Ships & Modules

Basically I've just discovered something that maybe I should've discovered a long time ago ;p

Anyhow, some examples:
HAM Launcher II - Overload 2m19sec
Neut - Not overloaded head damage 2m19sec
HAM Launcher II - Overload 2m7sec
Neut - Not overloaded head damage 2m19sec
Ham Launcher II - Overload 2m19sec

HAM Launcher II - Overload 1m60sec (lol?)
HAM Launcher II - Overload 1m52sec
HAM Launcher II - Overload 1m60sec
Neut - No damage
Neut - No damage

HAM Launcher II - Overload 2m30sec
Neut - No damage
Neut - 2m30 sec
HAM Launcher II - Overload 2m4sec
HAM Launcher II - Overload 2m11sec

The way I figure it it's something like:
1 slot away from overloaded + 2 slots away from overloaded = no damage.
Overloaded in slot above and slot below = damage

So, for something like a Tengu with 6 launchers, the optimal grouping and overload pattern with 6 launchers would be:
Group 1+4
Group 2+5
Group 3+6

Rather then
Group 1+2
Group 3+4
Group 5+6

In order to be able to overload more while taking less damage?

Seriously, do I really need to take this in to account too now when making fits? O.o

Well if EFT is correct, if modules are more then two slots apart they will not affect the modules in between themselves.

For instance:
1. OH
2. Not
3. Not
4. OH
5. Not

Then modules 2-3 will be subjected to an equal amount of heat and act like heatsinks but not take damage (like 95%+ heat though)

But if its:
1. OH
2. Not
3. OH
4. Not
5. OH
Then all will take damage but 2 and 4 will act as heatsinks and delay the burnout. Number 3 will take increased damage due to producing heat damage of its own in combination with low heat damage from modules 1 and 5.

But again, if its:
1. OH
2. OH
3. Not
4. Not
5. OH
Then module 3 will be subjected to weak heat damage from 1 and 5 compiled with strong heat damage from number 2, which means it will take damage too.

On the other hand if its:
1. OH
2. Not
3. Not
4. Not
5. OH

Then modules 1 and 5 will both have a long burn time but 2, 3 and 4 do not take heat damage.

If you're grouping 6 launchers on the other hand then doing a pattern of:
1 and 4, 2 and 5, 3 and 6 will give you the longest individual burnout time if only overloading 2 at a time.
But grouping 1+6, 2+5 and 3+4 will give you the most predictable burnout times while overloading more then 2 modules at a time. Since modules 1+6 will both affect each other in an equal matter, same as, modules 2 and 4 and 3 and 4. Creating an equal burn pattern but shorter overload times. But helping if you're say overloading 4 modules at once while keeping the other two as heatsinks. In which case sparing modules 1+6 should give the greatest effect?

And then on defensive modules if you're armor tanking with dualrep you wanna keep them as far apart as possible. And with say invuln field + shield booster you wanna keep passive modules like shield extenders and shield boost amps in the middle.

****, as if EVE wasn't complicated enough. Now my brain is spinning

Mixing the modules in order of likely to be heated modules, with less likely, is noticeable, but not to the point where you should be worrying about trying to squeeze out every last drop of heat spreading.

Just mix them up a bit in the fitting window and you are done.

Gabrielle - Your spiffy charts are spiffy... but rather uninformative.

You are displaying order of modules, and saying some take damage and some do not. But you're not saying which you are overheating at the time, and which are operating normally.

Overheating is a complicated mechanic, and you can't just eyeball it and predict the outcome. Heat damage depends on skills trained, meta of items involved, spacing, etc...

Some items are more prone to taking heat damage. Some items are more resistant. Some have more heat HP, so they live longer even if they are taking damage.

That's why EFT is a "guideline" for playing Eve. Its not the same as playing. I use EFT to make sure modules will fit in a given ship, before I waste the ISK on buying them. But after that, I take the numbers it gives as rough estimates.

If you really want to know how modules will perform... go sit in a belt, shoot at an asteroid, and cook your mods until you have an idea of what works.

…also, I can't remember seeing any heat simulations that take into account that an empty slot is a better heat sink than having a module there.

The difference is that if the slot is empty, the heat damage just goes away. Less to repair if nothing else…

It is worth pointing out that EFT is a bit buggy with slot numbers, especially when you are working with T3s. If you change subsystems after you fit some modules, you can see this glitch.

Basically, if we give adjacent numbers to adjacent slots, your rack should look like this:

1
2
3
4
5
6

1 and 6 being slots adjacent to only one (2 and 5, respectively). But sometimes EFT will give you rack that works like this:

2
3
4
5
6
1

1 nd 6 work like they still are adjacent only to one slot, but they are shown as one of them is in the middle.
Doesn't look like it was fixed in 2.16...

Do keep in mind, EFT isn't a CCP product at all.

It's made by a player, and I'm glad he updates it regularly anyway.