EVE Search - The WORMHOLES AND SCANNING megathread: bigger, longer and uncut

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

The WORMHOLES AND SCANNING megathread: bigger, longer and uncut

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 27 post(s)
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.17 05:41:00 - [1] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 17/02/2009 05:42:36 Thought I put stuff from previous thread in a single post. Here a compiled list of sites grouped by 1024 AU signal strengths (info on how and why): 0.80% - Rogue Trial Yard 0.80% - Provisional Serpentis Outpost 0.80% - Serpentis Base 0.80% - Exploration Small Gneiss 0.80% - Exploration - Small Bistot 0.80% - Blood Raider Base (Small plex) 0.40% - Material Acquitision Mining Outpost 0.40% - Serpentis Fortress 0.40% - Serpentis Phi-Ouput (4/10 complex) 0.40% - Calabash Nebula 0.40% - Regional Serpentis Mainframe 0.40% - Rogue Drone Asteroid Infestation (3/10) 0.40% - Mal-Zatak Monastery (4/10) 0.40% - Exploration Medium Gneiss 0.40% - Ruined Serpentis Monument Site 0.40% - Central Serpentis Sparking Transmitter (hacking) 0.40% - Goose Nebula 0.40% - Exploration - Small Arkonor, Bistot 0.40% - Cobra Nebula (Malachite cytoserocin gas clouds) 0.40% - Central Blood raider Sparking Transmitter (Hacking site) 0.40% - Crimson Hand Supply Depot (6/10 Plex) 0.40% - Radiance (Small drone plex) 0.26% - Wormhole 0.20% - Hidden Asteroid Belt (Bistot/Arkonor) 0.20% - Hidden Asteroid Belt + Space Stonehenge (Medium Dark Ochre, Gneiss) 0.20% - Hidden Asteroid Belt (Small Crokite, Dark Ochre, Gniess) 0.20% - Serpentis Military Complex 0.20% - Chemical Yard 0.20% - Regional Serpentis Command Center 0.20% - Regional Serpentis Database Center 0.20% - Regional Serpentis Data Processing Center 0.20% - Wormhole to a 0.0 system according to pop-up (WH wasn't there when warped to, and thus not jumpable) 0.20% - Minor Blood Annex 0.20% - Outgrowth Rogue Drone Hive (5/10) 0.20% - Regional Blood Raider Data Processing Center 0.20% - Central _____ Survey Site (hacking) 0.20% - Hierarchy 0.20% - Exploration - Large Bistot 0.20% - Wormhole (x702) 0.20% - Pristine Blood Raider Dump Cargo (Salvage site with drones) 0.16% - Minor Serpentis Annex 0.10% (not detectable with 0.25 au probes) 0.05% (not detectable with 0.25 au probes) So far no Wormholes found with 0.40% or 0.80% strength. Has anybody found wormholes with this "high" strength? Regards, M.M. PS. Signal strengths are rounded up. For example 0.80% usually shows up as 0.78, 0.40% as 0.39% and 0.20% sometimes as 0.19%. But 0.16% and 0.26% are separate classes of sites it seems.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.17 07:31:00 - [2] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 17/02/2009 07:35:11 Originally by: CCP Greyscale - On the subject signal strength, skills and so on, I think we've killed two birds with one stone here. As it currently stands: - Everything which used to give a scan duration bonus now gives a scan strength bonus - Everything which used to give a scan strength bonus now gives a scan duration bonus EXCEPT the Virtue set - Everything which used to give a deviation reduction still does With max skills, a rigged covert ops now gives a 2.7x strength bonus. This means that the hardest ship to scan (non-prize for who knows which one it is, only ships that have legitimately been flown by players count) gives a strength of something like 98.5% with the combat probes at 0.05AU. This distance is roughly half the side-length of the scanning control cube at its smallest side, which means with the above bonuses you'll almost never have to have significant cube overlap for scanning ships. We're going to tweak down the strength of the very hardest exploration sites ever so slightly so they end up in about the same place. You say that with max skills we could get a 2.7x boost on the scan strength. Right now its not possible to scan 0.10% (1024 AU) strength sites. The limit is around 0.12% it seems. That means that with max skills we would be able to scan down 0.04% sites. But DeepBlue encountered a 0.03% site. So how are we going to find those site? Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.17 18:44:00 - [3] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 17/02/2009 18:46:23 Originally by: DeepBlue finished the constellation, here the results for a cosmos booster constellation: Quote: Cosmos Constellation: 09-4XW (Tenal) i1-be8 - 0.10 i1-be8 - 0.05 zj-q00 - 0.39 - Cosmic Sig - Radiance - Drone Plex zj-q00 - 0.39 - Cosmic Sig - HackBase 1 zj-q00 - 0.20 - Wormhole - x702 - WH Space ZXA-V6 - 0.10 ZH3-BS - 0.20 - Wormhole - - Empire 1QH-0K - 0.78 - Cosmic Sig - Gurista Base 1QH-0K - 0.10 1QH-0K - 0.10 1QH-0K - 0.03 W80-19 - 0.39 - Cosmic Sig - ArcSal - Pristine Guristas Pod Cluster W80-19 - 0.02 the 0.02% Signature must be the Digial Plexus (Radar) the 0.03% Signature should be the Magnetometric Site (Mag Cosmos Plex) This Constellation ALLWAYS has 1 Radar and 1 Mag Complex in it. the .05% Sig prolly is a base 4 site, i havent been able to find base 3&4 yet. wich leads to the conclusion: Base 4: 0.05 Sigs Base 3: 0.10 Sigs Excellent information. Your deduction is also very plausable I think. It makes sense. Have you tried to put the deep space probe right on top of the site and than scan with 256/512/1024? Just to see if the difference between 0.03 and 0.02 is due to different distance from the probe or an actual sign of a different type of site. Anyway. I think we now have a good idea what spread of sites there are. Surely when the skills kick in the strength will change (which makes it a bit harder to compare between players with different skills) so its good we know this now. Still wonder if and how we're going to scan the 0.02% and 0.03% sites... Devs? Regards, M.M. PS. I can confirm there are wormholes with 0.40% signature strength (using a 1024AU probe). I found one in a 0.9 high-sec system (Alenia). It said it would lead to empire space (possibly lower-sec). So not to 0.0 or WH space.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.18 05:54:00 - [4] A few initial points: - Pfff. I got dizzy/sick from the spinning of the probe animation. Please turn that off ccp. And putting multiple probes (that intersect) creates a super brightness effect (pure wite at some point). - Widgets now scale with the zoom. Good. - Moving/warping the probes isn't possible. - Scanning is still possible but only the old fashioned way: warping to different spots and placing probes there. You can still create warpable hits that way, but its not practical of course when for example you want to find something off plane. I assume this will be fixed soon. - No visual sign of hits. No red circles or dots. - Skills now work. Signature strength of 0.03% has now become 0.11% for me (still no implants, no sister, no rigs etc). A 0.10% in same system has become 0.22% and 0.78% has become 1.74% (so just my skills do ~2.2x atm). But it looks like signature size of 0.03% might have changed/"fixed" to make it scannable. Scanning time has also become a little longer. - Scan filter doesn't work anymore (it did for me) Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.18 12:48:00 - [5] Does anybody have a bookmark of a wormhole he found just before the latest patch? If so please check if its still there and if its jumpable now. M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.20 14:54:00 - [6] Wormholes work! Its just damn hard to find them now with the more and less broken solarsystem. Main problem is that you don't see your results in the map (no red dots/circles) so you have to use the target strength and move one probe to determine where the target is: very cumbersome. pic: http://img15.imageshack.us/my.php?image=20090220144507qi2.jpg Regards, M.M. PS. Guess what I forgot to do... didn't make a bm of the wh exit. sh*t. ok good practice I guess.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.20 14:55:00 - [7] Wormholes work! Its just damn hard to find them now with the more and less broken solarsystem. Main problem is that you don't see your results in the map (no red dots/circles) so you have to use the target strength and move one probe to determine where the target is: very cumbersome. pic: http://img15.imageshack.us/my.php?image=20090220144507qi2.jpg Regards, M.M. PS. Guess what I forgot to do... didn't make a bm of the wh exit. sh*t. ok good practice I guess.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.21 03:54:00 - [8] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 21/02/2009 04:13:37 due to forum bug: trying to get past page 9 edit: ah it worked Looks like we're back from the dark side of the moon.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.21 05:53:00 - [9] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 21/02/2009 05:55:30 Originally by: Space Wanderer And now, people.... Formula Time! I spent some time studying the formula of combined probes and I think I might have nailed it down (except for a small detail). To evaluate the final strength of four probes this seems to be the procedure: 1) Signal Strength of each of the single probe. This has already been identified. sig-str% = Size * probe-str * distance-modifier where probe str = prob-base-str/range modifier (1, 2, 4, 8... depending on the range the probe has been set to), and distance-modifier is the same in the old formula e^-((Target Range / Max Range)^2). 2) Signal Strength of each couple of probes. With four probes there are six couples. For each couple you evaluate the average of the signal strength of the two probes and multiply it for a modifier evaluated depending on the angle that the two probes form with the site to be probed. The modifier goes from 0.5 (for an angle of 30 degrees) to 0.822 (for an angle of 90degrees or more). Less than 30 degrees and the two probes are counted as separate and give separate readings. What I still don't know is the exact function that is used to go from 0.5 to 0.822. 3) Average over couple of probes. Well, this is the easy part. You just average the values obtained for each of the couples to obtain the final signal strength. Conclusion So what does that mean? That to obtain the best possible signal you have to put your probes as close as possible to the site, which is to be expected, AND placed so that there is an angle of more than 90 degrees between EACH probe. It does not seem to make a difference if the angle is 90 or more. Disclaimer I did the tests in a plane around a site, which allowed me to get a single signal using only three probes, very useful to reduce the degrees of freedom. What written above about four probes is extrapolation of what I observed for three probes to the case of four probes (singularity went down before I could do more tests). Downtime so... I've got some notes from some tests and will post them for those who like the number crunching. Not many data points yet (we need at least 3 I guess) but its precise which helps too. When probes couldn't move by themselves I moved them with my ship to some fixed points in space. The following points in space are the ones I used in my test (i'm essentially using the numbers from the bm popup): - Sun (x: -0.01253, y: 0.279623, z: 0.219741) - Planet I (x: -33.979312, y: -6.609995, z: 15.777635) - Planet II (x: 69.558971, y: 13.543235, z: -18.491751) - Planet III (x: 23.919419, y: 4.658619, z: -93.942831) I used the sun to put stuff down to probe: a large tower and a scropion. At the three planets I placed a deep space probe each. According to my own calculations here are the angles between the sun and each two planets: Planet I - Sun - Planet II : 170.602 degrees Planet I - Sun - Planet III: 128.659 degrees Planet II - Sun - Planet III: 60.71433 degrees Scanning results single probes at different planets (PPH2/2 rigs/lvl4 tri/lvl5 cov). Scorpion (deep space probes at 32AU): I: 69.87% II: 69.86% III: 69.85% Large Tower (deep space probes at 8AU): I: 27.92% II: 27.85% III: 27.77% Scanning results combination of probes: Scorpion (deep space probes at 32AU): I+II: 57.44% I+III: 57.44% II+III: 38.74% Large Tower (deep space probes at 8AU): I+II: 22.93% I+III: 22.89% II+III: 15.42% Its becoming clearer that when the angle is greater than 90 degrees (not entirely sure yet) the resulting strength will be at ~82.2% of the average strength. When its lower as in this case with the 60.71433 degrees you get a higher penalty: around 55% it seems. I know we need more datapoints but maybe someone can already figure this out . They also may be changing this stuff so I will try this exact same setup with new patches aswell to be sure the data is up-to-date. Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.21 14:32:00 - [10] Originally by: Space Wanderer Thx for the data. What I think we still need now, are more data of points contained between 25 and 90 degrees. I got lots of data now . First off. Nothing seems to have changed lately. This time I created 5 bookmarks between planet I and III (called a - e). Here each base strength from each of these bms and their combined strength with either the probe at planet I or II. Scorpion (32 AU deep space probes): base I: 69.87% base II: 69.86% base a: 69.85% base b: 69.87% base c: 69.87% base d: 69.88% base e: 69.88% Combination of probes (+ angle): I - a : 57.44% (126.88856 degrees) II - a : 39.87% (61.484425 degrees) I - b : 57.44% (121.15268 degrees) II - b : 43.54% (68.219775 degrees) I - c : 57.45% (104.8736 degrees) II - c : 53.93% (84.497532 degrees) I - d : 39.15% (61.335354 degrees) II - d : 57.44% (128.03194 degrees) I - e : collapse (27.175629 degrees) II - e : 57.44% (162.18129 degrees) Large tower (8 AU deep space probes): base I: 27.92% base II: 27.85% base a: 27.81% base b: 27.87% base c: 27.92% base d: 27.94% base e: 27.94% Combination of probes (+ angle): I - a : 22.91% (126.88856 degrees) II - a : 15.88% (61.484425 degrees) I - b : 22.94% (121.15268 degrees) II - b : 17.36% (68.219775 degrees) I - c : 22.96% (104.8736 degrees) II - c : 21.52% (84.497532 degrees) I - d : 15.65% (61.335354 degrees) II - d : 22.93% (128.03194 degrees) I - e : collapse (27.175629 degrees) II - e : 22.93% (162.18129 degrees) I think a lot of information can be extracted from this. I would like to get some more info on the 30-60 degrees range. But so far it looks like 30-90 degrees is where the action is. Have to put it in a program to make a nice graph of % penalty based on avg strength. But wanted to post the (raw) data right away. Regards, M.M.

Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.21 19:36:00 - [11] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 21/02/2009 19:45:06 Originally by: SilKKZ the3rd sorry to sound totally thick , but when you are talking about angles how on earth do you obtain what the angle is when you get to the red dot stage. Are you talking about angle from 1 probe to another whats your refferance point. So I can understand probing in more detail I am failing to understand how you can calculate angles on that 3D map effectivly. are you saying each probe needs to be more than 90 degrees from the other , however to get 4 like that its almost impossible and be close enough to get a warp able signal. What we are trying to do here is to figure out what formulas are being used in the game. If/when we know that then it will be more clear what you have to do while scanning for signatures. For example: one of the weird things that is being encountered is when probes are getting close to a target (link). This may be explained when we figure out how the angles between the target and the probes have an effect on the outcome. That's one of the reasons (apart from plain curiosity) why these kinds of details could now be important. But when scanning you simply won't have time nor the need to use them directly. And yes at this point it seems that probes need to have at least a 90 degree angle from the target to another probe. In other words: a tetrahedron of probes around a target still appears to be the best choice to find the target. Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.21 20:02:00 - [12] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 21/02/2009 20:02:48 Originally by: Space Wanderer Ok, I got a big bug. Posting it here, and bug reporting it, as well. The bug is this: We all know that the active probes show their selected range on screen. I don't know if it is related to the other bugs with the system map, but the shown ranges are WRONG. They seem to be half of what they should be. Currently, I have a warpable hit on a site. This warpable hit has been obtained by four probes WITHOUT overlapping between their visible range, and the site itself lies outside the range of all probes. Sounds funny... if it doesn't make it on TQ. :-) Aaah. That explains something I encountered which simply didn't make sense. I could get a warpable signature without having true cover with all of my probes: one of them was a bit too far away and that didn't make sense. If they have in fact double their range that would exlplain it. Thanks.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.22 09:01:00 - [13] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 22/02/2009 09:02:16 Found another wormhole. This one had a base (1024AU) strength of 0.26%. pic: http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/6617/20090222084356.jpg And yes. That dot in the middle is my ship .
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.22 09:07:00 - [14] Originally by: K1RTH G3RS3N that the probe that requires astrometrics 5 to use i see? Thats the deep space probe (I've got lvl 5). Not really needed for finding anything right now. Just handy when you wanna know in one scan whats in a system.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.22 09:37:00 - [15] Originally by: Space Wanderer Originally by: Miss Moonwych Found another wormhole. This one had a base (1024AU) strength of 0.26%. Now that ships, rigs and skills affect the sig str of your probes, how do you define a common baseline? You get the value obtained from the deep space probe and remove the bonuses from it? Or is there a smartest way I am not aware of? For common base line I use the strengths (with 1024AU) without skills. Like we had before. In this case I had to calculate/estimate backwards to see what that base strength was (I believe I have something like 2.875x strength bonus atm). Skills and other stuff that affect target strength: - covop skill - asrt tri skill - sisters scanner - grav rigs - pph implants - boosters? Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.22 15:00:00 - [16] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 22/02/2009 15:03:17 Originally by: Space Wanderer Edited by: Space Wanderer on 22/02/2009 11:35:24 Originally by: Miss Moonwych Interestingly: all reported 0.26% base strength targets (and half of the 0.16%) were wormholes so far . edit it even looks like all 0.20% and 0.40% wormholes were either to 0.0 or empire space. So maybe the 0.16% and 0.26% signatures are wormholes to unknown space? Not sure yet but could be interesting. edit2 My working hypothesis: - 0.40% wormholes lead to empire - 0.26% wormholes lead to unkown space - 0.20% wormholes lead to 0.0 - 0.16% wormholes lead to harder unkown space Regards, M.M. Interesting research. I found some wormholes, but didn't get the no-skill signature because of.. err... laziness, since I didn't want to spend time inverting to the no-skill baseline the data reported by deepspace probes. However this research is worth pursuing, count on me for more data. Also I did some number crunching on the data you provided before. As soon as i can I want to play a litttle bit with gnuplot. If in the meanwhile you can come up with some data between 30 and 60 degrees that might help a lot in plotting a curve. Hehe. Found another wormhole . This time a base 0.16% signature. Seems that so far my theory is holding. Oh. And btw I found these whs in low-sec... (cant seem to find 0.16s and 0.26s in 0.0) Btw: here is a link if anyone wants to know how to determine the base strength of a site/wormhole using his or her own results. Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.22 16:51:00 - [17] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 22/02/2009 16:51:52 Found another wormhole (in losec) with a base sig strength of 0.26%. So if you see one of those 0.16s or 0.26s then its probably a wormhole It also appears that the same wormhole back into empire space is (always?) of 0.40% base strength.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.22 18:59:00 - [18] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 22/02/2009 19:03:52 Originally by: Space Wanderer Edited by: Space Wanderer on 22/02/2009 16:55:20 Originally by: Miss Moonwych edit2 My working hypothesis: - 0.40% wormholes lead to empire - 0.26% wormholes lead to unkown space - 0.20% wormholes lead to 0.0 - 0.16% wormholes lead to harder unkown space Found two wormholes leading to w-space (actually was a single system connected both to highsec and 0.0). Both WHs leading to k-space (highsec and empire) were 0.40%, while from k-space the situation was the following: High sec: - 0.26% wormhole lead to unknown space (judging from the stuff inside was some of the "easy" space). 0.0 (HMF-9D, fountain) - 0.40% wormhole lead to SAME unknown space of WH above..... What i found in the unknown system were several anomalies with sleepers in them. Couldn't try them due to time constraints, but in case someone wants to try it, the WH in HMF-9D wil be stable for more than one day from now, so you have time to go there and scan for it. Unfortunately the 0.40% in 0.0 leading to unknown space seem to not fit your hypothesis. Still... were are you scanning? 0.0, lowsec, highsec? I did the same kind of thing. Went through a 0.16% wormhole, then scanned another wormhole in that W-system (0.20% in WH space) which I went through and landed in an lowsec system. The wormhole there was a 0.40% wormhole (back to WH-space). So at least some 0.40% sigs lead to WH-space. But for now almost all 0.16 and 0.26 sigs lead to WH-space. Regards, M.M. Btw. the two systems connected to the W-system were only 12 jumps apart...
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.23 02:43:00 - [19] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 23/02/2009 02:47:03 Originally by: KhanSingh To the two guys who say they have no trouble finding sites within 15 minutes without the visual cues, might be true for the cosmic anomaly sigs which have a huge sig strength, otherwise, I just don't believe you. With the map broken, no way to highlight the probes and no visual cues, if you find anything with a low sig strength, or even come close, you were just lucky. Hmm. I've found the hardest of sites: 0.05% base sites. Not saying that was easy, but it definitely wasn't luck . Lets just say that I think the current situation is very good for practice and is quite a pure form of exploration. Essentially you're working with just one number and tactically moving around an object that can detect a (faint) signal from space. And you're integrating those resuts into a precise position of three dimensions in space. I think graphical feedback in the form of dots and circles is going to be useful and its gonna look cool but I don't think its gonna make things much faster than what can be achieved now. Especially when deviation is introduced: I will probably completely ignore the deviating distances and the graphical features based on those distances and keep focusing on precise strength. Of course they could also start deviating strengths... that would be evil. Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.23 07:18:00 - [20] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 23/02/2009 07:23:17 Devs: am I correct that a trial acount character with say a Heron and lets say lvl2 artro skill and asrto triangulation at lvl 2 is supposed to be able to scan all wormholes and all sites apart from only the hardest? Or am I overlooking something? Regards, M.M.

Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.23 18:36:00 - [21] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 23/02/2009 18:39:17 Originally by: DeepBlue Edited by: DeepBlue on 23/02/2009 14:16:26 Hello, here a complete rebalance of the complexes and its strenghts. the sister launcher got a boost (10%), needed for the whole balancing. the redestribution of the plexes, is just an idea. however i think a few plexes should only be accesible/scanable if you have max skill and max implants. if you have questions, fire away. linky, bigger view ohh and flame a way :P Personally I don't like the idea that because someone hasn't played the game as long as some veteran players have it should be made impossible for them to find something. It should however take 'm considerably longer to find something otherwise all those skills and billions of isk are wasted by the veteran player. Considerable as in: several times longer. But to me implants are more meant to compensate for some of the hard skills a player doesn't have yet. What I also think is important is to enable good and smart tactics to be used which gives a skilled player (not the character) an advantage. Just my 2 cents. Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.24 05:25:00 - [22] Originally by: Saviron I've already found 5 wormholes, on the current build after playing for < 2 hrs. You guys should at least know what triangulation is before you say that it doesn't work. The only thing that NEEDS to be fixed are the issues with clicking like planets and stuff. I would actually prefer that the stupid visual markers stay removed as it requires more actual player skill to probe something down without them. Just to clarify (this has been mentioned before but doesn't hurt to do again): Eve Sisi doesn't use triangulation but trilateration. There is quite a big difference: angles vs. distances. Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.25 06:47:00 - [23] Originally by: Hoshi Your probes are too close to each other, if the angle between the probes relative to the site is less than 30 degrees the probes will stop working toghther and just give individual results, this can be seen in the results window as you have 4 results there instead of 1. I did another test. This time I measured pixels. It seems that in this test (8AU dsp, scorp, 2 probes at ~0.2-0.3AU) at around 57 degrees to around 90 degrees there is a penalty from 50% to 82.8%. Below the 57 degrees the results split into two. Still trying to figure things out but it might be that the % of max strength (so penalty due to relative range to probe) also plays a role here. And that somehow when using more than 2 probes you get a cumulative effect which could explain that quite a lot of ppl get "split" results even if there probe setup seems to be fairly ok. Somehow if strength get to lower than 50% of what it should be (usually 100% but this could be lower if you're not on top of a target yet and/or have a weak target/long range probe) things split up. Not sure yet. Still working on this . Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.25 18:34:00 - [24] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 25/02/2009 18:36:19 Originally by: Miss Moonwych I did another test. This time I measured pixels. It seems that in this test (8AU dsp, scorp, 2 probes at ~0.2-0.3AU) at around 57 degrees to around 90 degrees there is a penalty from 50% to 82.8%. Below the 57 degrees the results split into two. I said 30 degrees because that's what someone else earlier in the thread had measured, I hadn't tested it myself at the time. But you are right it's not 30 degrees, my tests point at 55 degrees (I got as low as 55.4 without collapse, angle measured using photoshops measure tool on a screenhot). Edit: A bit more thinking, the rest of the game uses radians. Tracking and ship maneuvering for example. It wouldn't be too far stretch to think that radians are used here as well. If that's the case we could for example guess that the cut off angle is at 1 radian = 57.3 degrees, would fit better with your measurements than mine. Need more independent measures taken here. The drop is definitively linear, if we are using degrees the slope seem to be at or close to 0.009 with no offset. I think your measement is probably better (I did my pixel test quite quickly ). If I finish the graph it becomes clear its probably 54.75% (50/82.2 * 90): In fact how I think how it works (still needs to be tested) is that for each pair of probes the angle is determined between them (say in degrees) and divided by 100. So basicly the percentage of a right angle. This number is multiplied with the numbers from all other pairs. And in the end its multiplied by 0.822 (still wondering where that number comes from). If the result is below 0.5 then the signals cannot be combined and its splits into individual results. If not, then the result is multiplied by the average target strength (where each inidividual probe has a max of 100%) Lets say 3 probes, so 3 pairs that are not so well placed: 1 - 2: 60 degrees 2 - 3: 75 degrees 1 - 3: 80 degrees This would then result in the following calculation: 60/90 * 75/90 * 80/90 * 0.822 = 0.4059 which would mean it will split into 3 results. Another example: 1 - 2: 100 degrees 2 - 3: 80 degrees 1 - 3: 70 degrees 90/90 * 80/90 * 70/90 * 0.822 = 0.5682 which would mean it will combine into one result. The average strength of those probes is then multipied by 0.5682 meaning the endresult will only be above 100% if the average strength is higher than 175.96%. This does not yet explain why somebody reported to have 3 results with 3 probes and when adding a fourth that would give 1 warpable result (I read that somewhere I believe). Its conceivable a different combination of 3 probes was "found" by the system making it warpable. Anyway. This needs to be tested but if true it would explain the difficulty of getting a warpable hit (eg with four probes) when you don't know the exact location of the target in relation to your probes. Idealy you want a perfect tetrahedron, but if you know on what plane the target is 3 probes might work better. Lots of stuff to chew on and to test . Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.25 19:43:00 - [25] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 25/02/2009 19:45:59 Can you clarify what you mean with this when dealing with 3 or 4 probes: Originally by: Space Wanderer average(angle-modifier * sig-str) With three probes there are 3 sig-strength and 3 angles (3 pairs). But with 4 you have 4 sig-strength and 6 angles (6 pairs). How does averaging work? I guess a few real numbers will help me understand what you mean. To clarify myself: I think the process works in two steps: there are splits with high (100%) sig-strengths so what causes results to split is done before the actual sig-strength are taken into account and if that calculation is below something (almost certainly 50%) things split. If not then the total sig-strength would have to be calculated and I think the result of the first process is used in combination with the sig-strengths of the individual probes. I'm not sure of course but with 2 probes it fits the data pretty well it seems so from there I extrapolated my little theory about multiple probe calculation. Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.25 20:57:00 - [26] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 25/02/2009 21:06:07 Originally by: Space Wanderer Already bug reported, not yet acknowledged. Yeah. To be honest, I'm a bit woried about CCP atm. I've reported an obvious bug (a 0.004% site in W-space that is totally un-probable) and the guy that is judging it is filtering it. I've re-opened it with more data and info about it occurring before but I mean c'mon CCP: please give/teach ppl who deal with the new probing system a basic understand of how things work. I mean him giving me the advice of using more probes when a single 0.25 AU probe at virtually 0km is giving me less than 12% target strength is embarassing. And then he says I have to go back to the W-space to redo it. I mean duh... that WH is long gone so how I am even supposed to do that? I mean even though we are working with totaly crippled map system we are still able to detect subtle bugs, so please make sure you value those bug reports... Just expressing some feelings here . Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.26 05:39:00 - [27] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 26/02/2009 05:44:59 Originally by: Space Wanderer Done some additional tests. I went in pakshi, and left probes at 4 planets, named for comfort I, II, III. I dropped a griffin at the sun. The angles, evaluated from the warpin coordinates, were I-II > 90 II-III = 71.17 I-III > 90 The single probes sig str of the griffin is: I: 26.73 II: 15.34 III: 10.34 The double probe sig strengths are: I-II: 17.30 I-III: 15.24 II-III: 8.35 The three probe sig strength is: 13.36 Interesting. So far it looks like my formula/theory works. (link for those who missed it) If I use it I get 13.356 (or 13.36 rounded) which is correct. So first this: 90/90 * 71.17/90 * 90/90 = 0.79078 which means the signals will combine into one (because its more than 0.5). Then the strength: (0.2673 + 0.1534 + 0.1034) / 3 * 0.79078 * 0.822 = 0.13356 (or 13.36% rounded) which is perfectly correct. Not sure how you got 13.34 but according to your measurements it is holding up for 2 and 3 probes . Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.27 13:11:00 - [28] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 27/02/2009 13:17:55 Originally by: Space Wanderer Originally by: Miss Moonwych More testing is needed though. Especially more angles with less than 90 degrees. I disagree with this. Well, not really, it is true we need more data for different angles, but only for confirming the shape of curve, not for the purpose of confirming the formula. What is needed to confirm the general formula now, are measures with very different signal strengths. I think we still need at least one example of two angles of less than 90 degrees for confirming the formula. My main question is whether my assumption of multiplying these angle-percentages is correct or whether they are combined in a different way. Regards, M.M. Btw: is this our magic number: 0.5 / (0.78 * 0.78) = 0.821828 (ie two angles at 78% will split?)
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.28 13:26:00 - [29] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 28/02/2009 13:30:58 Originally by: Miss Moonwych Interesting. So far it looks like my formula/theory works. If I use it I get 13.356 (or 13.36 rounded) which is correct. So first the angles: 90/90 * 71.17/90 * 90/90 * 0.822 = 0.65002 which means the signals will combine into one (because its more than 0.5). Then the strength: (0.2673 + 0.1534 + 0.1034) / 3 * 0.65002 = 0.13356 (or 13.36% rounded) which is correct. Not sure how you got 13.34 but according to your measurements it is holding up for 2 and 3 probes. More testing is needed though. Especially more angles with less than 90 degrees. Regards, M.M. PS. Thanks for the assurance Hoshi. Ok. After some testing it has become clear right-angle-percentages are not multiplied but averaged. So taking the above example you get: ((71.17 + 90 + 90) / (90 + 90 + 90)) * 0.822 = 0.76467 which means it won't split (above 0.5) then the strength calculation: (0.2673 + 0.1534 + 0.1034) / 3 * 0.76467 = 0.133588 (or 13.36% rounded) The observant reader will see that my previous calculation (which also resulted in 13.36%) was simply incorrect. By some fluke of nature the answer to that was 0.1133558. I accidentally mistook that for 0.133558. Incredible. Anyway. The formula is corrected now . Still has to be tested for more probe setups. Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.03.01 07:08:00 - [30] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 01/03/2009 07:09:24 Originally by: Mashimara I have not confirmed from this patch, but previous patches I could detect probes with probes. So making deep space SS is still a possibility. I personally do not see ANYTHING wrong with this. If you can use deepspace probes, you can bust their safe spots. The one suggest I WOULD make tho is that the furthest you can move a probe from the center of a system should be twice the max range. This way you do not have persons unable to use DS probes but still make a DS SS. I have not been able to detect probes with probes (with the current build). I have been able to detect drones with probes which show up as Scan Group "Drone & Probe". I've also been able to get a 100% warpable hit on hobgoblin I's. How did you detect other probes? I tried using an alt that left some probes. Even disconnected. But no probe detection. Any particular method you used? Thanks. Regards, M.M.

Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.03.01 07:43:00 - [31] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 01/03/2009 07:45:33 Originally by: Space Wanderer What happens instead is that if the probe is placed above the eclyptic plane, the scan returns two separate hits in the expected positions, in my case distant about 0.3AU. But if the probe is moved to the same distance/position below the eclyptic plane I get only a single hit on the ship! I can confirm this. Just the other way around with me. Using deep space probes on a scorpion gives me one result if the third probe is above the plane. And it gives me two results when its below. In both cases I should have gotton two results. It makes no sense. Must be a bug. Space Wanderer: maybe a good idea to post the br number in known issues thread? I believe the devs look there are lot and will see it sooner. Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.03.01 11:46:00 - [32] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 01/03/2009 11:47:18 Wormholes appear to look different: link Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.03.01 18:00:00 - [33] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 01/03/2009 18:02:50 A bit of a taste of what is in W-space (reached from high-sec): Picture of several scanned sites Here a list (with base sig strengths): 0.20% - Vast Frontier Reservior (Harvestable Clouds, C32 and C28) 0.39% - Unexeptional Frontier Deposit (Veldspar) 0.10% - Unusual Core Deposit (Veldspar) 0.39% - Ordinary Perimeter Deposit (Veldspar) 0.39% - Common Perimeter Deposit (Veldspar) 0.20% - Average Frontier Deposit (Veldspar) 0.20% - Bountyful Frontier Reservior (Harvestable Clouds, C32 and C28) -.--% - Minor Perimeter Reservior (Harvestable Clouds, C70 and C72) 0.39% - Wormhole (back to highsec K-space) Its hard to see which sigs are which type. Only until you warp to the you know atm. Most of them are now mining or these special gas clouds sites. In my w-system there were around 20 cosmic signatures. More about base sig strength: here and a list of previously found sites in K-space is here. Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.03.01 19:22:00 - [34] This w-system is 1272.5ly away from the other tower in k-space .
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.03.01 21:27:00 - [35] Originally by: Captain Vampire Additionally, I'd really like the option to centre the solar system map at a weak point signal, it is really hard to move the camera around properly if its not centred to the signal. A new feature is using/holding the right mouse button to move your center of view. It is very useful and eliminates any need for centering on any (fixed) object at all. You need to combine it with the direction of view with your left mouse to make it work. Takes some getting used to but is really cool. Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.03.02 06:05:00 - [36] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 02/03/2009 06:04:55 Originally by: Space Wanderer Not much to add, I found only sites in that list. But... where does that "(veldspar)" come from? By any chance have you used the default overview that has only veldspar roids enabled? In all the 0.10 mining sites i could find 0.0 stuff, including bistot and arkonor, but excluding mercoxit, while in 0.20 sites I could find all the lowsec minerals. Ok. I'm stupid. You're right I must have forgotton to change overview settings to all roids. Well anyway the name of the site and its sig strength are now recorded which was the intend (and the hard part). Thanks. Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.03.03 06:11:00 - [37] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 03/03/2009 06:11:48 For those who had suggestions or questions about the showing of sig types and/or filters you might find this interesting: Quote: [ 2009.03.01 15:49:26 ] CCP Greyscale > Frellicus just got the "show what signature type the site is under the 'group' column" thing working, btw [ 2009.03.01 15:49:52 ] Theminster > does that mean it will tell you Worm hole [ 2009.03.01 15:49:53 ] Burgers > but not in this build ? [ 2009.03.01 15:49:58 ] Kael D'mende > the bonus's the coverts got are they final ? [ 2009.03.01 15:50:02 ] DarkNoghri > the filter is still not working but the rest is fine for me till now [ 2009.03.01 15:50:05 ] Valoryn > awesome [ 2009.03.01 15:50:13 ] Miss Moonwych > thats nice :) [ 2009.03.01 15:50:14 ] CCP Greyscale > Wormholes will show up as "unknown" for now, but they're the only unknown signatures in w-space [ 2009.03.01 15:50:15 ] PhamNuwen > the Type W-Hole would be nice :) [ 2009.03.01 15:50:18 ] Space Wanderer > greyscale: THANK YOOU :-) [ 2009.03.01 15:50:19 ] CCP Greyscale > And no, not in this build [ 2009.03.01 15:50:20 ] Drahkesh > so no more scanning down 19 sites in an WH? [ 2009.03.01 15:50:21 ] An Anarchyyt > You know for a down the line, it would be nice to filter "cosmic sig under/over XX%" [ 2009.03.01 15:50:26 ] CCP Greyscale > He literally just got it working on his PC [ 2009.03.01 15:50:34 ] CCP Greyscale > More filtering options would be cool, yes [ 2009.03.01 15:50:34 ] Theminster > so if it says unkown and not dead space , that means u have a wh [ 2009.03.01 15:50:44 ] Space Wanderer > greyscale: since you are here I suggest you ahave a look at BR 72500 [ 2009.03.01 15:50:49 ] Theminster > if so thats fantastic] [ 2009.03.01 15:50:55 ] Space Wanderer > there is avery slippery bug with scanning with 3 probes [ 2009.03.01 15:50:55 ] Drahkesh > very cool thanks [ 2009.03.01 15:50:57 ] CCP Greyscale > If you're in w-space and you see Cosmic Signature \| Unknown, that's a wormhole [ 2009.03.01 15:51:09 ] Theminster > ahh I cannot even get to wh space yet lol [ 2009.03.01 15:51:12 ] An Anarchyyt > Is this going to be normal as well? A w-space system with 24 sigs and ~20 are ore? [ 2009.03.01 15:51:12 ] CCP Greyscale > You won't be able to filter by them in the initial release unfortunately due to data structures or something [ 2009.03.01 15:51:14 ] Theminster > I carnt find any [ 2009.03.01 15:51:23 ] CCP Greyscale > but that'll probably be in a point release That was in the exploration channel a few days ago. So it looks like wormholes are gonna be identifiable. But my guess is only if you have 50% strength with at least one probe. Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.03.03 11:53:00 - [38] Prediction: scanning with a deep space probe at 8 AU in W-space with very high skills/implants will be a common technique for experienced explorers. Just some food for thought... Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.03.03 12:47:00 - [39] Originally by: Space Wanderer Edited by: Space Wanderer on 03/03/2009 12:03:57 Originally by: Miss Moonwych Prediction: scanning with a deep space probe at 8 AU in W-space with very high skills/implants will be a common technique for experienced explorers. Possible. It actually depends on how deviation is implemented, but considering that at 8AU dsp have higher scan str than core and combat, and max deviation seems the same for all probes (half of the scan range) that would assure a less deviated scan at 8AU with dsp than core/combat. Another reason to have astro 5. Think more like: one dsp at 8 AU at each planet and 50% strength...
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.03.04 06:06:00 - [40] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 04/03/2009 06:08:13 The current build does not show the movement boxes of probes (which in turn causes crashes when you mouse-over them). Anyway. Deep space probe ranges have changed: 2 AU - 256 AU. So those just became much more useful. Signature Group becomes available if strength > 25%, and it seems Type when > 75% like Greyscale indicated. Regards, M.M.

Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.03.04 10:55:00 - [41] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Originally by: Troxel Just Downloaded the latest build, Scanning seems to be a bit broke. I launch a probe and there are is no widget to move the probe around, afterstaying in the system map, for a few minutes (like 1-2) the client crashes. Anyone else having same issue? This is being investigated. Originally by: Space Wanderer Originally by: Miss Moonwych Anyway. Deep space probe ranges have changed: 2 AU - 256 AU. So those just became much more useful. edit combat probes are now useless (same strength as dsp, but at lower range) if you have asrto 5 course. Mmmmhhh... interesting changes. (eating my hands that I cannot check them for now). According to what you say, yes combat probes seem to have become pretty useless. Anybody hunting for ships will be more than willing to sacrifice 15 training days to use better probes without any drawbacks. But check the dsp deviations. Maybe dsp have much larger deviation than combat (relatively to their range)? The probe changes are a bit of a whoopsie on my part, I'll fix them asap :P Also, we fiddled with the math a bit, just to make your lives more fun. I believe the description of the dsp is not correct. Buts I haven't tested it much. Not enirely sure. Seems that now its range is divided by four while its strength is only doubled.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.03.05 19:21:00 - [42] Originally by: Space Wanderer Greyscale I have more info about BR73128. New patch, much fixed, allowed me to do more experimentation, but that bug (feature?) is still there. Basically, what happens is that if two probes are deployed with an angle >90 degrees from site they are treated exactly like they would when the angle is <50 degrees. They give two separate "spherical" signals instead of single "ring" signal. Greyscale, is that intended? Or is it a bug? Workaround: add a very long range probe and things will work as normal. It seems the system now always throws away one probe result (the weakest or something) which means you have to add an extra probe to the mix. Making sure its very long range (and thus has a very weak strength) makes sure that probe gets thrown out of the result. Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.03.06 15:08:00 - [43] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 06/03/2009 15:11:13 Originally by: Neddy Fox Thx Space wanderer.. This is where I gave up (look at the 4 ranges). The screen is zoomed in maximum, I can't get a better view on the probes then this. It was the point I had to move the probes pixel by pixel to get closer. http://bclv.dyndns.info/files/2009.03.05.19.54.51.jpg I'll just practice more. Keep in mind that closer is not always better. It can be a lot worse. What is important is that you surround the target evenly with probes. Meaning there shouldn't be too many probes on one side of the target and no probes on the other side. You can only do that if you can see clearly which probes are on which side. So you need a little distance. In other words: on which side of the target a probe is positioned is more important than how close it is to the target. Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.03.07 14:54:00 - [44] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 07/03/2009 14:55:14 I haven't had much time to test but in the 10 mins I did (don't ask) I think it became clear that there is not only a penalty for angles that are too small (smaller than 90 degrees) but also angles that are too big (above 90 degrees). Also that more probes can lead to boosted strengths, possibly even added strengths. Still need to test out all the details but thought I would share that peace of info. Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.03.08 08:53:00 - [45] Originally by: achoura The most frustrating thing about probing isn't getting the initial hits, it's actually placing the probes close once you do. Not because it's hard, or because of the underlying formula. It's because of the god awful camera which still can center on sites. Yes, you can still move the camera around yourself, but sites which love spawning above/below the pane with no celestial near means getting good angles is impossible (literally). Now, someone people can and will argue that camera placement is part of the challenge, however the goal of a good U.I. is to provide an extension of the users mind i.e. remove anything that hiders the user which this most certaintly does. While the exrat 5 minutes might not matter for signatures but for probing ships, well they're arn't going to be nice enough to wait around once they realise someone is looking for them. Please, please, please let use centre the camera on the coloured dots once we locate an object, not being able to makes probing so painful it removes all fun from it Yes can center on any dot in space. - Zoom out a bit. Make sure you look at the solarsystem from straigtht above. Now right-mouse-click and drag it so the dot is in the middle of your screen. - Now look at the solarsystem from the side and drag with right-mouse so the red dot is in the middle again. Easy as pie. And when getting closer you can refine it. But the right-mouse-button dragging is not yet documented I believe. Maybe thats the problem. Regards, M.M. PS. Wanderer: good job at analyzing the new system. I will try to confirm where I can. First going to try to figure out the bug about the virtue implants though...
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.03.08 09:32:00 - [46] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 08/03/2009 09:32:20 Originally by: Tonto Auri Originally by: Miss Moonwych Yes can center on any dot in space. Only potentially. Quote: - Zoom out a bit. Make sure you look at the solarsystem from straigtht above. You can't look from straight above. It's impossible. Absolutely. 80-85 deg, never 90. For centering on a dot you don't need the exact 90 degrees. For judging alignments you do. I was making a point about centering the camera which is no problem atm if you use the right-mouse button. Regards, M.M. PS. Wanderer: sometimes they have the opposite effect!
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.03.08 16:25:00 - [47] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 08/03/2009 16:27:43 A bit more data about target strength, angles and combinations of probes. First off: its becoming pretty clear you want 90 degrees angles where possible. So I tested a bit to see how 0, 90 and 180 degrees angles combine. I think because I didn't do any other angles these will function as clean data points to test any theory on how things work (in this build ). What I did was surround a charon with 64 AU probes. Using diffent conbinations of probe positions. To be clear I deployed the probes at the site of the charon and then moved it using only one arrow (so only one axis). Note: to clarify the notation: there are three axis x, y and z. When I say +x and -x that means I positioned a probe to the left and to the right of the target. I use z as the height axis, y as depth. The probe distance from the target is relatively small so the penalty due to distance can be ignored. Strength single probe: 34.97 % First a simple horizontal cross (which seems to be one of the best configurations of four probes atm) around the target (4 probes total) (a) +x, -x, +y, -y : 69.93 (this is perfect, no penalties) Then a cross that is missing one probe (3 probes total) (b) +x, -x, +y : 69.93 (this is perfect, no penalties, possible because probes are on same plane) Then a cross missing one probe on one side, but added it on the other side on top of another (4 probes total) (c) +x, +x, +y, -y : 58.28 (there is a 5/6 penalty here) And last same as c (so two probes on top of eachother) but removed another probe (3 probes total) (d) +x, +x, +y : 46.62 (there is a 2/3 penalty here) I've been thinking how to explain these numbers but its not totally clear yet what the logic is. Its especially the 5/6 that makes it hard to explain. One would think it has to do with the fact that 4 probes means 6 angles and that because one of those angles is "disqualified" because its 0 degrees you are left with 5 angles out of 6. The same logic would have to be applied for the one that got a 2/3 penalty where 2 angles were 90 degrees and one was 0 degrees. So maybe there are three phases here: (1) remove all angles that are below 45 degrees and count how much are left and (2) determine the average of the (up to) 4 best of the leftover angles. Then (3) take the amount from (1) and divide by the original amount of angles and multiply that with the number from (2). Food for thought . Regards, M.M.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.03.08 18:24:00 - [48] Originally by: Space Wanderer Edited by: Space Wanderer on 08/03/2009 18:05:20 Originally by: Space Wanderer Some of those configuration would confirm my theory, others I didn't try and they seem not to confirm it. Only clear thing is that tethraedron is not favorite configuration anymore. Ok, found the reason for contradictory results. It WAS a bug, according to greyscale, and last patch fixed it. 180 degrees is again maximum intensity, and tethraedron is back. Thx Frellicus. Great! It didn't feel very intuitive anymore with last build. Love the tetrahedron . Regards, M.M.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.