These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Is My Capacitor Lying To Me?

First post
Author
Seismic Stan
Freebooted Junkworks
#1 - 2014-02-17 10:48:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Seismic Stan
Am I right in thinking that, if the Capacitor section of the in-client fitting screen reports that the capacitor is stable, then under no circumstances should module use alone cause the capacitor to fully deplete? Stable, right?

It seems not.

I've been tweaking my Tengu setup and have a fit which reports in the in-client fitting tool as capacitor stable at 7.8% (providing I don't use the MWD). However, in practice, this is not the case and the capacitor does deplete if all other modules are activated.

So what's going on? Is this a bug or just complex maths I don't understand?

I've read this EVElopedia-linked mathematical explanation thread, but am none the wiser.

Can anyone explain this with less algebra?

Edit: I got an answer on Twitter...

@Fuzzysteve wrote:
@Freebooted below 33% = not stable. The fitting window assumes a linear recharge. below 33%(ish) the recharge rate drops.

So the EVE client lies!
Jack Miton
Perkone
Caldari State
#2 - 2014-02-17 11:01:34 UTC
What's your fit?

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout

Garnoo
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#3 - 2014-02-17 11:08:22 UTC
i guess anciliary shield booster...

People are going to try to ruin your day. Get together with others, ruin their day back -  EvE

Tul Breetai
Impromptu Asset Requisition
#4 - 2014-02-17 11:08:59 UTC
Stability is an average, the average cap use per second. So, while it is stable in that at 7.8% the cap recharge per second meets the cap use per second, your modules use cap at the beginning of their cycle in chunks called the "activation cost". At 7.8% you're not leaving room for the activation cost of all modules that you ingeniously forgot to stagger to maintain cap above 0%.

How in the hell do you expect the game to know the manner you activate modules in?

There's nothing worse than an EVE player, generally considered to be top of the food chain in the MMO world, that cannot smacktalk with wit and coherency.

Preden
Omega Engineering
#5 - 2014-02-17 11:41:05 UTC
Tul Breetai wrote:
How in the hell do you expect the game to know the manner you activate modules in?



Pink elephants with small Goblins astride them of course. Pfff. How else?!?!
Seismic Stan
Freebooted Junkworks
#6 - 2014-02-17 11:58:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Seismic Stan
Jack Miton wrote:
What's your fit?

I've just been fiddling with some PvE fits whilst grinding standings, this one was:

Tengu - PvE LazyBoy

Subsystems
Elec - CPU Efficiency Gate
Def - Adaptive Shielding
Eng - Cap Regen Matrix
Off - Accelerated Inj. Bay
Prop - Fuel Catalyst

Rigs
3x Med CCC

Hi-Slots
5x HAML II
1x Auto Targeting System II

Med-Slots
Large Shield Booster II
Large Shield Extender II
Adaptive Inv. Field II
Target Painter II
10mn MWD II

Low-Slots
3x Ballistic Cont. Sys II
Signal Amplifier II
Damage Control II

I'm just tweaking an assortment of old fits, comparing launcher types with the utility of the new Rapid Light Missile Launchers etc.

I was just curious about the wizardry behind the cap use.
Garnoo
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#7 - 2014-02-17 12:17:41 UTC
iam too lazy to move this manually into eft but "10mn MWD II" is wheres you making a mistake...

People are going to try to ruin your day. Get together with others, ruin their day back -  EvE

Kivena
EVE University
Ivy League
#8 - 2014-02-17 12:26:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Kivena
Seismic Stan wrote:
@Fuzzysteve wrote:
@Freebooted below 33% = not stable. The fitting window assumes a linear recharge. below 33%(ish) the recharge rate drops.

Maximum recharge occurs at 25%. This is true for capacitor and shield. I've tested this and mathed it out more than once. I'm at work at the moment so can't post my graph as evidence.

Having said that, it's extremely difficult to get a cap stable ship stable under 33% cap, and the in-game cap display on the fitting window rounds off values too much. So on your case I think it's just rounding off a value somewhere to make you think it's stable, when actually it's not.

Director of Communications EVE University

Follow me on Twitter: @eveKivena

Seismic Stan
Freebooted Junkworks
#9 - 2014-02-17 12:54:22 UTC
Tul Breetai wrote:
Stability is an average, the average cap use per second. So, while it is stable in that at 7.8% the cap recharge per second meets the cap use per second, your modules use cap at the beginning of their cycle in chunks called the "activation cost". At 7.8% you're not leaving room for the activation cost of all modules that you ingeniously forgot to stagger to maintain cap above 0%.

I appreciate the explanation, it seems clearer even with a side-order of unwarranted scorn.

My confusion was arising from the capacitor being reported as stable when it clearly isn't. The present declaration of stability is misleading if activating modules destabilises it.

Tul Breetai wrote:
How in the hell do you expect the game to know the manner you activate modules in?

Are you suggesting it is beyond the realms of maths to determine if combined simultaneous module activation costs are greater than the reported stability % of the capacitor?
Seismic Stan
Freebooted Junkworks
#10 - 2014-02-17 12:56:36 UTC
Garnoo wrote:
iam too lazy to move this manually into eft but "10mn MWD II" is wheres you making a mistake...

No mistake. As stated in the OP:
Quote:
...a fit which reports as capacitor stable at 7.8% (providing I don't use the MWD)
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#11 - 2014-02-17 13:35:15 UTC
As Kivena stated, peak cap recharge is between 25% and 33% capacity (well, Kivena stated 25% but the graph I recall peaks between the two). Therefore, if the fitting screen shows you stable at anything less than 25% then it doesn't really mean indefinitely stable. And if you're running any module which will spike your cap use (Shield boosters and Armour reps are the most obvious culprits but even Invulns...etc may represent too great a spike in some fits) then you're probably not stable even then - you'll drain your cap down to peak recharge, fire off a cycle on the spiking module and suddenly you're below peak recharge...

The fitting screen's calculation is not ideal, but then the older 3rd party fitting tools used to "lie" in the same way. Although the results were never accurate, provided you were aware of the limitations you could still guage performance reasonably well.
Seismic Stan
Freebooted Junkworks
#12 - 2014-02-17 14:35:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Seismic Stan
Jacob Holland wrote:
As Kivena stated, peak cap recharge is between 25% and 33% capacity (well, Kivena stated 25% but the graph I recall peaks between the two). Therefore, if the fitting screen shows you stable at anything less than 25% then it doesn't really mean indefinitely stable. And if you're running any module which will spike your cap use (Shield boosters and Armour reps are the most obvious culprits but even Invulns...etc may represent too great a spike in some fits) then you're probably not stable even then - you'll drain your cap down to peak recharge, fire off a cycle on the spiking module and suddenly you're below peak recharge...

The fitting screen's calculation is not ideal, but then the older 3rd party fitting tools used to "lie" in the same way. Although the results were never accurate, provided you were aware of the limitations you could still guage performance reasonably well.


With this in mind, perhaps it might be a useful indicator for the fitting screen to display the 'stable' designation in yellow rather than green (or state 'below safe threshold') once it gets to this tipping point. It seems misleading to to have the fitting screen provide assurances of capacitor stability when it's evidently not the case.
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#13 - 2014-02-17 15:59:31 UTC
Hi,
I am pretty sure that this is infact your problem.
Garnoo wrote:
iam too lazy to move this manually into eft but "10mn MWD II" is wheres you making a mistake...


but first

How do you get the in game eve fitting window to have a module that is active (useable) but not activated to be calculated into the cap recharge %?
I can only see:
1 Module fit but offline (does not draw cpu/power) has no applied ship bonuses)
2 module fit and online (active module affects capacitor, speed, etc draws cpu and powergrid)

the mwd II has a capacitor "bonus" of -17% meaning that the ship looses 17% of the maximum storable cap that it has. However when the module is fit but offline (in the ingame fitting window) it does not have any of its fitting "bonuses" applied such as CPU or Powergrid use or the -17% cap bonus.

The next time you are ingame check what your total cap is with the module in the two states that the eve client recognizes
OOG fitting tools such as pyfa or eft can apply the module bonuses with the module being not active but online




Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.

Batelle
Filthy Peasants
#14 - 2014-02-17 16:15:52 UTC
oh hey, its another thread where someone tries to use in-game fitting window data and ends up being completely confused. We get these threads literally every day.

As always, the answer is to use a 3rd party program for this sort of thing. In-game calculations for cap stability, dps, tank, ehp, and about 10 other things are consistently incorrect or lack the basic functionality to tell you stuff like "with the mwd online but not on" or "with everything overloaded." This has been the status quo since forever.

This guy is even over a year old.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.

Seismic Stan
Freebooted Junkworks
#15 - 2014-02-17 19:03:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Seismic Stan
Thanks for the input folks, but I don't think I made my concerns clear. It wasn't with regard to my fit or how to fix it, I'm well aware of the vagaries of capacitor management.

What I was trying to determine was whether the fact that the EVE fitting tool displaying the word 'Stable' was an indicator of the capacitor being, ahem, stable. As I tweak loadouts in drydock I was experiencing some circumstances where that seemed not to be the case. I wanted to determine if my experience was a bug or an accepted feature.

From feedback I have received from various places including this thread, it seems that the EVE UI's declaration of capacitor stability is an accepted idiosyncrasy of EVE and should be read as 'probably stable under some conditions'.

TL;DR Stable does not mean stable.
Seismic Stan
Freebooted Junkworks
#16 - 2014-02-17 19:17:54 UTC
Batelle wrote:
oh hey, its another thread where someone tries to use in-game fitting window data and ends up being completely confused. We get these threads literally every day.

As always, the answer is to use a 3rd party program for this sort of thing. In-game calculations for cap stability, dps, tank, ehp, and about 10 other things are consistently incorrect or lack the basic functionality to tell you stuff like "with the mwd online but not on" or "with everything overloaded." This has been the status quo since forever.

This guy is even over a year old.

I'm aware of the status quo and I'm more than aware of EFT/PyFA etc., but a player of professionally-made game, especially one that has been developed for a decade-and-a-half, should not be required to rely on third-party software to be more accurate than the game itself. The player should be able to expect the game client to report facts accurately. I was wondering whether it was worth filing as a bug report rather than just accepting that stability is being incorrectly reported.

Also, you're going to have to accept that on a forum this large with a game that's been going for this long, you're going to see some topics come up more than once. Sorry for the incovenience, but if it's not in a stickied post or on the front page, I'm not going to trawl through years of history to see if a similar question has been raised. I did find the one explanation that I linked in the OP by going via a sticky to the EVElopedia and then to the old forums. I did my due diligence.
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#17 - 2014-02-17 20:07:27 UTC
Seismic Stan wrote:

I'm aware of the status quo and I'm more than aware of EFT/PyFA etc., but a player of professionally-made game, especially one that has been developed for a decade-and-a-half, should not be required to rely on third-party software to be more accurate than the game itself. The player should be able to expect the game client to report facts accurately.



Buddy..
In this specific case (MWD fitting) The EVE client does report the stability correctly.

What you think you are doing and what you are actually doing are not explained well by the game. but that does not mean that you are getting false information.

also they (CCP) know about this.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.

Seismic Stan
Freebooted Junkworks
#18 - 2014-02-17 20:42:34 UTC
Kusum Fawn wrote:
Seismic Stan wrote:

I'm aware of the status quo and I'm more than aware of EFT/PyFA etc., but a player of professionally-made game, especially one that has been developed for a decade-and-a-half, should not be required to rely on third-party software to be more accurate than the game itself. The player should be able to expect the game client to report facts accurately.



Buddy..
In this specific case (MWD fitting) The EVE client does report the stability correctly.

What you think you are doing and what you are actually doing are not explained well by the game. but that does not mean that you are getting false information.

also they (CCP) know about this.

Perhaps I'm not putting my point across clearly - I don't doubt that the MWD is key to this specific case, but I did not post my fit initially precisely because this is not about any particular module or fit, but the UI behaviour in certain circumstances.

I regret posting the loadout as it seems to be detracting from the issue I was trying to discuss.
Batelle
Filthy Peasants
#19 - 2014-02-17 20:46:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Batelle
Seismic Stan wrote:
I'm aware of the status quo and I'm more than aware of EFT/PyFA etc., but a player of professionally-made game, especially one that has been developed for a decade-and-a-half, should not be required to rely on third-party software to be more accurate than the game itself. The player should be able to expect the game client to report facts accurately.


That's a really great expectation to have, but you're engaging in hypotheticals instead of reality. If you already know the in-game fitting window is garbage and that other tools exist, then why do you even need to ask the question? Unless you know those tools exist and also refuse to use them.

Quote:
Also, you're going to have to accept that on a forum this large with a game that's been going for this long, you're going to see some topics come up more than once. Sorry for the incovenience, but if it's not in a stickied post or on the front page, I'm not going to trawl through years of history to see if a similar question has been raised. I did find the one explanation that I linked in the OP by going via a sticky to the EVElopedia and then to the old forums. I did my due diligence.


You misunderstand me, I don't really take issue with people asking variations on previously answered questions (although my italics must have made it seem that way). I just take issue with people using the in-game tool in the first place when they should know not to rely on it. I'm trying to emphasize in-general why the in-game fitting window is unreliable, not that you are somehow deficient for posting this thread. My apologies. Also, lol@ thread from 2004.

But, could I persuade you to upload a screenshot of the in-game fitting window where you're seeing this behavior? It stands to reason that with peak recharge near 30%, any fit that dips below peak recharge for a full cycle of modules will continue to drop capacitor until it hits zero. So its very strange to me that the in-game window would ever display "stable at 7.8%" because that would be complete nonsense*. Steve's quote that the in-game tool uses a linear model for recharge is especially troubling if true.

*It is theoretically possible to be stable below peak recharge (two points at equillibrium, one above peak and one below peak where the recharge is the same and is equal to the rate of cap use). However, in this case the one below peak recharge acts as repelling fixed-point and the one above acts as an attracting fixed point of a dynamical system. As cap is used in discreet chunks, you cannot land perfectly on this lower point of equillibrium, even if you start near it you will always drain towards zero cap or inch upward towards the higher equillibrium point. Furthermore, starting from 100% cap, passing the first cap stable point would pretty much mean you're going to end up at 0 sooner or later. /math

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.

Seismic Stan
Freebooted Junkworks
#20 - 2014-02-17 22:48:47 UTC
Batelle wrote:
...stuff...

Arrgh, bloody forum ate my post. Not typing all that again. Short version:

Thanks for replying, good words.

Here's a screenshot of the fit as requested, but as I've stated previously, my point isn't about this fit specifically, just that it's being misleadingly reported as being cap stable in the top-right of the fitting window.
12Next page