These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Is My Capacitor Lying To Me?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
CCP Tuxford
C C P
C C P Alliance
#21 - 2014-02-17 23:42:31 UTC
Seismic Stan wrote:
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!


So here is the big problem with the cap simulator in the fitting screen. It simulates all online modules as if they were active. So in order to simulate all modules EXCEPT the MWD you would have to either remove it or offline it. However when online the MWD gives you a 25% penalty to capacitor capacity so you you'd actually be running the simulation with considerable more cap than you have once it is online (even though it is not active).

https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/CCP%20Tuxford/StatusUpdates
Seismic Stan
Freebooted Junkworks
#22 - 2014-02-17 23:52:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Seismic Stan
CCP Tuxford wrote:
Seismic Stan wrote:
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!


So here is the big problem with the cap simulator in the fitting screen. It simulates all online modules as if they were active. So in order to simulate all modules EXCEPT the MWD you would have to either remove it or offline it. However when online the MWD gives you a 25% penalty to capacitor capacity so you you'd actually be running the simulation with considerable more cap than you have once it is online (even though it is not active).

Ah, I think that's what they were trying to tell me earlier in the thread, but I was too busy being defensive to see it. Offlining the MWD changes the baseline conditions and gives me a false positive. I see that now.

Apologies to those I dismissed earlier (Garnoo & Kusum)

So there is no misreporting going on? Just me being an idiot?

Oh dear...

EVE Online: The Text Adventure --- GameSkinny Correspondent --- Freebooted Blogger
CCP Tuxford
C C P
C C P Alliance
#23 - 2014-02-17 23:56:50 UTC
Seismic Stan wrote:

Ah, I think that's what they were trying to tell me earlier in the thread, but I was too busy being defensive to see it. Offlining the MWD changes the baseline conditions and gives me a false positive. I see that now.

Apologies to those I ignored earlier.

So there is no misreporting going on? Just me being an idiot?

Oh dear...


But this does raise an interesting point which is, there is no way to simulate capacitor for all modules except MWD which I think is a quite common use case.

https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/CCP%20Tuxford/StatusUpdates
Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
#24 - 2014-02-18 00:03:34 UTC
Just a word of friendly advice for your fit, The Fuel Catalyst subsystem does nothing for a MWD.
Its base velocity is 160m/s
the Intercalated Nanofiber has a base of 165m/s
the graitational capacitor has a base of 175m/s

so i would consider switching propulsion subs

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Seismic Stan
Freebooted Junkworks
#25 - 2014-02-18 00:07:50 UTC
CCP Tuxford wrote:
Seismic Stan wrote:

Ah, I think that's what they were trying to tell me earlier in the thread, but I was too busy being defensive to see it. Offlining the MWD changes the baseline conditions and gives me a false positive. I see that now.

Apologies to those I ignored earlier.

So there is no misreporting going on? Just me being an idiot?

Oh dear...


But this does raise an interesting point which is, there is no way to simulate capacitor for all modules except MWD which I think is a quite common use case.

Cool, can you make that happen so I can pretend that's what I was driving for all along?

EVE Online: The Text Adventure --- GameSkinny Correspondent --- Freebooted Blogger
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#26 - 2014-02-18 03:17:51 UTC
CCP Tuxford wrote:
Seismic Stan wrote:

Ah, I think that's what they were trying to tell me earlier in the thread, but I was too busy being defensive to see it. Offlining the MWD changes the baseline conditions and gives me a false positive. I see that now.

Apologies to those I ignored earlier.

So there is no misreporting going on? Just me being an idiot?

Oh dear...


But this does raise an interesting point which is, there is no way to simulate capacitor for all modules except MWD which I think is a quite common use case.

It does raise the point that any module can be in four states: Active, inactive, off-line and unfitted. Well a fifth one too: overheated. At the moment the fitting window can only handle three of those. In many cases there is little difference between inactive and off-line. MWD being a big one. But for convenience of setting up a fit it would be nice if all four states could be discerned. Being able to see the effect of an inactive module would let you see both the correct power grid use, CPU use and cap use all at once.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Tul Breetai
Impromptu Asset Requisition
#27 - 2014-02-18 07:37:21 UTC
Seismic Stan wrote:
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?

The problem is that activating all modules at the same time versus staggered can be the difference between capout or barely maintaining enough cap to keep them cycling, hence the scorn. And that was a full order mind you, you just seem to have a bigger appetite. ;P

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.
Dorian Wylde
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2014-02-18 21:34:33 UTC
Tul Breetai wrote:

The problem is that activating all modules at the same time versus staggered can be the difference between capout or barely maintaining enough cap to keep them cycling, hence the scorn. And that was a full order mind you, you just seem to have a bigger appetite. ;P



This. I had a tanked mack fit that was stable at like 80%, but if the hardeners and strip miners tried to cycle at the same time, I'd cap out and half of them would turn off.
Batelle
Filthy Peasants
#29 - 2014-02-18 23:03:19 UTC
Seismic Stan wrote:
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.


interesting. From the coloration it looks like its displaying near 1/3 full despite saying 7.8%. That's weird.

"**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.
Raziel Walker
NPC Tax Evasion Corp
#30 - 2014-02-19 13:42:53 UTC
Batelle wrote:
interesting. From the coloration it looks like its displaying near 1/3 full despite saying 7.8%. That's weird.


The 7,8% tells us how much higher peak recharge is compared to peak cap use.
Since peak recharge happens at 25% capacitor this fit (without MWD online) would be cap stable at around 30% or so.

Sometimes staggering modules can make a difference but in this case (as Stan already realized) the mistake was forgetting about the cap penalty of a MWD.
LtauSTinpoWErs
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#31 - 2014-02-19 19:57:41 UTC  |  Edited by: LtauSTinpoWErs
that tengu fit is horrendous. you've got bigger issue than just cap. wrong sub systems. 5 launchers. booster and extender??

This has to be a troll post.

You have a shield booster but are not using the subsytem that gives a bonus to shield boosting.

You have a microwarpdrive but are using a subsytem that gives a bonus only to afterburners.
Justin Cody
War Firm
#32 - 2014-02-19 20:06:48 UTC
No he really is just that ignorant. Or illiterate.
Justin Cody
War Firm
#33 - 2014-02-19 20:07:38 UTC
CCP Tuxford wrote:
Seismic Stan wrote:

Ah, I think that's what they were trying to tell me earlier in the thread, but I was too busy being defensive to see it. Offlining the MWD changes the baseline conditions and gives me a false positive. I see that now.

Apologies to those I ignored earlier.

So there is no misreporting going on? Just me being an idiot?

Oh dear...


But this does raise an interesting point which is, there is no way to simulate capacitor for all modules except MWD which I think is a quite common use case.


Does this mean incoming iteration on EVE in-game fitting screen? *set module to inactive* kind of status?

please please please please please.
Cara Forelli
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry
Templis CALSF
#34 - 2014-02-19 21:15:44 UTC
Batelle wrote:
*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


My brain just exploded. I will never again flippantly activate all my mods at once. I am reformed. Big smile

Want to talk? Join my channel in game: House Forelli

Titan's Lament
Seismic Stan
Freebooted Junkworks
#35 - 2014-02-20 00:50:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Seismic Stan
I wrote a blogpost summarising my objectives (and my mistakes), which I hope will go some way to explaining the purpose of this forum post and to offer some clarity to those whose default response is to fling insults, credit to the EVE community that they are.

Tangling with the Tengu: Missiles Are the Best Medicine

I'll iterate once again for the late-arriving AQUILA INC trolls: that fit is a red herring, it was a throwaway solution and has little to do with the purpose of this post. If you're focusing on that, then you're missing the point of this discussion. You don't have to read the thread much more thoroughly to find what I was really wrong about.

Funny thing literacy, eh?

EVE Online: The Text Adventure --- GameSkinny Correspondent --- Freebooted Blogger
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#36 - 2014-02-20 22:14:39 UTC
One time bump to fix forum.
Robert Morningstar
Morningstar Excavations LTD
Business Alliance of Manufacturers and Miners
#37 - 2014-02-21 00:06:38 UTC
on a related note it is possible for what would normally be a cap stable ship to be unstable for another reason. This is mostly related to mining as the cycle time is longer than the stop and restart time of the lasers it is easy to kill the cap of a otherwise stable mining barge with multiple partial cycles
Previous page12