|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
oniplE
Point of No Return
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 17:47:00 -
[1]
Edited by: oniplE on 08/06/2009 17:47:49 Heat sinks are offlined modules that are supposed to divert heat from overloaded modules, making them last longer. The original dev blog by Oveur stating this, can be read here , it can also be read in the evelopedia here
But, if you check EFT you will see that it makes no difference whether you have an offlined module or an empty slot. Modules will not last longer.
Ofcourse we cant trust EFT completely so i decided to test it on the test server. And it turns out heat sinks really do nothing at all. I set up a Deimos and overloaded TWO heavy neutron blasters, with offlined medium nos modules around them.
Setup used:
[Deimos, Heat Test] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II
10MN MicroWarpdrive II Stasis Webifier II Warp Scrambler II
Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE
[empty rig slot] [empty rig slot] And obviously one setup with the offlined nos's removed.
Thermodynamics: level 4 Heat levels were always down to 0/0/0 when testing.
Results: With heatsinks: Average burn out time 177.8 seconds No heatsinks: Average burn out time 180.5 seconds (consistent with EFT numbers)
So there really is no difference at all between having heat sinks and not having them.
Is this a bug? Or are Evelopedia and Oveur (2007) wrong and was this feature never implemented? |
oniplE
Point of No Return
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 18:12:00 -
[2]
Edited by: oniplE on 08/06/2009 18:12:34 Yep. But for this test the lay out doesnt matter. I'm looking for a change in heat distribution when using heat sinks, there doesnt appear to be any. x |
oniplE
Point of No Return
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 18:21:00 -
[3]
Originally by: weazlor {HEATSINK}{HEATSINK}{BLASTER}{BLASTER}{HEATSINK}{HEATSINK}
Methinks the overheating blaster alongside is negating the heatsink.
Quote: You can thereby create buffers by slapping your favorite named/faction module between two Tech 1s
Have you tried just one heatsink on either side?
I doubt it will matter, my results are consistent with EFT numbers. EFT says there will be no difference.
BUT, will go test it right now to be sure :) x |
oniplE
Point of No Return
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 18:23:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Terry Dyne
Originally by: oniplE Edited by: oniplE on 08/06/2009 18:12:34 Yep. But for this test the lay out doesnt matter. I'm looking for a change in heat distribution when using heat sinks, there doesnt appear to be any.
Quote: heat damage spreads "sideways" from the overloaded module, not randomly in the rack.
It doesnt matter. The point is there is no difference between having heat sinks and NOT having them. There should be a difference even if the lay out isnt optimal, they should do something. x |
oniplE
Point of No Return
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 18:44:00 -
[5]
Edited by: oniplE on 08/06/2009 18:43:45
Originally by: weazlor were the blasters spread out in the non-heatsink test?
No. Exact same layout, except with 4 empty slots around them. x |
oniplE
Point of No Return
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 20:17:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Artassaut Edited by: Artassaut on 08/06/2009 20:09:11 Control-click the "Module active" mark, being either an X or a checkmark, in order to set it to be an offline heatsink.
You're welcome.
Might as well add: this is why people don't like EFT warriors.
Dont look like a fool and read the thread before you post something about EFT warriors. |
oniplE
Point of No Return
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 20:23:00 -
[7]
Re-tested ingame, now with electrons and a better heat distribution lay out.
New setup:
[Deimos, Heat test] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II
10MN MicroWarpdrive II Stasis Webifier II Warp Scrambler II
Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE Heavy Electron Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE Heavy Electron Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE
[empty rig slot] [empty rig slot] Again, the other setup has the Nos's removed.
Results With heatsinks: Average burn out time 197.9 seconds No heatsinks: Average burn out time 194 seconds
The results are pretty much the same. There is a small difference, but since heat damage is chance based and the difference is very small, there is NO significant difference between the two.
This 2nd test underlines the first conclusion, heat sinks dont work as described.
x |
oniplE
Point of No Return
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 10:21:00 -
[8]
Edited by: oniplE on 09/06/2009 10:24:48
Originally by: Cpt Gobla
Originally by: oniplE <snip>
The results are pretty much the same. There is a small difference, but since heat damage is chance based and the difference is very small, there is NO significant difference between the two.
This 2nd test underlines the first conclusion, heat sinks dont work as described.
How many tests did you run? IE on how many samples are your averages based.
If it's below 10 then you've statistically proven nothing at all save that heat damage is random.
18 tests, i have tested this before but never posted results. Results were similar. I can probably come up with a statistics test that can determine if there's a significant difference.
Originally by: CCP Fallout Moved to Ships and Modules.
I'm not sure how it belongs here, this is about a test on the test server. "Feedback and comments about testing on Singularity.", says the description of the test server forum, but ok.. might get some more exposure here :P
|
oniplE
Point of No Return
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 15:41:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Kar Anshral y'know that when heat got introduced Tux did a presentation at fanfest about where he said that offline modules are the same as an empty slot for the heat calculation. Why people have been using offline mods all the time, while they don't make a difference, idk.
This was probably before the Dev blog by Oveur which announced Heat improvements. So the options are a) It was never implemented and heat sinks are a myth b) It was implemented but it doesn't work.
It would be nice to have a Dev reply to this thread, i'm going to bug report this with a link to this thread to perhaps increase the chances of that happening. x |
oniplE
Point of No Return
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 09:55:00 -
[10]
Originally by: CCP Tuxford fixed the evelopedia. Now the op looks like a weirdo that can't read kekekeke!
got owned by Tux :( |
|
oniplE
Point of No Return
|
Posted - 2009.06.23 16:49:00 -
[11]
Edited by: oniplE on 23/06/2009 16:52:37
Originally by: Raimo
Originally by: Dr Fighter
Originally by: CHED lol at me and my corp and most of eve using off lined mods as heat sinks since heat came out, when its actually a load of ****.
sort of.
I think it works like this.
You have an empty slot and a offline module, being used to slow heat buildup, but the offline module has a chance of taking the heat dmg from that cycle where an empty slot would not.
Bolded the problem.
And hence my earlier post, I'd like to know facts...
According to my initial test results and the dev reply: an offlined module performs just as well as an empty slot. So there's no point in fitting an offlined mod for heat purposes, you're better off with an empty slot because you wont have to repair it afterwards.
Personally, i'd love to see offlined modules perform BETTER than empty slots. Repairing heat damage will cost more and you risk losing an extra module in pvp. In return you can overload your mods longer. |
oniplE
Point of No Return
|
Posted - 2009.06.23 22:38:00 -
[12]
Edited by: oniplE on 23/06/2009 22:38:12 It really is as simple as quoted above, an empty slot does EXACTLY the same as an offlined module. There is no difference in heat build up or damage distribution. |
|
|
|