![]() Your suggestion has been locked, so can't post there. Still valid, since the tracking quality (rating?) figure is a conversion from the underlying formula. There's a visualized tracking formula suggestion I made two and a half years ago that never really went anywhere. Simply learn what works and doesn't work and use EFT for it if you have to, EFT really is the best program in this regard as it can simulate scenarios, where you can create "what if" situations so you can upfront figure out what works and doesn't work. Besides, the tracking is also dependant on sig radius vs turret size so it'll never be a straight on par number you might be able to compare in a useful manner. The numbers are far too unreadable and jump around way too much to be useful in everyday use. They're only useful if you're sniping at super extreme ranges or use a dreadnought or the likes. No, don't have tracking numbers on your overview. I mean the way they have it now is just totally ********. If they didn't like the aesthetic look of rads/s, fine, whatever I guess, but then change both the turret numbers AND the overview numbers so that they match to whatever aesthetic look they want. Well the problem is the fact that you have to do any mathematics or mental gymnastics at all - that's ********. My only gripe is the pointless 'multiply by 1000' factor because tracking of 40 or 300 is apparently more aesthetically pleasing than 0.04 or 0.3, even though the latter makes it quicker to calculate/see at a glance. I didn't like the change at first, but I think it's decent now. So that the numbers on the overview match the numbers on the turret tracking. If the 6 decimal places are an issue, then I would like the opportunity to make the angular velocity tab on overview show 1000*angular velocity, or even a customisable x*angular velocity. It's useful to theorycraft the best orbit distance to try and sit at, it's useful in-game to see if stuff is moving too fast in which case burn away, or if its moving slowly enough to stay there and brawl. Even expert types usually stuck to pyfa damage application charts instead of discussing the formula itself. I don't think it means much to people either way. I thought it was a way to normalize capital turret tracking and its six decimal place figures. Grigg Skjellerup Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 9 My only gripe is the pointless 'multiply by 1000' factor because tracking of 40 or 300 is apparently more aesthetically pleasing than 0.04 or 0.3, even though the latter makes it quicker to calculate/see at a glance.īeast of Revelations Hedion University Amarr Empire 83 That's the rule of thumb you want to start with, it obviously changes a little if the sig sizes aren't exactly 40/125/400. Multiply that by 3.2 (or divide original turret tracking by 100) and you'll hit battleships doing that many rad/s 50% of the time. Multiply by 3.2, you'll hit cruisers doing that many rad/s 50% of the time. Divide turret tracking by 1000, you'll hit frigates doing that many rad/s 50% of the time. Care to explain or point me to a link? Thanks. a ship on my overview seems extremely 'hit-able' yet I cannot hit it. Admittedly I don't know what I'm doing, but there seems to be a discrepancy between the advertised 'tracking' on my turrets, and the angular velocity for ships on my overview (expressed in radians/s).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |