No difference between basic discovery scanner and intermediate discovery scanner except for....

[shadowwar]

As an explorer/trader I saved up 505,000 credits to buy the Intermediate Discovery Scanner. Like a kid with a shiny new toy I bought it and took my ship out exploring again expecting wondrous things from my shiny new expensive discovery scanner. Guess what happened different from the basic scanner costing 1,000 credits. NOTHING! Apart from spending loads of hard earned cash on something that should make an explorers life easier and faster exploring systems was a waste of cash! So I sold it and bought my old 1,000 CR scanner back!

I used the money saved to buy some nice big guns!

 

[Somillian Hiigara]

It actually doubles your scan range, from 500ls to 1000ls. Still utterly pitiful amounts, the Intermediate really hasn't a reason to exist. Should at least make it 5000ls, if not 10k.

 

[VanQ]

Not true, the intermediate scanner has a range of about 1000ls, what is twice the range of the basic one.

ps. the advanced scanner is capable of scanning the WHOLE system at once (just to let you know...)


edit: ninja'd

 

[Bearded Rooster]

so price per Ls should be 252.5 times more to double your range? something doesn't seem right about that.

 

[SE-Apocalypse]

so price per Ls should be 252.5 times more to double your range? something doesn't seem right about that.

1000LS diameter sphere gives you 523,598,776 cubic LS covered. 500LS diameter gives you 65,449,847 cubic LS so it seems to be quite the upgrade, being literally 10 times better.

 

[Bearded Rooster]

1000LS diameter sphere gives you 523,598,776 cubic LS covered. 500LS diameter gives you 65,449,847 cubic LS so it seems to be quite the upgrade, being literally 10 times better.

your math is still wrong wouldn't that be 1000ls radius not diameter?

so with a 1000 ls radius(2000 ls diameter) your scanning zone is ~419,000,000,000 ls^3
with a 500 ls radius(1000ls diameter) your scanning zone is ~52,400,000,000 ls^3

now what we are concerned with is cost per scan range.

so with the first discovery scanner you have 52,400,000 ls^3/credit
with with the intermediate scanner you have 838,000 ls^3/credit

so yes with the intermediate scanner you have a huge difference in distance. but ls^3/credit is not as cost eficiant

WOOO!!!! I LOVE MATH!!!!

 

[Exeider]

your math is still wrong wouldn't that be 1000ls radius not diameter?

so with a 1000 ls radius(2000 ls diameter) your scanning zone is ~419,000,000,000 ls^3
with a 500 ls radius(1000ls diameter) your scanning zone is ~52,400,000,000 ls^3

now what we are concerned with is cost per scan range.

so with the first discovery scanner you have 52,400,000 ls^3/credit
with with the intermediate scanner you have 838,000 ls^3/credit

so yes with the intermediate scanner you have a huge difference in distance. but ls^3/credit is not as cost eficiant

WOOO!!!! I LOVE MATH!!!!

The scanning zone is a SPHERE not a CUBE.

So V= 4/3πr³

the Basic yields 5.24×10⁸ Ls³ which converts to ~524,000,000 Ls of volume
The Intermediate yields 4.19×10⁹ Ls³ which converts to ~4,190,000,000 Ls of volume

 

[Bearded Rooster]

The scanning zone is a SPHERE not a CUBE.

the volume of an object is still cubed despite how many sides it has

V(sphere)=(4/3)*pi*r^3

 

[Exeider]

the volume of an object is still cubed dispite how many sides it has

Spheres don't have sides and the cubed radius is plugged into the rest of the equation, which is (4/3) Pi TIMES the cubed radius. because you have to trim the area that the sphere doesn't cover in cubed area, which is almost tetrahedral shaped but with a curved bottom representing the circumference of the sphere

and it's despite btw.

 

[AndyC77]

Maths. That is all.

 

[Robert Maynard]

1000LS diameter sphere gives you 523,598,776 cubic LS covered. 500LS diameter gives you 65,449,847 cubic LS so it seems to be quite the upgrade, being literally 10 times better.

..... or exactly 8 times the volume (as doubling the diameter which is then cubed introduces a ratio between the volumes of 2^3).

Increasing the diameter by a factor of 8 would be about right for the ratio of costs.

 

[Bearded Rooster]

but of a sphere it's the cubed radius is plugged into the rest of the equation, which is (4/3) Pi TIMES the cubed radius.

and it's despite btw.

yes and when you write down your answer
ie. V=10 is incorrect because there is no unit of measure.
ie. V=10km^3 is correct because you have a unit that matches what you are trying to find

 

[Exeider]

yes and when you write down your answer
ie. V=10 is incorrect because there is no unit of measure.
ie. V=10km^3 is correct because you have a unit that matches what you are trying to find

I believe I did but thank you anyways.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

..... or exactly 8 times the volume (as doubling the diameter which is then cubed introduces a ratio between the volumes of 2^3).

Increasing the diameter by a factor of 8 would be about right for the ratio of costs.

Surely you jest. 1000 Cr to 505k, I don't think so.

 

[Jeffers]

I had a "doh!" moment with the discovery scanner.....
When you get to an unknown system the basic discovery scanner always picks up the star that you arrive at, yes? So I'm thinking "Oh, it works automatically when you arrive in the system" Time passes.....
I then start wondering why I never detect more than one object in a system. Check with forum. Find that scanner has to be activated, like a weapon. "DOH!"
All part of the wonderful learning curve that is E!
BTW, now invested in an advanced scanner for those exploration runs. Finding loads of stuff! Although I do find that if I've only got a very distant binary star in a system to look at I often don't bother.
Also, again after seeing it on the forum, I don't bother scanning asteroids as they're worth nothing.
But I'm still having fun!
Current project is a scanning run over to Lave, Diso etc to collect rares....

 

[Bearded Rooster]

looking at the math that i did you get more Volume/credit for the first scanner than the intermediate. but if you look at just sheer Volume then the intermediate is much better.

 

[Exeider]

your math is still wrong wouldn't that be 1000ls radius not diameter?

so with a 1000 ls radius(2000 ls diameter) your scanning zone is ~419,000,000,000 ls^3
with a 500 ls radius(1000ls diameter) your scanning zone is ~52,400,000,000 ls^3

now what we are concerned with is cost per scan range.

so with the first discovery scanner you have 52,400,000 ls^3/credit
with with the intermediate scanner you have 838,000 ls^3/credit

so yes with the intermediate scanner you have a huge difference in distance. but ls^3/credit is not as cost eficiant

WOOO!!!! I LOVE MATH!!!!

the number for the intermediate in your post has three extra 0's, while the basic has 2 extra zeros

intermediate is 10^9 not 10^11 as you have it written down.
basic is 10^8 not 10^10 as you have written down.

Did you copy zeros after the decimal by any chance? I think that's where the confusion is??
I've done that some times when I configured my calculator to have extra zeros after the decimal, and accidentally copy and pasted them as part of the main integer.

so I ask because I've done it too.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

looking at the math that i did you get more Volume/credit for the first scanner than the intermediate. but if you look at just sheer Volume then the intermediate is much better.

well the first one is free with every ship, so of course that statement holds true. Can't get better then free.

 

[Bearded Rooster]

the number for the intermediate in your post has three extra 0's, while the basic has 2 extra zeros

intermediate is 10^9 not 10^11 as you have it written down.
basic is 10^8 not 10^10 as you have written down.

Did you copy zeros after the decimal by any chance? I think that's where the confusion is??
I've done that some times when I configured my calculator to have extra zeros after the decimal, and accidentally copy and pasted them as part of the main integer.

so I ask because I've done it too.

yes, i hit the 0 key to many times. "doh!"

anyways new maths
the basic is as you say ~524,000,000 Ls^3
and the intermediate is as you say ~4,190,000,000 Ls^3

so going off of V/credit
the cost of the basic is 1000 credits so 524,000,000/1,000 = 524,000 ls^3/credit
the cost of intermediate is 500,000 so 4,190,000,000/500,000 = 8,380 ls^3/credit

so again there the volume of the intermediate is quite larger. but is far from cost effective

 

[Robert Maynard]

Surely you jest. 1000 Cr to 505k, I don't think so.

No jest - increasing the scanned diameter for the intermediate scanner by a factor of 8 would increase the scanned volume by a factor of 512 when compared to the basic scanner - so that would actually increase the number of cubic light-seconds scanned per credit for the intermediate scanner when compared to the basic scanner.

 

[GerminVermin]

so price per Ls should be 252.5 times more to double your range? something doesn't seem right about that.

Oh stop whining. It's not hard to make 500k. I threw the advanced scanner onto my ASP for 1,600,000 credits just to put something into the slot and I never use it.

 

[Zustiur]

The volume of a sphere may be a logical way to determine equivalency, but it does not reflect the usefulness in the game, nor would it in real space.
A very large portion of the sphere is irrelevant because planets always end up in a roughly flat plain.

2,000 or 3,000 would be more appropriate, but what I'd really like is for it to also increase the scan range (and speed!) for identifying objects.

Given knowledge of how E arranges systems, and of how (I like) to find distant suns, I'd probably make it something like:
Basic Scanner: 1,000 ls radius but otherwise exactly as it is now.
Intermediate: 10,000 ls radius (which is still not enough to detect a lot of secondary or tertiary stars, but should pick up nearly all local planets), scan time of object 1/3 faster, scan distance to object *3
Advanced: 100,000 ls radius (again, this wouldn't pick up ALL stars, but it would get most), scan time halved compared with basic, scan distance 5 * basic.

And then test and tweak until it feels right.

This would make exploring a bit more of an adventure, while helping to scale the speed/reward of exploring.
Exploring still needs other fixes of course:
Missions
Reward for identifying all objects in a system (10% bonus or something)
Increased reward for stars that are further from populated area
Increased reward for stars that have never been scanned before
Increased reward for

As it stands currently, the advanced scanner is sort of a handy-cap because it encourages you to go scanning distant stars and planets, which is slower than just hopping from system to system scanning stuff you can see from the nav point (usually within 500 ls!!)