Release coriolis help thread

there is a turret icon in the top right corner of the status screen,
and it looks ridiculous when outfitted.

here is a screenshot from earlier at the outfitting screen if you dont believe it:


RRFlak has no stat difference between the fixed and the turreted version either - its actually a pitty that the DEVs didn't keep that part to the other multicrew-only turrets :(

Thanks for the quick response! Will enter the data to coriolis now :)
 
Thanks for the quick response! Will enter the data to coriolis now :)
after beeing back into the station where i have stored them: there is ONE tiny difference between the turreted and the fixed version

Armor piercing
fixed: 80
turret: 70

although... that would only make a tiny difference when shooting at a type10, unless there is actually a point in having more pierce then the hardest hull in the game.
 
Large Plasma Chargers?

Hey guys! I'm trying to add Large (3C) Guardian Plasma Chargers to my build in coriolis, but I don't see them? Have they not been added yet?
 
after beeing back into the station where i have stored them: there is ONE tiny difference between the turreted and the fixed version

Armor piercing
fixed: 80
turret: 70

although... that would only make a tiny difference when shooting at a type10, unless there is actually a point in having more pierce then the hardest hull in the game.

Thanks for the corrected value; I have implemented this change. Afaik, there is no benefit from having a piercing value truly greater than the opponent's ship hardness.

Hey guys! I'm trying to add Large (3C) Guardian Plasma Chargers to my build in coriolis, but I don't see them? Have they not been added yet?

I just added all missing modules. They will soon be deployed to beta.coriolis.io and in a couple of days to coriolis.io :)
 
3C Plasma Charger numbers not quite right?

Hey! I tried out adding 3C Plasma Charger and it shows a power draw of 1.39, when the actual number I believe (from screenshot on this thread) is 3.10
 
Firstly, apologies if this is in the wrong thread, I didn't think I could start a new one in this forum (best to leave to the devs making these fantastic tools).

I have an issue with Coriolis.io displaying my Beluga when I open it via 'clicking through' from both my ship name in ED Market Connector and also EDDI (clicking on the export it button in the ship monitor menu). Both do exactly the same thing, even after clearing the cache.

The issue is with the Optional Internals. Despite having a 6B, 6C, 5D and 5E in the four restricted slots, whenever I click through, these show on Coriolis as empty and the all modules appear to have moved down (so a 4 shows with a 6B in it and the 3's show the 6C, 5D & 5E) I'm not sure if this is a web site issue or if its the apps (and it effects both identically).

https://imgur.com/a/8WFwTeL
 
There have been a few inaccuracies I've noticed, but the one that bothers me the most is the ship armour module.

The primary one I use is "Heavy Duty" w/Deep Plating, of which the hull boost of 42.56% is correct for the overall boost to the base equipped armour, but unfortunately Coriolis doesn't seem to use the right equation to get there.

For example for Lightweight alloys, the stock unmodified hull has a built in boost of +80%, so that the "base" unmodified hull is already being multiplied by 1.80. If I look at my AspX, the base factory lightweight alloys gives me 378 integrity, however this is the value that has already been boosted by 80%, and so the actual hull value is 210, since 210 * 1.80 = 378.

The way Coriolis appears to calculate the overall hull integrity for the above example is something like:
unmodified_hull_integrity * [ (1 + built_in_armour_boost) + (engineered_hull_boost * built_in_armour_boost) ]

In the AspX case with G5 Heavy Duty lightweight alloys w/ Deep Plating this would be:
210 * [ (1+0.80) + (0.4256 * 0.80) ] = 449.5 , which is what I get in Coriolis, but is the incorrect value for the game.

I should be getting a 42.56% increase to the overall hull:
unmodified_hull_integrity * (1 + built_in_armour_boost) * (1 + engineered_hull_boost)

Once again with the AspX:
210 * (1 + 0.80) * (1 + 0.4256) = 538.9 , this is the actual in game hull that I have, and so is the correct value.

key:
unmodified_hull_integrity = The hull value of the ship before the "Hull Boost" bonus on the chosen armour (a theoretical value, but used in armour calculations, remove the "Hull Boost" bonus to find this)
built_in_armour_boost = The "Hull Boost" attribute for a given armour type (eg Lightweight alloys +80%, Military Composites +250%)
engineered_hull_boost = The value in which the integrity of the base hull structure should be increased, eg if your hull is 100 and this bonus is 32%, then you should have 132 hull after this bonus)

After all that I wouldn't be surprised if I made an error(s) myself...it's a bit of a mess and the displayed values in game don't help you at all...I mean for example:
udaLEr4.png


What does 76.6% increase in hull boost value really mean? well not much at all unless you get out your calculator to work out that your final hull integrity will increase by 42.56% (G5 Heavy Duty + Deep Plating).

On another note Coriolis uses an Optimal Strength bonus of 22.5% for G5 Enhanced low power shields, which is far too high, and so should be a 15% bonus to the unmodified optimal strength, eg my 5C Bi-Weave shields have a base optimal strength of 90%, so increasing this by 15% gives 0.90 * 1.15 = 103.5%:
jXUeVM1.png

However after changing the Optimal strength from 22.5% to 15% it still seems to slightly overestimate the shield strength (only about 1MJ or so).

There are some other problems with the shield values, for example the resistances are incorrect as well since I'm using the "Fast Charge" mod, it seems to underestimate the penalty to Kinetic, Thermal and Explosive as well.
 
Last edited:
Firstly, apologies if this is in the wrong thread, I didn't think I could start a new one in this forum (best to leave to the devs making these fantastic tools).

I have an issue with Coriolis.io displaying my Beluga when I open it via 'clicking through' from both my ship name in ED Market Connector and also EDDI (clicking on the export it button in the ship monitor menu). Both do exactly the same thing, even after clearing the cache.

The issue is with the Optional Internals. Despite having a 6B, 6C, 5D and 5E in the four restricted slots, whenever I click through, these show on Coriolis as empty and the all modules appear to have moved down (so a 4 shows with a 6B in it and the 3's show the 6C, 5D & 5E) I'm not sure if this is a web site issue or if its the apps (and it effects both identically).

https://imgur.com/a/8WFwTeL

Thanks for the report, this problem is known and under investigation :)

There have been a few inaccuracies I've noticed, but the one that bothers me the most is the ship armour module.

The primary one I use is "Heavy Duty" w/Deep Plating, of which the hull boost of 42.56% is correct for the overall boost to the base equipped armour, but unfortunately Coriolis doesn't seem to use the right equation to get there.

For example for Lightweight alloys, the stock unmodified hull has a built in boost of +80%, so that the "base" unmodified hull is already being multiplied by 1.80. If I look at my AspX, the base factory lightweight alloys gives me 378 integrity, however this is the value that has already been boosted by 80%, and so the actual hull value is 210, since 210 * 1.80 = 378.

The way Coriolis appears to calculate the overall hull integrity for the above example is something like:
unmodified_hull_integrity * [ (1 + built_in_armour_boost) + (engineered_hull_boost * built_in_armour_boost) ]

In the AspX case with G5 Heavy Duty lightweight alloys w/ Deep Plating this would be:
210 * [ (1+0.80) + (0.4256 * 0.80) ] = 449.5 , which is what I get in Coriolis, but is the incorrect value for the game.

I should be getting a 42.56% increase to the overall hull:
unmodified_hull_integrity * (1 + built_in_armour_boost) * (1 + engineered_hull_boost)

Once again with the AspX:
210 * (1 + 0.80) * (1 + 0.4256) = 538.9 , this is the actual in game hull that I have, and so is the correct value.

key:
unmodified_hull_integrity = The hull value of the ship before the "Hull Boost" bonus on the chosen armour (a theoretical value, but used in armour calculations, remove the "Hull Boost" bonus to find this)
built_in_armour_boost = The "Hull Boost" attribute for a given armour type (eg Lightweight alloys +80%, Military Composites +250%)
engineered_hull_boost = The value in which the integrity of the base hull structure should be increased, eg if your hull is 100 and this bonus is 32%, then you should have 132 hull after this bonus)

After all that I wouldn't be surprised if I made an error(s) myself...it's a bit of a mess and the displayed values in game don't help you at all...I mean for example:


What does 76.6% increase in hull boost value really mean? well not much at all unless you get out your calculator to work out that your final hull integrity will increase by 42.56% (G5 Heavy Duty + Deep Plating).

On another note Coriolis uses an Optimal Strength bonus of 22.5% for G5 Enhanced low power shields, which is far too high, and so should be a 15% bonus to the unmodified optimal strength, eg my 5C Bi-Weave shields have a base optimal strength of 90%, so increasing this by 15% gives 0.90 * 1.15 = 103.5%:


However after changing the Optimal strength from 22.5% to 15% it still seems to slightly overestimate the shield strength (only about 1MJ or so).

There are some other problems with the shield values, for example the resistances are incorrect as well since I'm using the "Fast Charge" mod, it seems to underestimate the penalty to Kinetic, Thermal and Explosive as well.

Thanks for reporting the the wrong values for Enhanced Low Power Shields. I opened a new issue for this.

I wasn't quite able to get the point you were trying to make for the ship integrity part. Could you provide me with a coriolis build of your ship and screenshots of your defences in the info panel on he right hand side? That way we could compare values.
 
I wasn't quite able to get the point you were trying to make for the ship integrity part. Could you provide me with a coriolis build of your ship and screenshots of your defences in the info panel on he right hand side? That way we could compare values.

That's fine, it was pretty convoluted for me to get through, here are two examples:

Krait Mk II (I've used the default G5 Heavy Duty w/Deep Plating):
https://s.orbis.zone/8-y
Integrity: 471

VBbeLKV.png
Correct Integrity: 564.5


AspX lightweight alloys with G5 Heavy Duty & Deep Plating (The example I used in the previous post):
https://s.orbis.zone/8_5
Integrity: 450

c2a3SZQ.png
Correct integrity: 538.9

Hopefully that helps; for now I just end up modifying the values of Hull boost to 95.75 to get to the correct integrity (for lightweight alloys).

EDIT:Oh, sorry!, right hand panel:

Krait Mk 2:
FUy7G7j.png

AspX:
DtUA1vE.png
 
Last edited:
That's fine, it was pretty convoluted for me to get through, here are two examples:

Krait Mk II (I've used the default G5 Heavy Duty w/Deep Plating):
https://s.orbis.zone/8-y
Integrity: 471

Correct Integrity: 564.5


AspX lightweight alloys with G5 Heavy Duty & Deep Plating (The example I used in the previous post):
https://s.orbis.zone/8_5
Integrity: 450

Correct integrity: 538.9

Hopefully that helps; for now I just end up modifying the values of Hull boost to 95.75 to get to the correct integrity (for lightweight alloys).

EDIT:Oh, sorry!, right hand panel:

Krait Mk 2:


AspX:

Thanks for the report, I will put this under investigation!

If you want to stay up to date, you can find further details about the issue here: https://github.com/EDCD/coriolis/issues/358
However, I can't promise any date when we can come to this.
 
Not sure if this is the best place to put them, but here are some other little inaccuracies I've noticed.

I've put the actual module type next to them since those are the screenshots I've taken, but these errors also apply to different sizes and sometimes grades of modules (eg my 5D thrusters also have the same exact errors in coriolis as my 6A thrusters, or my 2B G5 Long Range Rails w/Plasma slug have the missing -10% damage penalty like the 2B G5 Lightweight rail guns).

6A Dirty G5 thrusters w/Drag Drives:
-Optimal mass: -10.00%, should be -12.50%
-Power Draw: 10.00%, should be 12.00%
-Thermal load: 65.00%, should be 76%

EDIT:The beta seems to have corrected Power Draw & Thermal Load for G5 Dirty Drives w/Drag Drives. The Optimal mass however is now -13.00%, which is a little lower than the actual value (-12.50%).
n1tPWKk.png


6C Bi-Weave Thermal resistant G5 w/Fast charge:
-Explosive resistance: -0.50%, should be -0.80%
-Kinetic resistance: -12.72%, should be -13.1%
-Thermal resistance: 59.4%, should be 59.1%
zKWtue1.png

2D HRP module G5 Heavy Duty w/Deep Plating:
-Resistances all 12.91%, should all be a bit higher at 13.2%
4ZM49l0.png

3C G5 Efficient beam lasers w/Thermal vent:
-Power Draw: -45%, should be -48%
-Thermal load: -50%, should be -60% since extra heat only happens when you miss (there is no passive penalty)
dyUixzP.png

2B G5 Lightweight Rail guns w/Plasma slug mod:
-Damage: 0%, should be a -10% penalty for plasma slug
xIaI4j9.png
 
Last edited:
something that i wanted to mention:
can you somehow not copy the FDEV insane obsession to have scrollbars where they are not necessary?

when i click on a module on coriolis, the dropdown is almost never long enough to show everything in it, despite my screen-resolution supporting much more.
and despite all the informations on screen, i don't seem to be able to find the "damage per shot". for that i always have to go over to EDSY

last but not least
there is a bug with coriolis that makes the page "crash" when the browser window is resized by windows' auto-snap (eg using Win+right)
 
can you somehow not copy the FDEV insane obsession to have scrollbars where they are not necessary?

when i click on a module on coriolis, the dropdown is almost never long enough to show everything in it, despite my screen-resolution supporting much more.

Agreed, I like coriolis a lot but this is my biggest annoyance with it, especially as a) the scroll bars are tiny and b) for modules in the bottom half of the screen I usually have to scroll down in the browser window in order to see the whole contents of the pulldown. I would prefer it if the module selection was the same as the game i.e. choose the module type first then the class etc. though I appreciate that some people would not like the extra click. Perhaps a compromise would be that the top of the dropdown is higher up the screen i.e. above the title bar of the module.

there is a bug with coriolis that makes the page "crash" when the browser window is resized by windows' auto-snap (eg using Win+right)
Not just auto-snap, I just resized the browser window from half-desktop size to maximised and it crashed with "ResizeObserver loop limit exceeded"
 
reagarding the scrolling - i like how EDSY's beta now lists ALL weapon stats of the selected weapon on the right side, without all those cryptic abbreviations
Coriolios on the other hand has the nice graph interpretation of some stats
 
Not sure if this is the best place to put them, but here are some other little inaccuracies I've noticed.

I've put the actual module type next to them since those are the screenshots I've taken, but these errors also apply to different sizes and sometimes grades of modules (eg my 5D thrusters also have the same exact errors in coriolis as my 6A thrusters, or my 2B G5 Long Range Rails w/Plasma slug have the missing -10% damage penalty like the 2B G5 Lightweight rail guns).

6A Dirty G5 thrusters w/Drag Drives:
-Optimal mass: -10.00%, should be -12.50%
-Power Draw: 10.00%, should be 12.00%
-Thermal load: 65.00%, should be 76%

EDIT:The beta seems to have corrected Power Draw & Thermal Load for G5 Dirty Drives w/Drag Drives. The Optimal mass however is now -13.00%, which is a little lower than the actual value (-12.50%).



6C Bi-Weave Thermal resistant G5 w/Fast charge:
-Explosive resistance: -0.50%, should be -0.80%
-Kinetic resistance: -12.72%, should be -13.1%
-Thermal resistance: 59.4%, should be 59.1%


2D HRP module G5 Heavy Duty w/Deep Plating:
-Resistances all 12.91%, should all be a bit higher at 13.2%


3C G5 Efficient beam lasers w/Thermal vent:
-Power Draw: -45%, should be -48%
-Thermal load: -50%, should be -60% since extra heat only happens when you miss (there is no passive penalty)


2B G5 Lightweight Rail guns w/Plasma slug mod:
-Damage: 0%, should be a -10% penalty for plasma slug

Thanks for the detailed report this was the right place and I will open an issue for these stats.

something that i wanted to mention:
can you somehow not copy the FDEV insane obsession to have scrollbars where they are not necessary?

when i click on a module on coriolis, the dropdown is almost never long enough to show everything in it, despite my screen-resolution supporting much more.
and despite all the informations on screen, i don't seem to be able to find the "damage per shot". for that i always have to go over to EDSY

last but not least
there is a bug with coriolis that makes the page "crash" when the browser window is resized by windows' auto-snap (eg using Win+right)

regarding scrollbars: I'll open an issue for this. Will discuss this with other developers.

regarding resize bug: I just fixed that bug some days ago. Fix is live on beta.

reagarding the scrolling - i like how EDSY's beta now lists ALL weapon stats of the selected weapon on the right side, without all those cryptic abbreviations
Coriolios on the other hand has the nice graph interpretation of some stats

I'm currently working on the details for weapons. I also prefer to have all stats listed and will try to work something out that better shows all the stats for a module.
 
I am happy to report that all builds which have been reported broken in this thread are now fixed and the fixes are live on beta :) However, you might need to re-roll some recipes for 100% for changes to take effect.
 
Back
Top Bottom