| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nyota Sol
   |
Posted - 2009.03.16 12:46:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Nyota Sol on 16/03/2009 12:58:17
CCP Greyscale indicated that we'll have an archive/history feature some day, which should really help out.
 Originally by: Cameron Freerunner
Pardon if I've missed the answer to my question: how do overlapping, different scan distances interact? For instance, I thought about maybe using a tetrahedron set at 32AU (or more) with a smaller tetrahedron set at 4AU (or less). Assuming you had the skills to use 8 probes (i think that's the max), the big scan area would reveal general placement and the smaller scan area would evaluate each hit. Each scan reveals the big area and the smaller verifies or discards a previous hit. You move the smaller tetrahedron every single time you discard a hit or hone in on a good hit. It seems efficient. But maybe the overlapping scans have a bad effect? Or maybe there is some other problem?
Try a simpler approach. Less can be more, so try using 3 probes.
1 probe at a wide range to track big readings. Deactivate it when you need to whittle down.
2 smaller range probes to whittle down a signal.
2 probes can produce red circles which represent the probes' estimation about mutual distance readings. When you get such a result, it implies the target is somewhere close to the red circle itself (the line). Do not assume it is precisely on the line because considerable deviation is involved.
When you get a red circle, adjust 1 probe and rescan. If you have a good sense about 3d spatial relations, then you perhaps recognize the power of this simplicity right away. You have now seen 2 different red circles at different angles/positions.
Where those 2 come closest is your target area.
Using just 2 probes, you can quickly obtain a strong sense of a signal's location and re-adjusting probe range becomes a lot more manageable. You can use the deactivated large range probe when you lose the red circle or when you want to go back to other signals.
|
Space Wanderer
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 13:49:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Nyota Sol
Try a simpler approach.
Well, I tend to disagree with the suggestions of "try another approach". I think that everyone of us has his favorite approach, closer to how he thinks, and while some approaches may be more efficient in more contexts, I think there is always something to learn from other people approaches, especially when they are creative. And the two probe clusters approach is certainly pretty creative. :-)
Not what I would use on a regular basis, but very inspiring.
|
Lady Spank
Amarr
Sekret Kool Klubb
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 14:46:00 -
[33]
While any approach which eventually yields a result is indeed valid. It's worth considering that the less probes you rely on the easier it is to problem solve if your alignment goes out of whack.
I was using 5 in a + formation with 1 elevated for the z axis hit, but soon dropped this down to 3 for speed alone.
When I'm probing down something with a particularly low strength its worth using 2 sets of 4 probes, activating and deactivating in turn so you never completely lose signal and have to start again. It's certainly not always necessary but it helps if you find yourself having trouble. I'm sure this astrometrics caps at 8 with this technique kept in mind (as much as tracking 2 signatures down at the same time).
|
Nyota Sol
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 15:11:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Nyota Sol on 16/03/2009 15:14:36
Originally by: Space Wanderer
Originally by: Nyota Sol
Try a simpler approach.
Well, I tend to disagree with the suggestions of "try another approach". I think that everyone of us has his favorite approach, closer to how he thinks, and while some approaches may be more efficient in more contexts, I think there is always something to learn from other people approaches, especially when they are creative. And the two probe clusters approach is certainly pretty creative. :-)
Not what I would use on a regular basis, but very inspiring.
I should have prefaced with "this is for people using Core probes."
You folks with DSP are in a more sane world. Us plebeians stuck with Core probes often have a really rough time in the 2au-8au range.
I don't find that it's useful to start pulling out 3-4 probes until I'm getting a good sense of where I'm headed. This REALLY goes for w-space when you may have considerable sig counts and mere Cores to work with.
Because you can get 2 different red circle readings quickly and effectively, it can be a sound & fast method for initial steps. With a deeper appreciation of this new information about angles, I think there's great potential for starting with 2 and then shifting to a very effective tetra setup with a reasonably small range to work in.
Tips on improving this would be welcome. 
|
Nyota Sol
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 16:41:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Nyota Sol on 16/03/2009 16:42:17
Preliminary observations... using 2 probes.
~180 degree angle gave me a tiny circle (with deviation). Slightly off, even 175ish and I get red circles about 1au wide/diameter.
~135 degree angle gave me 4au diameter circles (~25% probe size).
~90 degree angle gave me 6au circles (~40% probe size)
~50 degree angle gave me about 7au circles.
~45 degrees gave me 2 spheres rather than a red ring. Bad angle.
Deviation seemed to decreased with distance between probes/target, but also as well as with increase in angle perhaps due to the size of the red circles or corresponding strengths.
|
Cameron Freerunner
|
Posted - 2009.03.17 18:44:00 -
[36]
Thanks for the feedback and positive comments. For those who couldn't visualize my poorly worded (and beer induced) question: imagine a tetrahedron with 32au distances. that's big enough to cover a system and still have plenty of overlap in scan areas. That will get you red dots (and green dots for sites like angel hideouts). Now imagine launching 4 more probes, arranging them in a tetrahedron with a distance of 4au (or less), and moving them to evaluate each red dot. from what's been said, it sounds like it works, provided that you place your smaller cluster accurately. I didn't imagine deactivating the large group when I asked the question. But it sounds like it might be a good idea. I just wanted the big scan to keep from having to rescan the whole system after chasing down a single contact.
As for other comments about chasing down weak signals: it appears that distance is king. My skills aren't all that special, but I've tracked down some hard to find contacts by simply moving the probes closer and closer together. For one, the arrows on the sides of the cubes were touching before i got to 100%.
Also, while I don't do this all the time, on good scan pattern is to use a double tetrahedron (one above, three in a triangle on the midplane, and one below). This is good for chasing red dots. That way if your deviation is just a shade off the midplane, the one below still picks it up. Seems to work. Thanks guys. |
Space Wanderer
|
Posted - 2009.03.17 22:13:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Cameron Freerunner
As for other comments about chasing down weak signals: it appears that distance is king.
Yes, and no. With a single probe distance is king all right. But when you start using more than one probe (and you NEED to use more than one probe to warp to the site) the angle of probes relative to the site are as much as important, or more.
|
Cygwin Gaad
Caldari
The Element Syndicate
Black Mesa Project
|
Posted - 2009.03.18 05:17:00 -
[38]
Fantastic guide Space Wanderer.
:thumbsup:
|
Space Wanderer
|
Posted - 2009.03.18 10:12:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Nyota Sol
Preliminary observations... using 2 probes.
~180 degree angle gave me a tiny circle (with deviation). Slightly off, even 175ish and I get red circles about 1au wide/diameter.
~135 degree angle gave me 4au diameter circles (~25% probe size).
~90 degree angle gave me 6au circles (~40% probe size)
~50 degree angle gave me about 7au circles.
The increase of the ring size with angle is expected, and has nothing to do with signal strength, but merely with geometry. Specifically, the radius of the circle is the distance of the site from straight line between the two probes. Of course this distance is almost null for a 180 degree angle, and increases with the decrease of the angle.
Originally by: Nyota Sol
Deviation seemed to decreased with distance between probes/target, but also as well as with increase in angle perhaps due to the size of the red circles or corresponding strengths.
Evaluating deviation is very hard, because it is pretty random. IN my observation it is STRONGLY conditioned by the single probes signal strength, probably with a superlinear law, thus the closer they are to the site, the less deviation you see.
Originally by: Nyota Sol
I think this strategy can be used with 4 probes (deactivating 2 at a time) to dramatically narrow down a location within 2 minutes.
I suppsoe it could, but don't see why you shouldn't just use 3 or 4 probes to let them doing the work for you.
|
Miss Moonwych
Formedian Shadows
|
Posted - 2009.03.20 19:52:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 20/03/2009 19:59:56
Just a reflection.
Using a tetrahedron is probably the best way to find one single target (especially if you know with increasing precision where it is).
Finding and/or identifying multiple clustered targets might best be done with 8 probes forming 5 tetrahedra. This would effectively multiply the covered volume (compared to using only 4 probes) by a factor of 5.
A simpler version would be to use 5 probes forming two tetrahedra. For example a triangle around a planet (horizontally) then one probe above and one probe below the planet.
So using more than 4 probes will not increase the strength on a single target, but it can significantly extend the volume covered by one scan.
Regards,
M.M.
|
Erodmos
|
Posted - 2009.03.20 21:33:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Miss Moonwych
Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 20/03/2009 19:59:56
So using more than 4 probes will not increase the strength on a single target, but it can significantly extend the volume covered by one scan.
Is that really true? I did make a bit different experiences. for 4 probes, its best to use a tetrahedron formation for a single target. But for a real hard to scan down target (one you get to some 95%-99% with your skills only) you can improve you results by using 6 Probes in a octahedron formation. I have placed then by using 4 probes on the hirzontal plane in a aquare around the target in the middle. And the 5th probe above target and 6th a bit down under. Probing with that formation did get me better results compared to tetrahedron formation.
Maybe i should do more testing with 6 probes and the results of them. But it was so far only needed for a single target, everything else i was able to find with 4 probes.
Erodmos
|
Nyota Sol
|
Posted - 2009.03.22 11:48:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Space Wanderer
Specifically, the radius of the circle is the distance of the site from straight line between the two probes. Of course this distance is almost null for a 180 degree angle, and increases with the decrease of the angle.
Interesting. Much easier to visualize in terms of the angle itself. 
Originally by: Space Wanderer
Originally by: Nyota Sol
I think this strategy can be used with 4 probes (deactivating 2 at a time) to dramatically narrow down a location within 2 minutes.
I suppsoe it could, but don't see why you shouldn't just use 3 or 4 probes to let them doing the work for you.
You could.
My primary struggle is finding tricks to visually sort through many gravs sites using just 32au probes.
|
Boydsan DeZinj
|
Posted - 2009.03.23 00:04:00 -
[43]
I have had a few issues where I get a 100% signal and a yellow or green dot. But I can not warp to it. Any idea what is wrong? Bug? Likewise, I have also seen a open red circle at 100% and two red dots at 100% - also unwarpable. I have been thinking... could it be my low skills?
My current skills are
Astrometrics 3
Astrometrics Triangulation 3
Astrometrics Pinpointing 0 (since i need astrometrics to 4 to get it)
Astrometric Acquisition 2
(I will be getting astrometrics to 4 soon... then go to 3 for both pinpointing and Acquisition)
I have also tried, all sorts of shapes to try to get a solid lock. Most of the time, I can get one without sweating But ever since this last patch. I get a few signals... I just can not lock down.. at all....
|
Space Wanderer
|
Posted - 2009.03.23 00:24:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Space Wanderer on 23/03/2009 00:24:47
Originally by: Boydsan DeZinj
I have had a few issues where I get a 100% signal and a yellow or green dot. But I can not warp to it. Any idea what is wrong? Bug? Likewise, I have also seen a open red circle at 100% and two red dots at 100% - also unwarpable. I have been thinking... could it be my low skills?
I think you are looking for this thread.
|
Boydsan DeZinj
|
Posted - 2009.03.23 00:29:00 -
[45]
oops... I think you are right... I was looking at both a the same time, and i guess my eyes tricked me. Old man syndrome at 36. Now I should grab my clone of me when I was 21...
|
Rogaru
Amarr
Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.23 02:47:00 -
[46]
Does anyone know a list for 'target size'?
i.e. is 1.25 radar sites, 2.5 Mag sites etc etc?
|
Nyota Sol
|
Posted - 2009.03.23 12:10:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Rogaru
Does anyone know a list for 'target size'?
i.e. is 1.25 radar sites, 2.5 Mag sites etc etc?
Look at MM's posts above.
You can only get a hunch depending on your skills and gear. The important thing is knowing how to hit 25% and 75% signals as quickly as possible.
|
explodinator
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:47:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Miss Moonwych
...excel sheet...
Any change on getting that updated now that CCP has seen fit to reduce the deep space probe strength? 
|
Zex Maxwell
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:45:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Miss Moonwych
...excel sheet...
The Excel sheet only has stats if you have only the faction launcher, But there are faction probes as well.
---
|
explodinator
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 01:28:00 -
[50]
Edited by: explodinator on 30/03/2009 01:28:33
I updated the spreadsheet:
http://www.sendspace.com/file/x9vdsg
It takes the 75% Deep Space probe nerf, and has an option for those using Sisters Core Probes.
The numbers seem to work, I'm fairly sure I did it right.
|
Swifties
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 20:28:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Rogaru
Does anyone know a list for 'target size'?
i.e. is 1.25 radar sites, 2.5 Mag sites etc etc?
This.
Its probably me but the thing I dont get in the excel file is the 'target size'. Is this the sig radius of the site? What site/WH has which target size?? Besides, after filling in the data I get a strenght multiplier of 2.3716. With this the lowest possible % in the table below is 0.23% now (deep space at 256 AU on a 1.25 target size). If some WH's are 0.16%, then how iam i supposed to find these?
Sry again, but what am I missing here?
|
Akuma Kanya
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 17:40:00 -
[52]
bump?
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
|
Posted - 2009.06.05 07:24:00 -
[53]
This thread is out-farging-standing.
|
Reef Skywalker
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 18:42:00 -
[54]
Great thread. Really.
The one thing I miss is the list of site names and their signal strengths. Has anyone seen such a thing somewhere? I have tried googling but I haven't found it. It may be that noone did such a list yet, though.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |