Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Space Wanderer
LdW Industries Nulli Tertius
6
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 17:50:00 -
[1] - Quote
Writing the piece down, might take a little bit. |
Space Wanderer
LdW Industries Nulli Tertius
6
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 17:50:00 -
[2] - Quote
Reserved |
Space Wanderer
LdW Industries Nulli Tertius
6
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 17:51:00 -
[3] - Quote
Reserved |
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
6440
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 21:42:00 -
[4] - Quote
Wow.
Impressive to say the least.
+1 like for the OP.
DMC |
Zircon Dasher
186
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 23:03:00 -
[5] - Quote
In my experience 3) is where you hit a wall because we do not have sufficient granularity in the interface to get a precision read on where the result collapse occurs given different probe sizes.
Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Jack Miton
Aperture Harmonics K162
1579
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 23:27:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ok, sure, good work figuring it out but what is this useful for? All of this is extremely irrelevant to anything regarding probing ability/speed.
The info here can be summarized in 2 points:
1. More probes = better. 2. 3d layout = better than 2d layout for result strength.
Neither of which are really news.
Also, point 2 is arguable. I probe with a flat layout and I much faster than any 3d layout due to being significantly faster to setup and more importantly due to producing much simpler to read secondary results (ie: rings and spheres) than 3d layouts which will give you rings on all sorts of weird angles. A flat layout will give ring results that are very nearly as good as red dot results due to always being horizontal or vertical and always having a distinct end where the sig is located. I probe a lot and over the years have tried several layouts but I have always returned to an 8 probe flat setup.
|
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis
307
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 23:39:00 -
[7] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Ok, sure, good work figuring it out but what is this useful for? All of this is extremely irrelevant to anything regarding probing ability/speed.
The info here can be summarized in 2 points:
1. More probes = better. 2. 3d layout = better than 2d layout for result strength.
Neither of which are really news.
Also, point 2 is arguable. I probe with a flat layout and I much faster than any 3d layout due to being significantly faster to setup and more importantly due to producing much simpler to read secondary results (ie: rings and spheres) than 3d layouts which will give you rings on all sorts of weird angles. A flat layout will give ring results that are very nearly as good as red dot results due to always being horizontal or vertical and always having a distinct end where the sig is located. I probe a lot and over the years have tried several layouts but I have always returned to an 8 probe flat setup.
At first I wanted to scoff but you actually have a good point. Just moving probes around in 2 dimensions instead of 3 should save a great deal of time.
Although, don't you have to use a bigger scanning radius for your probes to make sure you don't miss anything above and below? Meaning you delay getting to that 100% scan. |
Jack Miton
Aperture Harmonics K162
1579
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 23:51:00 -
[8] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote:Jack Miton wrote:Ok, sure, good work figuring it out but what is this useful for? All of this is extremely irrelevant to anything regarding probing ability/speed.
The info here can be summarized in 2 points:
1. More probes = better. 2. 3d layout = better than 2d layout for result strength.
Neither of which are really news.
Also, point 2 is arguable. I probe with a flat layout and I much faster than any 3d layout due to being significantly faster to setup and more importantly due to producing much simpler to read secondary results (ie: rings and spheres) than 3d layouts which will give you rings on all sorts of weird angles. A flat layout will give ring results that are very nearly as good as red dot results due to always being horizontal or vertical and always having a distinct end where the sig is located. I probe a lot and over the years have tried several layouts but I have always returned to an 8 probe flat setup.
At first I wanted to scoff but you actually have a good point. Just moving probes around in 2 dimensions instead of 3 should save a great deal of time. Although, don't you have to use a bigger scanning radius for your probes to make sure you don't miss anything above and below? Meaning you delay getting to that 100% scan. 4 probes at 8au and 4 at 2au catches everything. Without virtues the smaller probes need to be 1au. The only things I scan to 100% are WHs. If you want to BM everything, resizing the formation to 2au and 0.5/0.25au is easy and will hit everything.
EDIT: Here's an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TisDb8c2aS4 |
Space Wanderer
8
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 07:14:00 -
[9] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:In my experience 3) is where you hit a wall because we do not have sufficient granularity in the interface to get a precision read on where the result collapse occurs given different probe sizes.
I am not sure I understand what you say. Could you elaborate a little? |
Space Wanderer
8
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 08:16:00 -
[10] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Ok, sure, good work figuring it out but what is this useful for? All of this is extremely irrelevant to anything regarding probing ability/speed.
For heaven's sake, how things have changed since the apoc beta phase... Hoshi, Miss MoonWych, I guess we wasted our time back then, didn't we?
Anyway, I beg to differ from your opinion. There are many infos that can be extracted from what is written above. Some examples: 1) What is the minimum scan strength that you need to find any site or ship. 2) How good, or bad, is a certain geometry, compared with your needs. Let's take your case: you say that you use a flat 8 probe setup. Well, rest assured that you are getting a sizable loss in reported signal strength. With the information written above you KNOW how much of a hit you are taking, and you can decide consciously whether the advantages are enough to compensate for it. 3) You can even decide to use different geometries or probe numbers according to the site/ship type.
Sure, nothing stops you from deriving everything empirically, but takes so much more time and is much less reliable. And, let's be honest, you don't really understand what's going on. I have seen many self-styled "explorers" stating BS about scanning like it was gospel. I tend to think that they too derived their "information" empirically.
Jack Miton wrote:I probe a lot and over the years have tried several layouts but I have always returned to an 8 probe flat setup.
Most of your objections up here stem from the fact that you clearly use a dedicated character for probing, or at the very least a dedicated ship. Using a fully equipped covop is an overkill if you are hunting sites and not people. People like me who don't take pleasure in metagaming and enjoy flying solo in low and nullsec have to pack a scan strength high enough to find sites and WHs in a combat ship. The information up here are invaluable for anybody that want to go beyond the ordinary treadmill and perform a risk-benefit trade-off. |
|
Jack Miton
Aperture Harmonics K162
1583
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 12:48:00 -
[11] - Quote
Suit yourself. For the record: If you think that a covops is overkill for probing then you are doing it wrong.
Space Wanderer wrote:With the information written up here you can already know much about a layout before even trying it. You could probably have weeded out most of them as not useful for your purposes even before having to actually try them. here's what you don't get though... with your information, youre going to end up with a 3d probe layout as being the best on paper for strength, which it is. in reality though, if youre probing many sigs your 3d layout will be slower than my simpler 2d layout which is something no formula will tell you.
look, you can learn the basics of applying DPS in PVP by knowing the tracking formula off by heart but it's not going to make you good at PVP. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
919
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 13:11:00 -
[12] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Suit yourself. For the record: If you think that a covops is overkill for probing then you are doing it wrong.
wow, that's gonna be groundbreaking news to ishtar/gila explorers.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Space Wanderer
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 13:25:00 -
[13] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Suit yourself. For the record: If you think that a covops is overkill for probing then you are doing it wrong.
I mistrust such blanket statements. I sure think that a covop is NOT an overkill when hunting people. When hunting sites, though? Very situational. By judging from your alliance name I would gather that you are member of a wormhole corp, which of course means that scanning is a chore, and the faster the better. In that context I agree that it is nice to have a dedicated covop, especially since you have a POS and corp support. Not everybody plays like that though. Shocking, I know.
Jack Miton wrote:here's what you don't get though... with your information, youre going to end up with a 3d probe layout as being the best on paper for strength, which it is.
Really? I wonder why I ended up with a 2d layout myself, then.
Of course the formula won't be able to tell me everything. Does this mean that I have to ignore the information it conveys? Obviously if my priority is speed instead than scan strength, it won't be telling me anything about scanning speed, so I will have to use enough brain power (which is a very scarce good, I gather) to extract the information I might need instead of following the formula blindly.
|
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
616
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:48:00 -
[14] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Inkarr Hashur wrote:Jack Miton wrote:Ok, sure, good work figuring it out but what is this useful for? All of this is extremely irrelevant to anything regarding probing ability/speed.
The info here can be summarized in 2 points:
1. More probes = better. 2. 3d layout = better than 2d layout for result strength.
Neither of which are really news.
Also, point 2 is arguable. I probe with a flat layout and I much faster than any 3d layout due to being significantly faster to setup and more importantly due to producing much simpler to read secondary results (ie: rings and spheres) than 3d layouts which will give you rings on all sorts of weird angles. A flat layout will give ring results that are very nearly as good as red dot results due to always being horizontal or vertical and always having a distinct end where the sig is located. I probe a lot and over the years have tried several layouts but I have always returned to an 8 probe flat setup.
At first I wanted to scoff but you actually have a good point. Just moving probes around in 2 dimensions instead of 3 should save a great deal of time. Although, don't you have to use a bigger scanning radius for your probes to make sure you don't miss anything above and below? Meaning you delay getting to that 100% scan. 4 probes at 8au and 4 at 2au catches everything. Without virtues the smaller probes need to be 1au. The only things I scan to 100% are WHs. If you want to BM everything, resizing the formation to 2au and 0.5/0.25au is easy and will hit everything. EDIT: Here's an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TisDb8c2aS4
I've always only used 7 probes for scanning. It works well. Now, I'm actually going to have to try and use 8!
Thanks for the video, Jack! HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression - The only way to go! |
Jack Miton
Aperture Harmonics K162
1588
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:57:00 -
[15] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Jack Miton wrote:Suit yourself. For the record: If you think that a covops is overkill for probing then you are doing it wrong.
wow, that's gonna be groundbreaking news to ishtar/gila explorers. exploring and looking for specific sigs to run is not the same as just probing a system. for that you want to be using the DSP probing guide in any case. (or ideally, an alt in a covops... ;) ) |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
919
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 19:17:00 -
[16] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:Jack Miton wrote:Suit yourself. For the record: If you think that a covops is overkill for probing then you are doing it wrong.
wow, that's gonna be groundbreaking news to ishtar/gila explorers. exploring and looking for specific sigs to run is not the same as just probing a system. for that you want to be using the DSP probing guide in any case. (or ideally, an alt in a covops... ;) ) surprisingly enough, you still need to scan down a sig after DSPing it.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Space Wanderer
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 19:23:00 -
[17] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:surprisingly enough, you still need to scan down a sig after DSPing it.
Besides, you cannot understand the data obtained by the DSP if you don't know the "useless" formula. |
Zircon Dasher
189
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 20:42:00 -
[18] - Quote
Space Wanderer wrote: I am not sure I understand what you say. Could you elaborate a little?
Sorry. I was meaning to refer to "3) Derive what "decently spread around the target" in step 3 actually means." Trying to fit forum whoring time into my schedule is difficult atm.
When I was trying to piece together the workings of post-change probes, I kept running into the problem of how to arrive at the distance between probes that is necessary in order to keep the result from collapsing into a sphere/circle/dual-point. I could arbitrarily assign values to this range to make a computation work, but I had no way of verifying those values in game with any precision. The precision mattered because, the highest strength possible is going to be 1m (more? depends on theoretical set up) before this collapse occurs. Perhaps this was just a matter of how I put everything together though.... Anyway its been years since I have tried to work it out, since 'good enough' was....well "good enough" for my purposes. Hope my statement is a bit clearer now.
Kudos to expending the effort to get the actual formula more polished though. Its easy for people to forget that if it was not for someone expending the effort to work this stuff out, most of the tools and concepts they employ regularly would not be available. Its sad to see that the "stop doing math and log in...derp" sentiment still holds today as it did back before so many of the formulas were fleshed out publicly.
Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Kasutra
Tailor Company Hashashin Cartel
159
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 08:59:00 -
[19] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Ok, sure, good work figuring it out but what is this useful for? And this is why education spending is cut. |
Space Wanderer
13
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 17:43:00 -
[20] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:Space Wanderer wrote: I am not sure I understand what you say. Could you elaborate a little? Sorry. I was meaning to refer to "3) Derive what "decently spread around the target" in step 3 actually means." Trying to fit forum whoring time into my schedule is difficult atm.
Ok, I get what you mean now. I have to admit that among the three things that still need some research I think the easier to find out is 3). The wall you mention exists if you rely only on the user interface, but playing with a goniometer on a flat screen allows to collect reasonably realiable data, and I actually collected a bundle. The issue here is that the thresholds seem to be highly dependent on the scan strength, which of course throw a wrench in attempts to derive them. Coupling this with my chronic lack of time I couldn't be able to find it (yet). Still, it's easier to find data for 3. Now, solving number 2 is REALLY hard...
Zircon Dasher wrote:Kudos to expending the effort to get the actual formula more polished though. Its easy for people to forget that if it was not for someone expending the effort to work this stuff out, most of the tools and concepts they employ regularly would not be available. Its sad to see that the "stop doing math and log in...derp" sentiment still holds today as it did back before so many of the formulas were fleshed out publicly.
Eh, most of them are probably the same people that were screaming "scanning is too hard!" when apoc launched, while myself and the very few other people who actually understood the system made an effort to explain how things were working... How do people forget. |
|
Space Wanderer
15
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 13:19:00 -
[21] - Quote
Gentle bump |
Seraph Castillon
Justified Chaos
46
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 14:17:00 -
[22] - Quote
I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I'm going to. I've already picked up something useful with a quick scan over your post. Thank you. |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
3591
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 22:07:00 -
[23] - Quote
Nice work. Pointed CCP Veritas at this thread to see if he will spill some beans... :) CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Sante Ixnay
University of Caille Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 22:19:00 -
[24] - Quote
Thanks Space Wanderer. IIRC, you also very generously shared your research on the previous scan system. (R.I.P.)
|
|
CCP Veritas
C C P C C P Alliance
708
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 22:45:00 -
[25] - Quote
It gives me great joy that people are still trying to figure it out ;) CCP Veritas - Senior Programmer - EVE Software |
|
XXSketchxx
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
277
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 22:57:00 -
[26] - Quote
CCP Veritas wrote:It gives me great joy that people are still trying to figure it out ;)
One of the few things you guys did really well.
When are we going to get another Apocrypha quality expansion? |
pmchem
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
343
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 05:09:00 -
[27] - Quote
CCP Veritas wrote:It gives me great joy that people are still trying to figure it out ;)
We reverse engineered the exact formula in GARPA a few years ago. It boggles my mind that people are so uncreative in their guesses at the signal falloff formula given CCP's penchant for arbitrary constants elsewhere (see: evedev equations). |
Space Wanderer
23
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 11:26:00 -
[28] - Quote
CCP Veritas wrote:It gives me great joy that people are still trying to figure it out ;)
Implying that there is still something to be found, I suppose? |
Space Wanderer
32
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 12:50:00 -
[29] - Quote
Another slight bump. |
Traska Gannel
ROC Academy The ROC
9
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 14:27:00 -
[30] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Ok, sure, good work figuring it out but what is this useful for? All of this is extremely irrelevant to anything regarding probing ability/speed.
The info here can be summarized in 2 points:
1. More probes = better. 2. 3d layout = better than 2d layout for result strength.
Neither of which are really news.
Also, point 2 is arguable. I probe with a flat layout and I much faster than any 3d layout due to being significantly faster to setup and more importantly due to producing much simpler to read secondary results (ie: rings and spheres) than 3d layouts which will give you rings on all sorts of weird angles. A flat layout will give ring results that are very nearly as good as red dot results due to always being horizontal or vertical and always having a distinct end where the sig is located. I probe a lot and over the years have tried several layouts but I have always returned to an 8 probe flat setup.
I find that with a 3D - 7 probe configuration I can skip scan ranges and never lose the signature. i.e.. go from 8AU -> 2AU -> 0.5AU ... while with the 2D - 5 probe configuration there is a ~10 to 20% (guesstimating) chance of losing the signature if it happens to be significantly above or below the center of the probe layout ... which then requires rescanning with a larger probe radius ... and takes more time than the thirty seconds or so required to deploy and configure 2 additional probes. Later positioning of 7 is identical to 5 when using the shift and alt keys efficiently. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |