You are not logged in. Please login or register.
20+ hour sap timer? Bug or changed? Was verified by 2 different people, both with 100% accuracy, and both got different times.
http://clip2net.com/s/5ppDEa
http://clip2net.com/s/5ppHJR
This is not a bug, intrusion time generation has been stopped today for the time of the patch (10:00-18:00). Note: the patch is at 11:00 but obviously we have to avoid that an intrusion extends into the downtime.
And SAP scanning has a bit of inaccuracy even with 100% accuracy, this is intended.
And SAP scanning has a bit of inaccuracy even with 100% accuracy, this is intended.
this seems like a contradiction to me, if it has a little inaccuracy then wouldn't it not be 100% accuracy?
this seems like a contradiction to me, if it has a little inaccuracy then wouldn't it not be 100% accuracy?
That accuracy value belongs to the geoscanner module and it's also used for mineral and artifact scanning. It only shows the maximum accuracy that the module is capable of, but that doesn't mean that it has perfect accuracy at every type of application.
Martha Stuart wrote:this seems like a contradiction to me, if it has a little inaccuracy then wouldn't it not be 100% accuracy?
That accuracy value belongs to the geoscanner module and it's also used for mineral and artifact scanning. It only shows the maximum accuracy that the module is capable of, but that doesn't mean that it has perfect accuracy at every type of application.
GREAT MAKER THAT'S AN EPIC ANSWER ZOOM!!!!
Now I start to understand the roots of Hungarian Math (tm). For example, just imajine that your current robot speed only shows the maximum speed that your robot is capable of, but that doesn't mean it has the same speed at every direction of travel.
For the love of Gods, stop blowing our minds! 100% should be alwys 100%, otherwise it's not 100%. Reminds me that election in Russia, with 146% of total votes...
Geoscanner accuracy = Geoscanner base accuracy * (1 + ((Basic geochemistry extension * 0.045) + Robot bonus))
Geoscanner accuracy = Geoscanner base accuracy * (1 + ((Basic geochemistry extension * 0.045) + Robot bonus))
Whatever, but when you see total value (calculated by your formula) as 100%, you expect that the result accuracy will be 100% AND NOT LESSER
Doek wrote:Geoscanner accuracy = Geoscanner base accuracy * (1 + ((Basic geochemistry extension * 0.045) + Robot bonus))
Whatever, but when you see total value (calculated by your formula) as 100%, you expect that the result accuracy will be 100% AND NOT LESSER
that is true. also accuracy can be calculated with the charge. just as a miner shows (or should show) the yield bonus depending on the charge.
if intrusion charge has for example 5% inaccuracy then the info should show 95% insted of the 100% when its loaded into the scanner...
if intrusion charge has for example 5% inaccuracy then the info should show 95% insted of the 100% when its loaded into the scanner...
That would be a bad idea. Scanner accuracy is already capped at 100%, even though it could be higher than that with the right extension/module/robot combination. If we somehow managed to display that -5% in your example, people would think they can still increase it with eg. extensions, but that would have no effect -> waah waah, "give my EP back", etc.
sigh...
ok next try to make that obvious:
how about adding a additional line in info then.
scanner accuracy 100%
charge modification intrution: -5%
besides:
Each level of this extension raises the accuracy of [[Help:Geoscanning|area-based, tile-based and artifact scanning]] charges by an additional 4.5%.
no intrusion charges in the extention anyway... at least in the description.
Yeah I get your point, unfortunately the system doesn't work like that, the modification is not in the charge.
New type of scanner then 
Should be not that long to implement, and we can test those "New Tech" kernels system on it.
If I'm not mistaken, the directional scanner also has a default inaccuracy even on 100%, should we create a new module for that too?
If I'm not mistaken, the directional scanner also has a default inaccuracy even on 100%, should we create a new module for that too?
NOW YOU SEE WHERE IT LEADS!!!!
Perfect solution:
1. Get AVG of all types inaccuracy
2. Make it cap
3. Add in description/backstory/toilet paper/your heighbor's mom twitter few words about "some kind of electromagnetical underground anomalities that affect geoscanner"
4. ???
5. PROFIT
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 3 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
Generated in 0.089 seconds (93% PHP - 7% DB) with 21 queries
Copyright © Avatar Creations
