Author Topic: Best coverage of dsts?  (Read 2925 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Garfunkel (OP)

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2787
  • Thanked: 1051 times
Best coverage of dsts?
« on: April 11, 2013, 03:39:23 PM »
I remember there being a thread about this, so I searched for it and found an old one, discussing 5.60, where it was concluded that it was more beneficial to concentrate all your deep space tracking stations on a single body, instead of having several smaller listening posts across a system. But, that was due to a bug that Steve later said, in another thread, to have been fixed for 6.00

So, has anyone done the math and do DSTS strength now grow linearly, so that there's a game mechanic reason for me plod down listening posts all over the system and not just because of RP?
 

Offline Nightstar

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • N
  • Posts: 263
Re: Best coverage of dsts?
« Reply #1 on: April 11, 2013, 03:50:12 PM »
Coverage area should still grow as the square of tracking stations on one rock. Ideally, you'd want stations next to your JPs, but without turning of orbits, that's not feasible.
 

Offline Bgreman

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 213
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Best coverage of dsts?
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2013, 12:03:58 PM »
As I've posted (and Steve has confirmed), that isn't true.  The range of the DSTS on a body is given by:

Detection range = DSTS Tech * Number of DSTS * Target Signature.

In 5.6, this is the actual detection code running, but the code used to display passive sensor range rings on bodies uses the old exponential-based routine.  This means a mismatch between where detection actually happens and where the range rings say it should happen (typically an undershoot up to some number N of DSTS on a body, and then a rapidly growing overshoot).

In 6.0+, both actual detection range and displayed detection range should be using the proper linear formula, not the square and not the exp().
 

Offline Charlie Beeler

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Best coverage of dsts?
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2013, 12:23:08 PM »
Additional data to consider.

That is the formula for passive detection.  Both Thermal and EM use it which is why DSTS uses it.  DSTS is just a combined Thermal/EM sensor installation.
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5656
  • Thanked: 366 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Best coverage of dsts?
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2013, 12:54:11 PM »
Coverage area should still grow as the square of tracking stations on one rock. Ideally, you'd want stations next to your JPs, but without turning of orbits, that's not feasible.

Asteroids. Their orbital motion is off by default.

Offline Nightstar

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • N
  • Posts: 263
Re: Best coverage of dsts?
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2013, 01:04:36 PM »
Yeah, but that's a processing issue. I consider taking advantage of it cheating.
 

Offline AbuDhabi

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 104
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Best coverage of dsts?
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2013, 12:04:14 PM »
Quote from: Bgreman link=topic=6081. msg62454#msg62454 date=1366045438
As I've posted (and Steve has confirmed), that isn't true.   The range of the DSTS on a body is given by:

Detection range = DSTS Tech * Number of DSTS * Target Signature.

Is that in km? kkm? mkm?
 

Offline gharad

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • g
  • Posts: 9
Re: Best coverage of dsts?
« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2013, 06:41:41 PM »
Quote from: Nightstar link=topic=6081. msg62458#msg62458 date=1366049076
Yeah, but that's a processing issue.  I consider taking advantage of it cheating.

On the other hand. . . jump points are found by surveying gravitational anomalies.  Shouldn't they be in movement as well, since the movement of planets in the system alters the gradient of the gravitational field?
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2005
  • Thanked: 134 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: Best coverage of dsts?
« Reply #8 on: September 20, 2013, 01:26:20 AM »
Technically it's still better to have all your dsts on one body, since even with linear you get better coverage area by having all your eggs in one basket.
But for roleplay/redundancy purposes i usually have perhaps 1/3 of my dsts on smaller more strategically located rocks.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2837
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: Best coverage of dsts?
« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2013, 01:36:17 PM »
I usually limit myself to maximum five tracking stations on any one place for just this reason.

In my opinion all sensors in the game should have a diminishing range due to strength. It does not have to be 100% realistic, just to curb the use of one super strong sensor in once place. There are the same problems with sensors on ships.
 

Offline AbuDhabi

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 104
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Best coverage of dsts?
« Reply #10 on: September 20, 2013, 05:01:21 PM »
Suppose you have the Sol system and you want to make sure that if a ship above fighter size comes into the system without your invitation, you will notice, how much DSTS strength do you need?
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2005
  • Thanked: 134 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: Best coverage of dsts?
« Reply #11 on: September 21, 2013, 07:48:32 AM »
Hmm, in one game I'm playing earth has 15 dsts with strength of 4500, which can detect a strength 100 thermal contact (one of my fighters which goes 10,000 km/s) at a range of 450 million kilometers, also none of my fighters have any em emissions.
Now, if you needed to detect such a contact as far out as Neptune you would need 4.5 billion kilometers range, which would require a strength 4.5 million dsts, which with my technology would need 15,000 dsts.
You'll need 2,250,000 Duranium and Uridium to build them, but on the bright side they require no population to operate.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2013, 06:51:36 AM by MarcAFK »
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline AbuDhabi

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 104
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Best coverage of dsts?
« Reply #12 on: September 21, 2013, 10:40:39 AM »
So, by analogy, a strength 1000 thermal contact would require merely 1500 DSTS at that range?
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2005
  • Thanked: 134 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: Best coverage of dsts?
« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2013, 01:05:48 AM »
I seem to have badly screwed up that calculation.
Edit: I think you would need only 150 dsts to detect the fighter at neptune, and the 15 I already have should be able to detect a 1000 strength contact at neptune.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2013, 01:09:22 AM by MarcAFK »
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline AbuDhabi

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 104
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Best coverage of dsts?
« Reply #14 on: September 22, 2013, 01:31:47 PM »
That's great! Thanks!