183 replies to this topic

[Amaris the Usurper]

TL;DR: DHS included with the engine dissipate 0.2 heat/second instead of 0.14 heat/second (as stated in the patch notes). Other DHS (placed in engine slots or located outside the engine) dissipate 0.14 heat/second.

It has been stated by the devs that each single heat sink (SHS) dissipates 0.1 heat/second, and each double heat sink (DHS) dissipates 0.14 heat/second. The latter figure is 70% of the of 0.2 heat/second value that would be expected based on the "double" nomenclature.

Now, before the Nov. 6th patch, DHS were intended to dissipate 0.2 heat/second, but there was a bug that caused the HS included with the engine to behave as SHS (0.1 heat/second) and all others (both outside the engine and in the engine HS slots) to function as DHS (0.2 heat/second).

The new value of 0.14 heat/second was presumably chosen to keep energy boating from becoming too effective. Based on statements by the devs, one would expect this value to apply to all HS (whether included with the engine, placed in the engine heat sinks slots, or located outside the engine) once the DHS upgrade has been applied. However, this does not appear to be the case. In fact, the HS included with the engine appear to dissipate 0.2 heat/second, while those placed in the engine HS slots or located outside the engine dissipate 0.14 heat/second. This is certainly good news for those who like to run energy-heavy configurations, although it's not clear whether this mechanic is intentional but poorly communicated or merely a bug.

Justification

My testing methodology is based on two main assumptions. These are that

• firing a given weapon always generates the same amount of heat, and
  
• heat is dissipated at a constant rate by a given configuration (depending also on environmental factors, throttle setting, damage, etc.), i.e., the rate of heat dissipation does not depend on the heat level.

Provided that these are valid, we can measure the heat dissipation rate (in heat/second) of a given configuration by simply firing a bunch of weapons, adding up the total heat generated (found on Ohmwrecker's tables) and dividing by the time taken to dissipate this heat. In order to measure the time elapsed, starting with a 0% value on the heat scale, the procedure is to begin timing when the first weapon fires and stop timing when the heat scale returns to 0%. Also, the weapons must be fired in such a way that the heat scale remains above 0% for the entire test, so that the heat sinks are always working.

For a more detailed discussion, see my earlier post on the heat system: http://mwomercs.com/...-heat-mechanic/.

The experimental results follow. All tests were run on Forest Colony (regular) and River City (the heat-neutral maps). Medium lasers were the only weapons used; according to Ohmwrecker's tables, they produce 4 heat per shot. In the following, X+Y+Z means "X heat sinks included with the engine, Y heat sinks in the engine slots, and Z heat sinks outside the engine." First, I ran a test to verify that SHS dissipate 0.1 heat/second.

HBK-4G(F)
no unlocks, no upgrades, 200 standard engine
8+0+6
12 x 2 medium lasers: 70.8 seconds
12*2*4/(70.8*14) = 0.0969 heat/second per heat sink

This is very close to the expected 0.1 heat/second per heat sink. Next, I ran a test to verify that the Coolrun unlock increases the rate of heat dissipation by 7.5%.

CPLT-C1(F)
Coolrun, no upgrades, 260 standard engine
10+0+10
10 x 4 medium lasers: 76.8 seconds
10*4*4/(76.8*14*1.075) = 0.0969 heat/second per heat sink (corrected for Coolrun)

After we divide by the expected 1.075 multiplier, we get the same result as before, which probably isn't a coincidence. It looks like Coolrun works as expected. Also, given the consistency between these two more-or-less totally different tests, it looks like (for whatever reason) one SHS dissipates around 0.0969 heat/second instead of the stated 0.1, or else medium lasers generate around 4.13 heat instead of the stated 4, or both values are different than expected. In any case, we are dealing with the same "heat per laser" in each test, so we can just define the heat produced by a medium laser to be 4 (in some units that we make up) and state that one SHS dissipates 0.0969 of these units per second.

Now for the important (DHS-related) part. All of these tests were run on an Atlas.

AS7-D(F)
Coolrun, DHS, 300 standard engine
10+0+0
10 x 4 medium lasers: 76.8 seconds
10*4*4/(76.8*1.075) = 1.94 heat/second total (corrected for Coolrun)
10+2+0
13 x 4 medium lasers: 87.8 seconds
13*4*4/(87.8*1.075) = 2.20 heat/second total (corrected for Coolrun)
10+2+2
13 x 4 medium lasers: 78.2 seconds
13*4*4/(78.2*1.075) = 2.47 heat/second total (corrected for Coolrun)
10+2+4
14 x 4 medium lasers: 76.0 seconds
14*4*4/(76.0*1.075) = 2.74 heat/second total (corrected for Coolrun)
10+2+6
15 x 4 medium lasers: 74.1 seconds
15*4*4/(74.1*1.075) = 3.01 heat/second total (corrected for Coolrun)

Before interpreting the figures for total heat dissipation rate, we should scale them by the heat dissipation rate of a SHS (measured earlier to be 0.0969 heat/second) so that we can see how many effective SHS we are getting, regardless of whether a medium laser produces 4 heat (in absolute terms) or not. In other words, we should divide by 0.0969. The results are plotted below:



The theoretical prediction (in green) is for the mechanic described in the third paragraph, i.e.,

[effective SHS] = 2*[HS included with engine]+1.4*([HS placed in engine slots]+[HS located outside engine])

As you can see, the agreement is excellent. So far, I have not repeated this test with any other chassis. Your input would be appreciated.

Edited by Amaris the Usurper, 08 November 2012 - 05:02 PM.

[Kmieciu]

"PGI error in your favour. Collect your DHS today!"

So it seems PGI by error...did things right!

Double heatsinks outside the engine are indeed 1.4x ones:

<Module id="3000" name="[b]HeatSink_MkI[/b]" CType="CHeatSinkStats">
<ModuleStats slots="1" tons="1" health="10"/>
<Loc nameTag="@HeatSink_MkI" descTag="@HeatSink_MkI_desc" iconTag="3"/>
<HeatSinkStats [b]cooling="0.1"[/b] [b]heatbase="-1.0"[/b]/>
<EffectList>
<Effect name="SteamEffect" asset="mech_effects.heatsinks.steam_a"/>
</EffectList>
<Audio OnDestroyedDialogue="BB_Mech_HeatSink_Destroyed"/>
</Module>
<Module id="3001" name="[b]DoubleHeatSink_MkI"[/b] CType="CHeatSinkStats" DestroyedDialogue="BB_Mech_HeatSink_Destroyed">
<ModuleStats slots="3" tons="1" health="10"/>
<Loc nameTag="@DoubleHeatSink_MkI" descTag="@DoubleHeatSink_MkI_desc" iconTag="2"/>
<HeatSinkStats [b]cooling="0.14" heatbase="-1.4[/b]"/>

Edited by Kmieciu, 08 November 2012 - 03:50 AM.

[FiveDigits]

Nice job, both in testing and in finding the stats in the XML!

Now give us

<Module id="3000" name="HeatSink_MkI" CType="CHeatSinkStats">
<ModuleStats slots="1" tons="1" health="10"/>
<Loc nameTag="@HeatSink_MkI" descTag="@HeatSink_MkI_desc" iconTag="3"/>
<HeatSinkStats cooling="0.1" heatbase="-1.0"/>
<EffectList>
<Effect name="SteamEffect" asset="mech_effects.heatsinks.steam_a"/>
</EffectList>
<Audio OnDestroyedDialogue="BB_Mech_HeatSink_Destroyed"/>
</Module>
<Module id="3001" name="DoubleHeatSink_MkI" CType="CHeatSinkStats" DestroyedDialogue="BB_Mech_HeatSink_Destroyed">
<ModuleStats slots="3" tons="1" health="10"/>
<Loc nameTag="@DoubleHeatSink_MkI" descTag="@DoubleHeatSink_MkI_desc" iconTag="2"/>
<HeatSinkStats cooling="0.2" heatbase="-1.0"/>

please PGI!

[Leetskeet]

Random question.

Why didn't they leave engine heatsinks as singles to prevent the ability to simply pay 1.5m CB for a crit/weight free heat upgrade.... And then make the DHS outside the engine worth 2.5 or something?

Seems like the logical choice instead of this nonsense. But alas, many things seem logical to me that PGI tends to do the exact opposite of.

[Apoc1138]

I think they did add a heat bonus (or should that be detriment) for lasers boated on the same location, so this could be where your 0.969 figure is coming from... either that or the server / client relationship is adding some lag in to heat as well as everything else

interesting... this makes DHS' worth while

as you say it is either poorly communicated or a bug, I sincerely hope for one that it has just been poorly communicated as this makes DHS' viable

Leetskeet, on 08 November 2012 - 03:13 AM, said:

Random question.

Why didn't they leave engine heatsinks as singles to prevent the ability to simply pay 1.5m CB for a crit/weight free heat upgrade.... And then make the DHS outside the engine worth 2.5 or something?

Seems like the logical choice instead of this nonsense. But alas, many things seem logical to me that PGI tends to do the exact opposite of.

because using your method would still be a massive bonus for light mechs more so than any other mechs (who need more crits for bigger weapons)

Edited by Apoc1138, 08 November 2012 - 03:17 AM.

[Leetskeet]

Apoc1138, on 08 November 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

because using your method would still be a massive bonus for light mechs more so than any other mechs (who need more crits for bigger weapons)

Energy weapos only go up to 3 crits. And the only ones worth using in this game are two crits anyway. The builds that actually need DHS have plenty of room for them.

Why are you trying to use DHS with a AC20 in an Atlas anyway?

[FiveDigits]

Apoc1138, on 08 November 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

[...] this makes DHS' viable [...]

... for anybody with an engine rating <275 and few/no external HSs (Lights).
Albeit the mechs who would need effective DHSs the most, Heavies and Assaults with large energy weapons, the 1.4HSs provide too little return on investment.

A Double Heat Sink needs to dissipate twice as much heat as a Single Heat Sink. There is no way around it. The anti boating/alpha striking fix I suggested several times would be to only increase threshhold by one instead of two for DHS.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

I think in another related thread, there could be a huge compensator factor to balance out DHS and SHS so that actual 2.0 DHS do not remove the total need for heat management, and this was through the changing in how heat sinks affect the heat cap of mechs.

The simple premise was that engine heat sinks do no add to the heat cap, say given example base of 30.

Every single heat sink would add 1 to this cap threshold (heat containment of course adds X% to this cap)
Every Double heat sink, only adds .5 to this cap. However, due to the nature of DHS, its natural that most DHS built 'mechs are not going to have a large abundance of DHS on the 'mech due to lack of critical space.

The instance example I gave to help show how significant this was, is say I have a 'mech build, one utilizing true DHS and one with SHS. For this build, I also have no additional critical spaces available.

On the SHS build, I have 14 additional SHS, giving 24 heat per 10, 14 crits occupied and 14 tons dedicated. This brings the heat capacity up to 44.

On the DHS build, I have 4 additional DHS, giving 28 heat per 10, 12 crits occupied and 4 tons dedicated. This however despite the massive tonnage savings cuts my heat threashold down to a mere 32.

The advantage here gives a choice rather than a straight upgrade. While I do gain a very significant amount of tonnage and some cooling through DHS, I now have ~3/4 the heat capacity meaning I am more susceptible to overheating through alpha striking. DHS are still a very attractive alternative for smaller mechs, but for larger ones like an Awesome or Atlas that may have the tonange but not crits, could benefit much more from having an abundance of SHS to give them a much higher heat capacity.

At the same time, this allows the use of 1-2 ER weapons to be used effectively, but prevent say a 4 ERPPC awesome from constantly alpha striking. With DHS, it could fire that volley more often, but with SHS, it could afford to fire more alpha strikes in faster succession without hitting its capacity, therefore making a trade-off design that does not eliminate heat management but still sticks with the intended nature of DHS.

[Apoc1138]

Leetskeet, on 08 November 2012 - 03:25 AM, said:

Energy weapos only go up to 3 crits. And the only ones worth using in this game are two crits anyway. The builds that actually need DHS have plenty of room for them.

Why are you trying to use DHS with a AC20 in an Atlas anyway?

I've never used an AC/20... I have an idea on a PPC build and with all 1.4 DHS' its not viable, but with 2.0 EHS and 1.4 DHS I think it might be

FiveDigits, on 08 November 2012 - 03:25 AM, said:

... for anybody with an engine rating <275 and few/no external HSs (Lights).
Albeit the mechs who would need effective DHSs the most, Heavies and Assaults with large energy weapons, the 1.4HSs provide too little return on investment.

A Double Heat Sink needs to dissipate twice as much heat as a Single Heat Sink. There is no way around it. The anti boating/alpha striking fix I suggested several times would be to only increase threshhold by one instead of two for DHS.

this test above shows that engine sinks are running at 2.0... with a 40% gain on outside sinks as well... it's a helluva lot better than all sinks at 1.4 - it's the equivalent of all sinks running at about 1.7-1.8 which is what a lot of us were saying would be a better idea than 1.4 all round

basically it means my idea for a build has 36.8 of dissipation instead of 30.8 that I thought it had


I would much prefer all 2.0

at 1.4 all round I was ready to give up on large mechs all together and game the broken netcode in light mechs, or wait for another dual guass capable mech, but at 2.0 and 1.4 I'm ready to give it a go at least

Edited by Apoc1138, 08 November 2012 - 03:40 AM.

[Kmieciu]

Ok I found it:

  <UpgradeTypeList>
	<UpgradeType id="2810" name="StandardArmorType">
	  <Loc nameTag="@StandardArmorType" descTag="@StandardArmorType_desc" shortNameTag="@Standard" iconTag="21"/>
	  <UpgradeTypeStats type="0" slots="0" pointMultiplier="2" associatedItem="2800"/>
	</UpgradeType>
	<UpgradeType id="2811" name="FerroFibrousArmorType">
	  <Loc nameTag="@FerroFibrousType" descTag="@FerroFibrousType_desc" shortNameTag="@FerroFibrous_short" iconTag="16"/>
	  <UpgradeTypeStats type="0" slots="14" pointMultiplier="2.24" associatedItem="2801"/>
	</UpgradeType>
	<UpgradeType id="3100" name="StandardStructureType">
	  <Loc nameTag="@StandardStructureType" descTag="@StandardStructureType_desc" shortNameTag="@Standard" iconTag="18"/>
	  <UpgradeTypeStats type="1" slots="0" pointMultiplier="0.1" associatedItem="0"/>
	</UpgradeType>
	<UpgradeType id="3101" name="EndoSteelType">
	  <Loc nameTag="@EndoSteelType" descTag="@EndoSteelType_desc" shortNameTag="@EndoSteel_short" iconTag="17"/>
	  <UpgradeTypeStats type="1" slots="14" pointMultiplier="0.05" associatedItem="0"/>
	</UpgradeType>
	<UpgradeType id="3003" name="StandardHeatSinkType">
	  <Loc nameTag="@StandardHeatSinkType" descTag="@StandardHeatSinkType_desc" iconTag="20"/>
	  <UpgradeTypeStats type="2" slots="0" pointMultiplier="1.0" associatedItem="3000"/>
	</UpgradeType>
	<UpgradeType id="3002" name="DoubleHeatSinkType">
	  <Loc nameTag="@DoubleHeatSinkType" descTag="@DoubleHeatSinkType_desc" iconTag="19"/>
	  <UpgradeTypeStats type="2" slots="0" pointMultiplier="2.0" associatedItem="3001"/>

StandardHeatSinkType pointMultiplier="1.0"
DoubleHeatSinkType pointMultiplier="2.0"

Clearly, the guy that edits those files in PGI has no clue what he is doing. How can you frack up the same thing 2 times in a row? It`s not even about programming, it`s editing plain-text XML files.

BRYAN EKMAN tells us: you get double heat sinks, and we got single in the engine, double on the outside.
BRYAN EKMAN tells us: you get 1.4 heat sinks, and we get double in the engine, 1.4 on the outside.

Hey, PGI! Can I work for you? I can edit xml files and send them to you! I promise I`ll check them 3 times!

Edited by Kmieciu, 08 November 2012 - 03:52 AM.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

*shrugs* maybe it was intentional? I honestly can't tell anymore lol.

[Adrienne Vorton]

dunno...right now all my builds i tried work pretty good with the 1.4 value... my 2 er-ppc/ 2 mpulse catapult with 17 DHS works very well for example... i can shoot quite a lot, but still not spam them... feels right for me...

i actually don´t care much if ALL HS now are 1.4 or not... as long as it feels right during a match and neither UP nor OP, i am fine with the outcome...

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 08 November 2012 - 03:59 AM.

[Kmieciu]

mwhighlander, on 08 November 2012 - 03:55 AM, said:

*shrugs* maybe it was intentional? I honestly can't tell anymore lol.

Garth wrote, that with 2.0 DHS he could core an Altas in 3 seconds. Well, now anyone can get a Jenner with a 250 engine (10 heat sinks), upgrade them to doubles and test it for themselves.

Edited by Kmieciu, 08 November 2012 - 04:00 AM.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Kmieciu, on 08 November 2012 - 03:59 AM, said:

Garth wrote, that with 2.0 DHS he could core an Altas in 3 seconds. Well, now anyone can get a Jenner with a 250 engine (10 heat sinks), upgrade it to double heatsinks and test it for themselves.

I mean, ****. I don't think I can core an atlas in 3 seconds with my Dual AC20 Cat... I mean I can dish out 80 damage in that first 5 seconds of combat, but a fully armored Atlas has what? 112 pts on its CT, no?

Coring an Atlas in 3 seconds with a Jenner is either a vast over exaggeration or we're missing something from that statement.

[FiveDigits]

Intended or not, 1.4 anywhere is arbitrary and unneeded. Others already proved that 0.2 dissipation values would still overheat, say a 2 ER PPC build, quickly.

[Squid von Torgar]

Wow thats incredible. Seriously they did it again?

I even asked Bryan about this directly. Although he promised to get David (The guy who codes this stuff) to post a full explination, none has been seen as of yet. Perhaps thats why.

Note Bryan wasnt sure if both the HT and HPS values would change, which I find odd. It seems David is confused too.

http://mwomercs.com/...-the-new-patch/

This means that DHS benefit light/med mechs even more than they would at 1.4 across all sinks.

You need to submit this as a ticket.

Edited by Squid von Torgar, 08 November 2012 - 04:11 AM.

[Chemie]

Maybe it is all the LRMs right now, but I would have thought this would be real obvious for anyone who had 20 SHS and then upgrade to double and found they did not need any beyond the engine.....With 20 in the engine, most builds would need zero additional HS. Heck, even my Atlas would only need a few more to get to my current 24 SHS and I can do that in the external engine mounted ones.

[Adrienne Vorton]

FiveDigits, on 08 November 2012 - 04:02 AM, said:

Intended or not, 1.4 anywhere is arbitrary and unneeded. Others already proved that 0.2 dissipation values would still overheat, say a 2 ER PPC build, quickly.

i am currently running a dual ER-PPC/ dual mpulse catapult, with 7 additional DHS... i can maintain a pretty good fire rate... 5 single shots until i get to the warning, a few seconds to cooldown and keep on firing a few... with all 2.0 i won´t worry anymore... i am pretty happy with it now, and like i said, thats with "only" 17 dhs...

er-ppc´s are not a "spam" weapon, and they shouldn´t, but even with the current values, they are close to like i shot my largepulses before... with 24 singles...

with other words...yes i would quickly overheat with my 2 ERPPC...IF i spammed them like small lasers...

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 08 November 2012 - 04:27 AM.

[FiveDigits]

Adrienne Vorton, on 08 November 2012 - 04:21 AM, said:

i am currently running a dual PPC/ dual mpulse catapult, with 7 additional DHS... i can maintain a pretty good fire rate... 5 single shots until i get to the warning, a few seconds to cooldown and keep on firing a few... with all 2.0 i won´t worry anymore... i am pretty happy with it now, and like i said, thats with "only" 17 dhs...

er-ppc´s are not a "spam" weapon, and they shouldn´t, but even with the current values, they are close to like i shot my largepulses before... with 24 singles...

As it stands now, you have 29.8 SHS (10 * 2 + 7 * 1.4) equivalents instead of the 34 which true DHSs would give you. That is already pretty close. I doubt you'd get more than 6 shots off before the heat warning with 0.2 DHSs. I'd hardly call that "not worrying anymore".
Especially if you consider my suggestion of keeping the 1 heat thresshold increase of SHSs on DHSs for balancing reasons.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Would be funny if David did it on purpose...