open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Overloading: Heat sinks not working
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

oniplE
MeMento.
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?

Quixis
Posted - 2009.06.08 18:00:00 - [2]
 

I'm not sure about your figures, but wouldn't you get better heat distribution with it as follows?

Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M
Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE
Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M
Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE

oniplE
MeMento.
Posted - 2009.06.08 18:12:00 - [3]
 

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.

weazlor
Heroes.
Merciless.
Posted - 2009.06.08 18:19:00 - [4]
 

{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?

Terry Dyne
Posted - 2009.06.08 18:20:00 - [5]
 

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.

oniplE
MeMento.
Posted - 2009.06.08 18:21:00 - [6]
 

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 :)

oniplE
MeMento.
Posted - 2009.06.08 18:23:00 - [7]
 

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.

weazlor
Heroes.
Merciless.
Posted - 2009.06.08 18:28:00 - [8]
 

were the blasters spread out in the non-heatsink test?

oniplE
MeMento.
Posted - 2009.06.08 18:44:00 - [9]
 

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.

Artassaut
Minmatar
Shadow Striders
Property Management Solutions
Posted - 2009.06.08 20:06:00 - [10]
 

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.

oniplE
MeMento.
Posted - 2009.06.08 20:17:00 - [11]
 

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
MeMento.
Posted - 2009.06.08 20:23:00 - [12]
 

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.


Pvt Public7
Amarr
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2009.06.09 02:54:00 - [13]
 

CCP... lied?
ohnoes

CCP Fallout

Posted - 2009.06.09 09:59:00 - [14]
 

Moved to Ships and Modules.

SFX Bladerunner
Minmatar
Aperture Science inc.
Posted - 2009.06.09 10:03:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: CCP Fallout
Moved to Ships and Modules.


That's very nice and all.. but seeing as you were reading this anyway it wouldn't have hurt to comment on it concidering this seems to be quite a problemNeutral

Cpt Gobla
Blizzard Rejects
Posted - 2009.06.09 10:11:00 - [16]
 

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.

Kendon Riddick
Posted - 2009.06.09 10:15:00 - [17]
 

so what your saying is empty slots are almost as good as one with a heatsink offline module.

test this:

blaster - nothing - blaster - nothing
and then again with
blaster - heatsink - blaster - heatsink
and then again with
blaster - blaster (not overheated but online) - blaster - blaster (not overheated but online)

Would be good to get some better idea of exactly where modules are placed, with active and offline modules as heatsinks.

oniplE
MeMento.
Posted - 2009.06.09 10:21:00 - [18]
 

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


Kar Anshral
Posted - 2009.06.09 10:51:00 - [19]
 

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.

01shining01
Posted - 2009.06.09 10:59:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: 01shining01 on 09/06/2009 11:00:59
Originally by: oniplE
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.




first the heat sinks is only for the lazer - the magnetic is for the railgun and blaster - the gyrostab for the projectile.

why you put 4 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II ?

the first Magnetic Field Stabilizer II give you 10 % dps
2 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 5% bonus is penalized
3 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 2,5 % bonus is penalized
and 4 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II give you nothing because the penalization is maxed.

is better if you put 2 magnetic II and 2 hardener for more resist.

Pearre Dash
Posted - 2009.06.09 11:04:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Pearre Dash on 09/06/2009 11:05:52
Because it will make the guns cycle faster, which is what we want when testing to see how heat damage is distributed, you imbecile.

And that's totally not how stacking penalties go.

Omarvelous
Destry's Lounge
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2009.06.09 11:08:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: CCP Fallout
Moved to Ships and Modules.


The least you could have done is explain this topic a little more in depth. Sad

Shinnen
Caldari
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
The 0rphanage
Posted - 2009.06.09 11:08:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: 01shining01
Edited by: 01shining01 on 09/06/2009 11:00:59
Originally by: oniplE
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.




first the heat sinks is only for the lazer - the magnetic is for the railgun and blaster - the gyrostab for the projectile.

why you put 4 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II ?

the first Magnetic Field Stabilizer II give you 10 % dps
2 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 5% bonus is penalized
3 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 2,5 % bonus is penalized
and 4 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II give you nothing because the penalization is maxed.

is better if you put 2 magnetic II and 2 hardener for more resist.


LaughingLaughingLaughing

12/10 ! Well done xD

01shining01
Posted - 2009.06.09 11:10:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Pearre Dash
Edited by: Pearre Dash on 09/06/2009 11:05:52
you imbecile.




aheum...you learned courtesy ?


Steely Dhan
Perkone
Posted - 2009.06.09 12:32:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: 01shining01
Originally by: Pearre Dash
Edited by: Pearre Dash on 09/06/2009 11:05:52
you imbecile.




aheum...you learned courtesy ?


When he say's "heatsink" he is talking about modules used to absorb heat from overheating modules (guns in this case), not damage mod for lasers.


Thistle Hurte
Posted - 2009.06.09 12:40:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: 01shining01

first the heat sinks is only for the lazer - the magnetic is for the railgun and blaster - the gyrostab for the projectile.


Reading Comprehension FTL

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

Gartel Reiman
The Athiest Syndicate
Advocated Destruction
Posted - 2009.06.09 12:56:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: 01shining01
why you put 4 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II ?

the first Magnetic Field Stabilizer II give you 10 % dps
2 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 5% bonus is penalized
3 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 2,5 % bonus is penalized
and 4 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II give you nothing because the penalization is maxed.

That's not how the stacking penalty works or the base DPS bonus you get from a T2 MFS (1.1 / 0.895 => 22.9% increase). Neutral

oniplE
MeMento.
Posted - 2009.06.09 15:41:00 - [28]
 

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.

uzumoreru
Posted - 2009.06.09 15:45:00 - [29]
 

Can you also test with a full rack of electron blasters with only the middle 2 overloaded, with the rest of the modules firing/not firing, and see what that does to the time till burnout?

Droog 1
Posted - 2009.06.09 16:00:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Droog 1 on 09/06/2009 16:00:51
I'll be testing this later.


Pages: [1] 2 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only