Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: SCBs Recharge Value

  1. #1

    SCBs Recharge Value



    Tolerance: ±1%
    Tester: CMDR Pale Night & CMDR JudyWei

    Please contact me if you found any mistake or weird value.

  2. #2
    Nice work
    I fire off 2x 4As at once, so it's nice to see how much I actually restore... 310! Wooh.

  3. #3
    Good work. Thank you +1

  4. #4
    Awesome, thank you.
    I always thought the Bs are better and because of their extra charge that makes the overall "healing strength" higher, but it's nice to see some numbers and have it confirmed.

  5. #5
    Based on previous SCB values and your data, it seems that there is a consistent Multiplier based on Rating:



    Rating A B C D E
    Multiplier 2.3333 2 1.6666 1.3333 1

    I've gone through you number and have done some tweaking:

    https://docs.google.com/a/mcleod.eu/...it?usp=sharing

    The numbers are almost certainly rounded to whole numbers. The tweaked numbers follow the multiplier pattern and match the test data pretty closely.

    You said your margin for error is ±1%. How did you determine that level of accuracy? Were the shield strength values pulled from the in-game values? (these are the most accurate, but are also rounded to whole numbers).

    I'll be updating Coriolis.io with the tweaked values after some further testing and investigation.

  6. #6
    Google Spreadsheet

    Potential corrected values:
    Name:  Screen Shot 2016-02-24 at 11.15.42 AM.png
Views: 128
Size:  166.9 KB


    Do you think the actual values are closer to the 'rounded to nearest integer' or 'rounded to nearest 5'?

    Feedback, even anecdotal evidence much appreciated!

  7. #7
    Excellent work. 8B master race!

  8. #8
    Great work, thanks!

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by cmmcleod View Post (Source)
    Google SpreadsheetPotential corrected values:
    Name:  Screen Shot 2016-02-24 at 11.15.42 AM.png
Views: 128
Size:  166.9 KB
    Do you think the actual values are closer to the 'rounded to nearest integer' or 'rounded to nearest 5'?Feedback, even anecdotal evidence much appreciated!
    As a user of this kind of data I think the rounded to nearest 5 is good enough. It lets me know close enough what I need to know to decide if I'm getting enough oomph from that particular class/rating or not.
    Elite-Tycoon-Elite-Amateur
    Rear Admiral-Duke




  10. #10
    Matches up pretty nicely with my data from beta

  11. #11
    Originally Posted by cmmcleod View Post (Source)
    Based on previous SCB values and your data, it seems that there is a consistent Multiplier based on Rating:
    You said your margin for error is ±1%. How did you determine that level of accuracy? Were the shield strength values pulled from the in-game values? (these are the most accurate, but are also rounded to whole numbers).
    https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=137188

    Before testing we choose the most minimum shield to match SCBs and check its value from the stored ships in shipyard.
    For example, we drive Sidewinder with 1A Prismatic shield generator (shield value = 60mj) to test 2A and 2B SCBs.

    During testing, we put 0 SYS PIPs and emptied the SYS capacitors. We checked each other's Shield % from the left panel Contacts list. We recorded the start shield % and end shield % before and after each Shield Cell Bank use. Then we converted the changed % into actual MJ.


    By the way, we would swap moudles to prevent overcharging.

    Originally Posted by cmmcleod View Post (Source)
    Do you think the actual values are closer to the 'rounded to nearest integer' or 'rounded to nearest 5'?
    'rounded to nearest integer' should be better.

    Your table is great!
    3D, 4E, 4D, 4C, 4B, 4A, 6E, 6D SCBs should be checked again, we may record their values incorrectly.