same effect as the implant (PPH-2) but only works for cores of course so its probably not as valuable but it can certainly help if you're low on skills.
Regards,
M.M.
|
Kyra Felann
Gallente
Noctis Fleet Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 07:44:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Qwyp
ok probably dumb question that I have overlooked, but scanning for ship using combat scanner probe, I finally got 100% strength on 2 ships, but I could not warp to them I right clicked in the scan results but no menu, nothing, I could see 5 drones out, 2 ships all at 100% but no matter what I did I couldnt get option to warp to.
I must be overlooking something... :(
You haven't pin-pointed the location. Strength and locating it are two different things. You need four or more probes in range of it to find out its location in 3D space and you need to get the strength up to 100%. So click the ship results (CTRL+CLICK for multiple) and make sure each probe is overlapping the places where it could be.
If it's in range of one probe, it's a sphere, in range of two, it's a circle, in range of three, it's two dots, and in range of four, it's one dot. Think about it--the probes only know how far away the signature is, so you need four to figure out where the signature is. It's pretty basic geometry.
|
Space Wanderer
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 09:20:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Space Wanderer on 12/03/2009 09:20:29
Originally by: Jbobj
Also, on that chart, you don't consider using sisters probes. Since they have a base scan strength 10% higher then normal probes (44 vs 40), I assume using them is more effective then using the scan probe launcher, and the scan implant, due to them effecting the base scan strength, before its multiplied.
Not really. As far as I know the additional bonuses (rigs, ships, skills) are not additive quantities, but multiplied. So:
40 * ship bonus * skill bonus * rig bonus *rig bonus.
The 10% added bonus of sisters would mean:
40 * 1.1 * ship bonus * skill bonus * rig bonus *rig bonus.
Which is AS EFFECTIVE as all the other bonuses (commutative property of multiplication ). The only exception to this rule MIGHT be virtue implents whose effect MIGHT be additive to each other, and thus less effective. I don't know that since I don't use them.
|
Janus Ovellian
Minmatar
Calpolli
Namtz' aar K'in
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 12:08:00 -
[17]
One note on the spreadsheet... the Virtue implant set does not provide "up to 18.75%" bonus.
The total bonus for the full set is about 33.83% as per the usual calculation method.
(1.33829987188 by my calculations)
Confirmed ingame.
Interesting times await... |
Miss Moonwych
Formedian Shadows
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 13:32:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 12/03/2009 13:35:51
Originally by: Janus Ovellian
One note on the spreadsheet... the Virtue implant set does not provide "up to 18.75%" bonus.
The total bonus for the full set is about 33.83% as per the usual calculation method.
(1.33829987188 by my calculations)
Confirmed ingame.
A thanks. I based that number on the research done by DeepBlue. Looks like it has changed since then (or he was wrong ). Anyway, could you post your calculations then I can integrate it into the excel file at some point.
Haven't done the math yet but a 33.8% increase (in combination with everything else maxed out) is probably enough for the dsp to be able scan every site, never needing the cores.
Regards,
M.M.
|
Pankorzhi
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 15:17:00 -
[19]
hello!
Today I found Grav and Magni signatures but couldn't reach 100% strength on those signatures.
Covert Ops - 3lvl
Astrometric Triangulation - 3lvl
Sisters- yes
PPH implant - No
Grav rigs - both
Virtue implants - No
So my strength multiplier:2.147145
4* 0,25AU probes gives me only 59% result
I tried to add more probes and place it closer and closer to yellow point - and I can reach 92% with 7 probes. But its all! Same with another Sig
What can i do in this situation? And why I cant get 100%? Thx!
PS But I easily found 2 war plexes in this system.
|
Space Wanderer
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 15:45:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Pankorzhi
4* 0,25AU probes gives me only 59% result
I tried to add more probes and place it closer and closer to yellow point - and I can reach 92% with 7 probes. But its all! Same with another Sig
What you should have done is to scan with only ONE probe at 0.25AU placed very close to the site. I you can't achieve at least 50% scan strength with one probe on top of the site you CANNOT find it with your current skills/equipment, no matter what. In this case train your skills.
On the other hand I if you got more than 50% sig strength you placed your probes in a unfavorable geometry. The most effective geometry is a tetrahedron around the site.
|
|
|
BMer
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 16:08:00 -
[21]
Ton of good info. Awesome job Space Wanderer and Miss Moonwych. 
 This needs a sticky or a link in the resources thread
|
Janus Ovellian
Minmatar
Calpolli
Namtz' aar K'in
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 16:32:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Miss Moonwych
Anyway, could you post your calculations then I can integrate it into the excel file at some point.
Haven't done the math yet but a 33.8% increase (in combination with everything else maxed out) is probably enough for the dsp to be able scan every site, never needing the cores.
Set bonus is 1.1x for each implant alpha-epsilon and 1.25x for the omega.
1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.25 = 2.0131375x effect on each implant.
This changes the alpha - epsilon implants like so:
1% - 2.0131375%
2% - 4.026275%
3% - 6.0394125%
4% - 8.05255%
5% - 10.0656875%
multiply those like 1.201... x 1.402... x ... 1.100...
to get 1.338-something
And yes... with max everything, and a sisters launcher, but not necessarily probes (although they make it a little easier) you can find every site with 2AU DSP.
Interesting times await... |
Durindana
Gallente
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 17:35:00 -
[23]
thread needs a stickeh
and, by the way, is lolwtf in terms of math-brain demands. Just figuring out the new probes interface, which is utterly sick btw, about melted my head
|
Miss Moonwych
Formedian Shadows
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 17:57:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 12/03/2009 18:07:02
Originally by: Janus Ovellian
...
to get 1.338-something
And yes... with max everything, and a sisters launcher, but not necessarily probes (although they make it a little easier placement wise) you can find every site with 2AU DSP, assuming the lowest size 1.25 is the lowest out there.
Great thanks.
Here a nice little extra info on the target sizes. If you take target size 20 as the basic one then the 8 sizes can also be described as a portion of that basis:
1/1
1/2
1/3
1/4
1/5
1/8
1/12
1/16
Interestingly the ones that are not an exponent of 2 (so 1/3, 1/5 and 1/12) seem to be rarer than the others (1/1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 and 1/16) and its possible (not fully checked) that all wormholes to normal, dangerous or deadly W-space (there are three flavors) are of those three sizes. While we have found lower signature strength targets in earlier builds on Sisi they have been fixed by CCP Greyscale because they would not be scannable. So we're pretty sure the 1/16th is the weakest right now. Of course this has to be double checked on TQ. So if anybody would find a weaker one we would be very interested in that.
Regards,
M.M.
|
Ecky X
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.03.13 05:51:00 -
[25]
Pre-patch, most everything was within 4au of a celestial body, but wormholes don't seem to follow this. How far away can they be spawned?
|
Rivqua
Caldari
Omega Wing
R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2009.03.13 10:22:00 -
[26]
Anything (not just WH) can now spawn anywhere.
_________________
- Rivqua -
--- R.E.P.O. --- |
Nyota Sol
|
Posted - 2009.03.14 21:16:00 -
[27]
|
Cameron Freerunner
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 05:56:00 -
[28]
Pardon if I've missed the answer to my question: how do overlapping, different scan distances interact? For instance, I thought about maybe using a tetrahedron set at 32AU (or more) with a smaller tetrahedron set at 4AU (or less). Assuming you had the skills to use 8 probes (i think that's the max), the big scan area would reveal general placement and the smaller scan area would evaluate each hit. Each scan reveals the big area and the smaller verifies or discards a previous hit. You move the smaller tetrahedron every single time you discard a hit or hone in on a good hit. It seems efficient. But maybe the overlapping scans have a bad effect? Or maybe there is some other problem? |
Space Wanderer
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 11:21:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Space Wanderer on 16/03/2009 11:22:42
Edited by: Space Wanderer on 16/03/2009 11:21:51
Originally by: Cameron Freerunner
Pardon if I've missed the answer to my question: how do overlapping, different scan distances interact? For instance, I thought about maybe using a tetrahedron set at 32AU (or more) with a smaller tetrahedron set at 4AU (or less). Assuming you had the skills to use 8 probes (i think that's the max), the big scan area would reveal general placement and the smaller scan area would evaluate each hit. Each scan reveals the big area and the smaller verifies or discards a previous hit. You move the smaller tetrahedron every single time you discard a hit or hone in on a good hit. It seems efficient. But maybe the overlapping scans have a bad effect? Or maybe there is some other problem?
Mmmhh... could you be more specific? I can't grasp what you do with enough clarity. Anyway, if you use the two sets of probes separately (i.e. activate 4 probes at 32AU, scan, deactivate them, activate probes at 4AU, scan, etc...) overlapping is non-existent. Only active probes interact with each other.
On the contrary, if what you do is to scan with the two probe sets at the same time, the game selects for each site the best 4 probes available. And here a plethora of scenarios may arise. If all 4 small-range probes are hitting the site and they are not at stupid angles they will be all selected as "best", so overlap of the 32AU probes won't have the slightest effect. However, if one of the 4AU probes is not hitting the site, or is placed at odd angles, one or more of the 32AU probes will be considered one of the "best" probes, which will reduce your sig str, increase the deviation, and, most importantly, won't give you any sign that one of the 4AU probes might not be hitting the site or is cut out from computation (because you will still be getting a 4-probe hit). So, separate scans between the two probe sets is always advisable.
|
Wet Ferret
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 12:07:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Rivqua
Anything (not just WH) can now spawn anywhere.
No they can't. They have removed the 4AU restriction but there is a new one in place. I have reason to believe it's less than 15AU but do not know for sure.
But, yeah. These forums seriously need some indicator that the post has ended and the sig has started. |
|
|
Nyota Sol
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 12:46:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Nyota Sol on 16/03/2009 12:58:17
CCP Greyscale indicated that we'll have an archive/history feature some day, which should really help out.
Originally by: Cameron Freerunner
Pardon if I've missed the answer to my question: how do overlapping, different scan distances interact? For instance, I thought about maybe using a tetrahedron set at 32AU (or more) with a smaller tetrahedron set at 4AU (or less). Assuming you had the skills to use 8 probes (i think that's the max), the big scan area would reveal general placement and the smaller scan area would evaluate each hit. Each scan reveals the big area and the smaller verifies or discards a previous hit. You move the smaller tetrahedron every single time you discard a hit or hone in on a good hit. It seems efficient. But maybe the overlapping scans have a bad effect? Or maybe there is some other problem?
Try a simpler approach. Less can be more, so try using 3 probes.
1 probe at a wide range to track big readings. Deactivate it when you need to whittle down.
2 smaller range probes to whittle down a signal.
2 probes can produce red circles which represent the probes' estimation about mutual distance readings. When you get such a result, it implies the target is somewhere close to the red circle itself (the line). Do not assume it is precisely on the line because considerable deviation is involved.
When you get a red circle, adjust 1 probe and rescan. If you have a good sense about 3d spatial relations, then you perhaps recognize the power of this simplicity right away. You have now seen 2 different red circles at different angles/positions.
Where those 2 come closest is your target area.
Using just 2 probes, you can quickly obtain a strong sense of a signal's location and re-adjusting probe range becomes a lot more manageable. You can use the deactivated large range probe when you lose the red circle or when you want to go back to other signals.
|
Space Wanderer
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 13:49:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Nyota Sol
Try a simpler approach.
Well, I tend to disagree with the suggestions of "try another approach". I think that everyone of us has his favorite approach, closer to how he thinks, and while some approaches may be more efficient in more contexts, I think there is always something to learn from other people approaches, especially when they are creative. And the two probe clusters approach is certainly pretty creative. :-)
Not what I would use on a regular basis, but very inspiring.
|
Lady Spank
Amarr
Sekret Kool Klubb
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 14:46:00 -
[33]
While any approach which eventually yields a result is indeed valid. It's worth considering that the less probes you rely on the easier it is to problem solve if your alignment goes out of whack.
I was using 5 in a + formation with 1 elevated for the z axis hit, but soon dropped this down to 3 for speed alone.
When I'm probing down something with a particularly low strength its worth using 2 sets of 4 probes, activating and deactivating in turn so you never completely lose signal and have to start again. It's certainly not always necessary but it helps if you find yourself having trouble. I'm sure this astrometrics caps at 8 with this technique kept in mind (as much as tracking 2 signatures down at the same time).
|
Nyota Sol
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 15:11:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Nyota Sol on 16/03/2009 15:14:36
Originally by: Space Wanderer
Originally by: Nyota Sol
Try a simpler approach.
Well, I tend to disagree with the suggestions of "try another approach". I think that everyone of us has his favorite approach, closer to how he thinks, and while some approaches may be more efficient in more contexts, I think there is always something to learn from other people approaches, especially when they are creative. And the two probe clusters approach is certainly pretty creative. :-)
Not what I would use on a regular basis, but very inspiring.
I should have prefaced with "this is for people using Core probes."
You folks with DSP are in a more sane world. Us plebeians stuck with Core probes often have a really rough time in the 2au-8au range.
I don't find that it's useful to start pulling out 3-4 probes until I'm getting a good sense of where I'm headed. This REALLY goes for w-space when you may have considerable sig counts and mere Cores to work with.
Because you can get 2 different red circle readings quickly and effectively, it can be a sound & fast method for initial steps. With a deeper appreciation of this new information about angles, I think there's great potential for starting with 2 and then shifting to a very effective tetra setup with a reasonably small range to work in.
Tips on improving this would be welcome. 
|
Nyota Sol
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 16:41:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Nyota Sol on 16/03/2009 16:42:17
Preliminary observations... using 2 probes.
~180 degree angle gave me a tiny circle (with deviation). Slightly off, even 175ish and I get red circles about 1au wide/diameter.
~135 degree angle gave me 4au diameter circles (~25% probe size).
~90 degree angle gave me 6au circles (~40% probe size)
~50 degree angle gave me about 7au circles.
~45 degrees gave me 2 spheres rather than a red ring. Bad angle.
Deviation seemed to decreased with distance between probes/target, but also as well as with increase in angle perhaps due to the size of the red circles or corresponding strengths.
|
Cameron Freerunner
|
Posted - 2009.03.17 18:44:00 -
[36]
Thanks for the feedback and positive comments. For those who couldn't visualize my poorly worded (and beer induced) question: imagine a tetrahedron with 32au distances. that's big enough to cover a system and still have plenty of overlap in scan areas. That will get you red dots (and green dots for sites like angel hideouts). Now imagine launching 4 more probes, arranging them in a tetrahedron with a distance of 4au (or less), and moving them to evaluate each red dot. from what's been said, it sounds like it works, provided that you place your smaller cluster accurately. I didn't imagine deactivating the large group when I asked the question. But it sounds like it might be a good idea. I just wanted the big scan to keep from having to rescan the whole system after chasing down a single contact.
As for other comments about chasing down weak signals: it appears that distance is king. My skills aren't all that special, but I've tracked down some hard to find contacts by simply moving the probes closer and closer together. For one, the arrows on the sides of the cubes were touching before i got to 100%.
Also, while I don't do this all the time, on good scan pattern is to use a double tetrahedron (one above, three in a triangle on the midplane, and one below). This is good for chasing red dots. That way if your deviation is just a shade off the midplane, the one below still picks it up. Seems to work. Thanks guys. |
Space Wanderer
|
Posted - 2009.03.17 22:13:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Cameron Freerunner
As for other comments about chasing down weak signals: it appears that distance is king.
Yes, and no. With a single probe distance is king all right. But when you start using more than one probe (and you NEED to use more than one probe to warp to the site) the angle of probes relative to the site are as much as important, or more.
|
Cygwin Gaad
Caldari
The Element Syndicate
Black Mesa Project
|
Posted - 2009.03.18 05:17:00 -
[38]
Fantastic guide Space Wanderer.
:thumbsup:
|
Space Wanderer
|
Posted - 2009.03.18 10:12:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Nyota Sol
Preliminary observations... using 2 probes.
~180 degree angle gave me a tiny circle (with deviation). Slightly off, even 175ish and I get red circles about 1au wide/diameter.
~135 degree angle gave me 4au diameter circles (~25% probe size).
~90 degree angle gave me 6au circles (~40% probe size)
~50 degree angle gave me about 7au circles.
The increase of the ring size with angle is expected, and has nothing to do with signal strength, but merely with geometry. Specifically, the radius of the circle is the distance of the site from straight line between the two probes. Of course this distance is almost null for a 180 degree angle, and increases with the decrease of the angle.
Originally by: Nyota Sol
Deviation seemed to decreased with distance between probes/target, but also as well as with increase in angle perhaps due to the size of the red circles or corresponding strengths.
Evaluating deviation is very hard, because it is pretty random. IN my observation it is STRONGLY conditioned by the single probes signal strength, probably with a superlinear law, thus the closer they are to the site, the less deviation you see.
Originally by: Nyota Sol
I think this strategy can be used with 4 probes (deactivating 2 at a time) to dramatically narrow down a location within 2 minutes.
I suppsoe it could, but don't see why you shouldn't just use 3 or 4 probes to let them doing the work for you.
|
Miss Moonwych
Formedian Shadows
|
Posted - 2009.03.20 19:52:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 20/03/2009 19:59:56
Just a reflection.
Using a tetrahedron is probably the best way to find one single target (especially if you know with increasing precision where it is).
Finding and/or identifying multiple clustered targets might best be done with 8 probes forming 5 tetrahedra. This would effectively multiply the covered volume (compared to using only 4 probes) by a factor of 5.
A simpler version would be to use 5 probes forming two tetrahedra. For example a triangle around a planet (horizontally) then one probe above and one probe below the planet.
So using more than 4 probes will not increase the strength on a single target, but it can significantly extend the volume covered by one scan.
Regards,
M.M.
|
|
|
Erodmos
|
Posted - 2009.03.20 21:33:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Miss Moonwych
Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 20/03/2009 19:59:56
So using more than 4 probes will not increase the strength on a single target, but it can significantly extend the volume covered by one scan.
Is that really true? I did make a bit different experiences. for 4 probes, its best to use a tetrahedron formation for a single target. But for a real hard to scan down target (one you get to some 95%-99% with your skills only) you can improve you results by using 6 Probes in a octahedron formation. I have placed then by using 4 probes on the hirzontal plane in a aquare around the target in the middle. And the 5th probe above target and 6th a bit down under. Probing with that formation did get me better results compared to tetrahedron formation.
Maybe i should do more testing with 6 probes and the results of them. But it was so far only needed for a single target, everything else i was able to find with 4 probes.
Erodmos
|
Nyota Sol
|
Posted - 2009.03.22 11:48:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Space Wanderer
Specifically, the radius of the circle is the distance of the site from straight line between the two probes. Of course this distance is almost null for a 180 degree angle, and increases with the decrease of the angle.
Interesting. Much easier to visualize in terms of the angle itself. 
Originally by: Space Wanderer
Originally by: Nyota Sol
I think this strategy can be used with 4 probes (deactivating 2 at a time) to dramatically narrow down a location within 2 minutes.
I suppsoe it could, but don't see why you shouldn't just use 3 or 4 probes to let them doing the work for you.
You could.
My primary struggle is finding tricks to visually sort through many gravs sites using just 32au probes.
|
Boydsan DeZinj
|
Posted - 2009.03.23 00:04:00 -
[43]
I have had a few issues where I get a 100% signal and a yellow or green dot. But I can not warp to it. Any idea what is wrong? Bug? Likewise, I have also seen a open red circle at 100% and two red dots at 100% - also unwarpable. I have been thinking... could it be my low skills?
My current skills are
Astrometrics 3
Astrometrics Triangulation 3
Astrometrics Pinpointing 0 (since i need astrometrics to 4 to get it)
Astrometric Acquisition 2
(I will be getting astrometrics to 4 soon... then go to 3 for both pinpointing and Acquisition)
I have also tried, all sorts of shapes to try to get a solid lock. Most of the time, I can get one without sweating But ever since this last patch. I get a few signals... I just can not lock down.. at all....
|
Space Wanderer
|
Posted - 2009.03.23 00:24:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Space Wanderer on 23/03/2009 00:24:47
Originally by: Boydsan DeZinj
I have had a few issues where I get a 100% signal and a yellow or green dot. But I can not warp to it. Any idea what is wrong? Bug? Likewise, I have also seen a open red circle at 100% and two red dots at 100% - also unwarpable. I have been thinking... could it be my low skills?
I think you are looking for this thread.
|
Boydsan DeZinj
|
Posted - 2009.03.23 00:29:00 -
[45]
oops... I think you are right... I was looking at both a the same time, and i guess my eyes tricked me. Old man syndrome at 36. Now I should grab my clone of me when I was 21...
|
Rogaru
Amarr
Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.23 02:47:00 -
[46]
Does anyone know a list for 'target size'?
i.e. is 1.25 radar sites, 2.5 Mag sites etc etc?
|
Nyota Sol
|
Posted - 2009.03.23 12:10:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Rogaru
Does anyone know a list for 'target size'?
i.e. is 1.25 radar sites, 2.5 Mag sites etc etc?
Look at MM's posts above.
You can only get a hunch depending on your skills and gear. The important thing is knowing how to hit 25% and 75% signals as quickly as possible.
|
explodinator
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:47:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Miss Moonwych
...excel sheet...
Any change on getting that updated now that CCP has seen fit to reduce the deep space probe strength? 
|
Zex Maxwell
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:45:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Miss Moonwych
...excel sheet...
The Excel sheet only has stats if you have only the faction launcher, But there are faction probes as well.
---
|
explodinator
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 01:28:00 -
[50]
Edited by: explodinator on 30/03/2009 01:28:33
I updated the spreadsheet:
http://www.sendspace.com/file/x9vdsg
It takes the 75% Deep Space probe nerf, and has an option for those using Sisters Core Probes.
The numbers seem to work, I'm fairly sure I did it right.
|
|
|
Swifties
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 20:28:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Rogaru
Does anyone know a list for 'target size'?
i.e. is 1.25 radar sites, 2.5 Mag sites etc etc?
This.
Its probably me but the thing I dont get in the excel file is the 'target size'. Is this the sig radius of the site? What site/WH has which target size?? Besides, after filling in the data I get a strenght multiplier of 2.3716. With this the lowest possible % in the table below is 0.23% now (deep space at 256 AU on a 1.25 target size). If some WH's are 0.16%, then how iam i supposed to find these?
Sry again, but what am I missing here?
|
Akuma Kanya
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 17:40:00 -
[52]
bump?
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
|
Posted - 2009.06.05 07:24:00 -
[53]
This thread is out-farging-standing.
|
Reef Skywalker
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 18:42:00 -
[54]
Great thread. Really.
The one thing I miss is the list of site names and their signal strengths. Has anyone seen such a thing somewhere? I have tried googling but I haven't found it. It may be that noone did such a list yet, though.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |