Science & Industry

So it's bothered me since the day I first learned about scanning that despite the anomalies being spawned in a 3-dimensional space, people use scanner-probe formations which are 100% 2-dimensional in their efficacy.

Let me explain, in case you're not following me:
Triangulation works based intersecting vectors, so it's at work here- but not really apparent on the surface; you can think of all the overlapping areas between multiple scanner probes as *many* individual points, which are all definable by vectors originating at the probes themselves- this is why 1 probe will give you a general direction and intensity/inversely-proportional noise (the relative size of the red bubble), and 2 will give you a ring (the overlapping limits of their respective signature-bubbles) which is of course a plane, while it takes at least 3 to form a set of points (the not-fully-scanned red-dot signature), rather than just vectors and planes.

Now, the way you maximize a signature is by minimizing the number of possible vectors from each source probe, while maximizing the number of probes giving vectors.

Likewise, this *should* mean that sitting a single probe in the middle, right *on top* of the scanned signature actually increases noise, but people seem to do this anyways.

What Everyone Does:

Everyone uses probes which all lie on the same plane- most of the time, the "horizontal" plane, with horizontal being defined by the celestial bodies' angle of rotation.

This neglects entirely the added benefit of placing probes 'above' and 'below' the point you're trying to define- the signature.
I've always used a square set of probes on the 'horizontal' plane, with one probe above and one probe below; it gives you a kind of double-pyramid shape, with 2 4-sided pyramids joined at the base.

Since I can't directly upload a picture and am loathe to make an imgur account just for this, I'll post a picture if you guys want one, showing the formation I'm talking about.

If you understand what I'm saying, please- explain to me why people do this!
EVEN CCP DID IT AT FANFEST. AAARRRRGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
/rant

Because it actually works better in terms of efficacy:effort ratio once you account for the additional effort of dealing with more probes.

With max scanning skills, in an unbonused ship I only ever need up/down probes for the weakest signals The center probe has no or negligible detrimental effect, and makes it easier to aim and distribute the probe formation, which provides far more utility than adhering to the mathematical ideal for triangulation. I've never found any particular formation to appreciably decrease scan time (by which I mean, "allows me to pinpoint at a higher probe radius setting").

Or, in other words: Scanning is easy enough that optimizing it is a complete waste of time.

Additionally: Signatures are positioned very predictably within a ~4 AU radius sphere from a planet. This means that the actual position of signatures as distributed throughout a system is also extremely "horizontal" - you'll never find one, e.g., 12 AU above the system's "plane" - so when you're scouting the system (as opposed to trying to pinpoint), any up/down probes are mostly viewing space that is guaranteed to be empty.

I would imagine this habit will change with the release of pre-made formations, as that will substantially adjust the effort level.

Shrug. I like a 7 probe formation. I'll like it even better once it poops out all at once and snaps to formation; setup does take time but it consistently allows me to skip bands no matter what.

Edit: why is this in science and industry?

Because star systems generally ARE on a flat-ish plane. It's called the ecliptic. Look it up.

yeah they did say there were more than 1 preset, would have been nice if they showed them to us.

Not really. If I'm not in a T3/covops/something else onto which I have shoehorned an expanded launcher, I'm starting out with a scan that covers as much of the system as possible. First and foremost, I want to know how many are in the system, and their IDs. I do not need up/downs to do this, and there is a REALLY good chance there will not be anything there (or a really uninspiring list of IDs). If there IS something in the system I feel like scanning down, I'm almost never going to need up/down probes (and, in actual fact, if I *do* need up/down probes, it's not a site I'm interested in anyway - nothing good spawns at those signal strengths).

So, given that:

A. In any given system, I probably won't bother scanning down anything at all. Deploying a full formation is a waste of time more often than not - I'll just be recalling them after the first scan.
B. Anything I do want to scan down can be scanned down with the same horizontal distribution that facilitates determining (A).
C. It's unlikely that vertical probes would even save me a scanning step in most cases. At best, it might save me one.

Why, exactly, do I want to adhere to the mathematical ideal, here? What benefit will it provide me? Will it save me time? No. Will it make me a more successful explorer? No. Will it make me the prettiest gal at the pedantic-probers party? Probably.

12, 3, 6, and 9 o'clock, 1 above 1 below the plane the clock face makes.

It's not rocket science.

Most things are in or near the ecliptic plane, so it makes sense to focus your efforts in that orientation. Also, once it comes to triangulating a signal, your probes only need to be arranged relative to your target. It doesn't matter if they are above it or next to it.

Yep... it takes all of 10 seconds to set up.

Not sure the centre probe in your config is doing you any good, it's probably not doing you any harm either, so...

Incarna patch notes: "All probes can now contribute to a scan result, as opposed to the previous limit of four."