| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Henry Loenwind
   |
Posted - 2007.12.18 18:23:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Henry Loenwind on 18/12/2007 18:55:20
 Originally by: Macdeth
Fuel is as of the stateTimestamp field found for that starbase's itemID in StarbaseList. Starbases apparently don't update their status in the database very often if nobody hangs out near them. It sucks, but that's the way eve stores it and we just have to deal with it. (Per Garthagk on #eve-dev IRC)
Let's see. I just pulled the data for one of my POSes:
online: 16:32:42 (I'd expect fuel to be consumed every two hours at this time)
state: 18:36:09 (That's in the future? And it's accross the consuming time.)
cachedUntil: 00:12:36 (6 hours from now)
Then I logged in and found that the fuel amount there matched the amount the API gave me. I'll check again after 18:32:42, that's when I expect the POS to consume. If it does, then the state timestamp would be NOT the timestamp for the fuel.
So, let's see in 10 minutes...
---
15 minutes later:
The POS consumed its fuel ingame at 18:36. Now that is just great. So the stateTimestamp seems to give the next time the POS will consume its fuel---but the fuel value is that of "now", of before the timestamp?
I could now calculate the fuel levels as values_from_api at stateTimestamp minus size_of_pos hours. But:
I called the PosList at 18:04, then PosList and PosDetails together at 18:12. The second tme I got (as expected) a cached version of the PosList, but a fresh version of the PosDetails. So if I'd taken the data I got at 18:12 and calculated the fuel levels for the POS that cycles at 18:07, I would have calculated garbage.
So again, fuel levels using the "values_from_api at stateTimestamp minus size_of_pos hours"-method are only usable if they have not ben cached. But---if they have not been cached, I could just use the currentTS and be done.
I'm back at cachedUntil minus 6 hours. That one is still the safest to use. 
PS: Thank you Macdeth.
|
Macdeth
Ephemeral Misgivings
|
Posted - 2007.12.18 19:51:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Henry Loenwind
state: 18:36:09 (That's in the future? And it's accross the consuming time.)
Yeah, we encountered that 'stateTimestamp actually end of period' thing between when I posted and now.
It seems the best way to go about this is to just poll everything at regular intervals and then allow users to mark a tower as 'fueled since last update' to knock it off the priority list for a few hours, though that means the users have to be trusted (which hopefully they are if they have starbase config/fuel tech anyway) and not lazy (ugh).
|
0rlin
|
Posted - 2007.12.19 01:04:00 -
[33]
Originally by: CCP Garthagk
I'm working on documentation today/tomorrow so hopefully this will all become more clear.
I am still looking for them :) |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |