Yep, but if you have questions/suggestions/contributions related to edshipyard, please post in that thread. (I'd especially love to chat with someone who's done a lot with the engineers; I haven't had time to research it myself so for now I'm just going by what I can find screenshots for).
Coriolis.io - A new ship builder and comparison tool
- Thread starter cmmcleod
- Start date
-
- Tags
- necromancy
Hey first off, your app is awesome. I use it constantly. Just something I noticed. Was outfitting an anaconda today and put a size four, gimballed burst cannon on it. When I tried to match that on coriolis it did not have an option for a size four burst. Cheers. Also, for some reason lately I can't select all when transfer a load out to INARA it refuses to let me select all. That could be an iPad issue. Don't know. Cheers and thanks for the great work.
Deleted member 110222
D
As already mentioned in the thread, Coriolis seems like it has been abandoned.
Oh...
My best guess is that the Engineers patch made it much much harder to do a ship builder site. Perhaps the amount of work suddenly increased exponentially. Coriolis is still great for builds without Engineer mods, which is fine with me. Just hope that the small bugs will get corrected some time.
Here's a spreadsheet for the hardpoints cmmcleod if you ever come back to check the forums, maybe it is of use to you.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FqNfzIzA7f5e0M7xoxep-7MDpg0GrHnKm-fMhVnwSy4/edit
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FqNfzIzA7f5e0M7xoxep-7MDpg0GrHnKm-fMhVnwSy4/edit
I find Corolis to be invaluble.
Trying to calculate all the vagaries (to me) of the Engineer stuff in there sounds like a mind numbing task.
Trying to calculate all the vagaries (to me) of the Engineer stuff in there sounds like a mind numbing task.
Last edited:
It would just need to be applied how it is in the game. Each module slot would need a collapsible extention, with a drop down to select the type of modification, that allows the user to pull the siders about to whatever is showing in game. Perhaps with constraints matching the selected modification.
From there, it should really just be a straight multiplication of the base value. Granted, this would only allow exact build matching with the engineers screen up and the modification ready to apply. And weapons effects would be a ball ache I imagine. But you could test a full build and all possible minimum of maximum values for engineers.
Obviously, we would need the designer back for this to happen
It would be kind of neat if ED could export your current build to Corolis and EDShipyard.
Yes the information is in the game, I guess, but I find a Corolis type format much easier to see, understand, and plan.
Yes the information is in the game, I guess, but I find a Corolis type format much easier to see, understand, and plan.
It would just need to be applied how it is in the game. Each module slot would need a collapsible extention, with a drop down to select the type of modification, that allows the user to pull the siders about to whatever is showing in game. Perhaps with constraints matching the selected modification.
From there, it should really just be a straight multiplication of the base value. Granted, this would only allow exact build matching with the engineers screen up and the modification ready to apply. And weapons effects would be a ball ache I imagine. But you could test a full build and all possible minimum of maximum values for engineers.
Obviously, we would need the designer back for this to happen
And what's with all the secondary stats? Not even on inara is listed which secondary stats CAN happen and i'm not sure if someone even have made a list :/
Secondary modifiers can start to become really complex, adding to one metric and taking away from another in a single item. Secondary modifiers can also alter primary modifiers, for example:
Code:
"modifiers": [
{
"name": "mod_mass",
"value": 0.3515048623085,
"type": 1
},
{
"name": "mod_health",
"value": -0.17140263319016,
"type": 1
},
{
"name": "mod_passive_power",
"value": 0.187803581357,
"type": 1
},
{
"name": "mod_fsd_optimised_mass",
"value": 0.32478249073029,
"type": 1
},
{
"name": "mod_mass",
"value": -0.063738696277142,
"type": 2
},
{
"name": "mod_boot_time",
"value": -0.067926064133644,
"type": 2
},
{
"name": "trade_fsd_fuel_per_jump_fsd_heat",
"value": -0.045388575643301,
"type": 2
}
]One thing that would be *super* helpful for trying to support engineer mods is if you could provide your API exports just like this, but also tell us the actual final attribute values as displayed in the in-game outfitter (or just a screenshot of viewing the module in the outfitter, where it lists the modified attribute values). If we can get some good sample data we should be able to figure out how these modifiers stack, for example whether all the mod_mass modifiers are added together before being applied to the module base mass, or if they're stacked multiplicatively.
I will try to gather some data about this later this evening. If I can just remember...
Here is some data from the FSD in my Cutter
From the outfitting screen:
Code:
Attribute Unmodified Current
Mass: 80.00T 93.34T +16.7%
Integrity: 164 127 -22.3%
Power Draw: 0.90MW 1.11MW +23.5%
Optimised Mass: 2,700T 3,960.1T +46.7%
Thermal Load: 43.0/S 42.7/S -0.7%
Boot time: 10S
Max Fuel Per Jump: 12.80TFrom the relevant section of the full raw data generated by EDMC:
Code:
"FrameShiftDrive": {
"module": {
"ammo": {
"clip": null,
"hopper": null
},
"free": false,
"health": 1000000,
"id": 128064132,
"modifiers": {
"engineerID": 300100,
"id": 5279,
"modifiers": [
{
"name": "mod_mass",
"type": 1,
"value": 0.20000000298023
},
{
"name": "mod_health",
"type": 1,
"value": -0.22322452068329
},
{
"name": "mod_passive_power",
"type": 1,
"value": 0.23471972346306
},
{
"name": "mod_fsd_optimised_mass",
"type": 1,
"value": 0.46669977903366
},
{
"name": "mod_mass",
"type": 2,
"value": -0.027718868106604
},
{
"name": "mod_fsd_heat_rate",
"type": 2,
"value": -0.0069338977336884
}
],
"moduleTags": [
16
],
"recipeID": 128673694,
"slotIndex": 52
},
"name": "Int_Hyperdrive_Size7_Class5",
"on": true,
"priority": 0,
"recipeLevel": 5,
"recipeName": "FSD_LongRange",
"recipeValue": 0,
"unloaned": 46160201,
"value": 46160201
}
},Of course, I had to start playing with some numbers. I think that mod_health, mod_passive_power and mod_fsd_heat_rate are pretty self-explanatory. The only thing that is not clear are the 2 mod_mass entries in the XML.
So, I took 80 original tons for the mass of the FSD time 0.2 = 16. 80 + 16 = 96. Then, I took the mod_mass "type 2" and did 96 *0.0277 = 2.6592. 96 - 2.65 = 93.34. The same value that is reported for the new mass of the FSD.
For the power, the original value was 0.9. The mod_passive_power "type 1" is 0.2347. 0.9 * 0.2347 = 0.2112. 0.9 + 0.2112 = 1.1112 with is the actual power used by the FSD.
Optimized mass was originally 2,700 tons. 2700 * 0.4666 (mod_fsd_optimised_mass) = 1259.82. 2700 + 1259.82 = 3959.82 (rounded to 3960).
Integrity was originally 164. The mod_health of "type 1" is -0.2232. 164 * -0.2232 = 127.3952, the actual value for integrity.
It seems that the "type 1" mods are calculated first, then the "type 2" and, possibly the "type 3".
In any case, everything seems pretty obvious, at least for the FSD...
Trying the thrusters who had grade 1 dirty drive mod:
Code:
Attribute Unmodified Current
Integrity 120 117 -2.3%
Power Draw 8.10MW 8.22MW +1.4%
Optimal Mass 2520.0T 2488.6T -1.2%
Optimal Multiplier 100% 114% +14.2%
Thermal Load 1.3/S 1.7/S +33.0%
Minimum Mass: 1,244.3T
Maximum Mass: 3,732.9T
Minimum Multiplier: 98%
Maximum Multiplier: 121%Thrusters section from raw data XML:
Code:
"MainEngines": {
"module": {
"ammo": {
"clip": 0,
"hopper": 0
},
"free": false,
"health": 1000000,
"id": 128064099,
"modifiers": {
"engineerID": 300100,
"id": 5287,
"modifiers": [
{
"name": "mod_engine_mass_curve_multiplier",
"type": 1,
"value": 0.088761925697327
},
{
"name": "mod_engine_heat",
"type": 1,
"value": 0.18583719432354
},
{
"name": "mod_passive_power",
"type": 1,
"value": 0.014443615451455
},
{
"name": "mod_health",
"type": 1,
"value": -0.02332778647542
},
{
"name": "mod_engine_mass_curve",
"type": 1,
"value": -0.012463860213757
},
{
"name": "trade_engine_curve_mult_engine_heat",
"type": 2,
"value": 0.12129558622837
}
],
"moduleTags": [
17
],
"recipeID": 128673655,
"slotIndex": 51
},
"name": "Int_Engine_Size8_Class2",
"on": true,
"priority": 0,
"recipeLevel": 1,
"recipeName": "Engine_Dirty",
"recipeValue": 0,
"unloaned": 0,
"value": 5419550
}
},Starting with the mod_engine_mass_curve which seems to be the optimal mass. The original value was 2,520T. The modifier value is -0.012463860213757. 2520 * -0.012463860213757 = 2488.59 (rounded to 2,488.6).
Power draw: original was 8.1MW. The mod_passive_power is 0.01444. 8.1 * 0.01444 = 8.216964 (rounded to 8.22).
What I haven't been able to reverse-engineer is the mod_engine_mass_curve_multiplier. I've tried playing with it but I can't seem to bring the 100% to 114%... Maybe someone else will fill the blank here?
To be honest, if the mods were supported only for the FSD, that would be awesome. Or if we could support the new power requirements of upgraded modules, that would also be great. Because, I don't know about you, but, for me, the biggest problems right now for me with coriolis is that:
1. It cannot predict your jump range and jump distance
2. It cannot report the correct power consumption, which makes module priority useless.
Right now, I'm in my Cutter and have only the current thruster values. I did capture the attributes of my Corvette before doing the dirty drive mod but I can't switch to it at the moment because not enough cargo. Once I can switch to it, I just need to get the raw data from EDMC and then, maybe I'll be able to have a better idea about what the remaining thruster mod means and how it is applied. However, I can tell that from the screenshots I took before and after the thruster upgrade, there are a few values that have changed.
Last edited:
You know guys, I think we'll have to face the prospect that coriolis.io will never be updated again. I have a web server at home that could possibly host it but there are a few things that would need to be done, like configuring Apache to redirect requests to the correct site since I'm already using it for my own website. Plus, the hostname question...
Thought? Idea?
Thought? Idea?
Hosting it is trivial, heck the github even has the nginx config. I'd gladly host it and pay for a domain and I bet sites like Inara and EDDB etc. gladly would to, finding someone to host a fork isn't a problem. Forking it, updating the data and keeping it maintained, learning the code and maybe continue development, that's what needs doing and requires effort.
Artie on Inara has talked about maybe integrating it there too and seems to be in touch with mcleod.
