More precision in align time tooltip

[atwardowski]

No description provided.

[blitzmann]

Thanks! Never noticed that the label gives better precision than the tooltip

[blitzmann]

Actually, had a closer look and I misread the precision. 10 digits is a bit excessive. I'm going to roll it down to 3 so that it gives more accurate readings than the label, however usefulness beyond 3 digits is up for debate. =)

[atwardowski]

Well, I've had fits that were at 1.9996s, then you fit a module and the mass increase bumps it up to 2.001 or something. The real issue is that it's important to know if the un-rounded value is over or under the second mark so you know if it's going to take 2 or 3 server ticks to initiate warp. If you look at EFT they have separate align time and warp time indicators. On a side note EFT doesn't seem to include module mass in it's align calculations.

[cncfanatics]

Wouldn't always rounding down at 3 digits be a fair solution to this ?

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Adam Twardowski
notifications@github.comwrote:

Well, I've had fits that were at 1.9996s, then you fit a module and the
mass increase bumps it up to 2.001 or something. The real issue is that
it's important to know if the un-rounded value is over or under the second
mark so you know if it's going to take 2 or 3 server ticks to initiate
warp. If you look at EFT they have separate align time and warp time
indicators. On a side note EFT doesn't seem to include module mass in it's
align calculations.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/65#issuecomment-38652109
.

[DarkFenX]

I do not agree with excessive precision. I think eft-style approach is better. Maths behind this is pretty simple:

https://github.com/DarkFenX/Eos/blob/master/fit/stat_tracker/tracker.py#L274

So you just need an idea on how to show it in UI

On a side note EFT doesn't seem to include module mass in it's align calculations.

Probably it's just mass added by mwd/ab. I do not think it is possible to do it in pyfa at the moment, because it will need to recalculate whole fit twice to show just this number. It might be possible in future though.

[atwardowski]

Yep, always rounding up is one solution, getting the ceiling is probably the best.

I wasn't talking about MWD/AB. When you add something like an armor plate and to a lesser extent various other modules it will increase the mass of your ship, which affects your align time. If your fit is very close to the 2s mark and you add some small module it can push your mass just high enough to move you into a 3s warp time. EFT wasn't taking this into account for me, but I think PyFa's numbers are already correct, so it's not really an issue here.

[DarkFenX]

I thought you wanted pyfa to ignore mwd/ab for align time calculations because they're almost always disabled when aligning. Imo it's good idea and makes sense (if separate factors are shown for agility and real align time in ticks/seconds), but it's not realistic in current pyfa.

[atwardowski]

I'm confused. Can't you just click the MWD/AB on and off in PyFa to see the change in align time?

[DarkFenX]

Yes you can. But ideally align time indicator should be always shown like you have mwd/ab off, while agility factor indicator should take it into consideration.

[blitzmann]

I disagree. I think that align time should show just that: time it takes to align with the current active modules. I think it's a bad idea to make exceptions to this rule.

Now, I think it might be a good idea to show that info in a tooltip. Something like:

• align time w/o active mods
• align time w/ active mods
• server tick time

[DarkFenX]

I wrote this with assumption that you never align from 0 speed with prop modules active (and if you align when you have movement vector, then this number doesn't have any sense). The only use-case when you want to know 'align time' with propmod active is when you want to know if you can warp using single ab/mwd (heated/unheated) cycle, it also could be good idea to show imo. This is all arguable though, just my 2 cents.

Agility factor is separate number and it should always take into consideration actual state of all modules.