The first two charts are based on "low" damage targets. That means that for example you often don't need more than 2 of the heavier ballistics to achieve the goal. The damage figure I would consider kinda realistic, the drawback is that the ballistic builds here usually have a lot of "waste" dissipation or heat capacity left over, meaning if these were mech builds, you could easily upgrade their damage output by adding a lighht energy weapon or maybe even a SRM.
For the number of heat sinks, it matters mostly how many weapons you have, and how long they are supposed to fire. The longer, the more sinks you tend to need. How many weapons you fire depends on what I call "damage volume"), basically - how much damage do I want the setup to deal at a minimum in the targeted time frame.
For ammo consumption, I need not just to consider how much ammo a weapon needs in one targeted engagement time frame, but also how many I expect to have. I describe this as the frequency. I tend to assume that if you have a high damage volume, you don't need quite such a high frequency - there are only 8 enemy mechs to kill, after all.
Chart 1 - Single Heat Sinks, Low Damage Volume, High Frequency
The first chart describes damage to tonnage efficiency based on single heat sinks (with 10 "free" engine heat sinks).
http://i883.photobuc...Frequency01.png
![Posted Image](http://i883.photobucket.com/albums/ac32/Mustrum_Ridcully/MWO-TETChartSHSLowVolumeHighFrequency01.png)
Chart 2 - Double Heat Sinks, Low Damage Volume, High Frequency
The second chart describes damage to tonnage efficiency based on double heat sinks (again with 10 "free" engine double heat sinks.)
http://i883.photobuc...Frequency01.png
![Posted Image](http://i883.photobucket.com/albums/ac32/Mustrum_Ridcully/MWO-TETChartDHSLowVolumeHighFrequency01.png)
Chart 3 - Single Heat Sinks, High Damage Volume, Low Frequency
The third chart describes damage to tonnage efficiency based on single heat sinks (with 10 "free" engine heat sinks), but this time, the damage requirements have been doubled. (Which means that at least starting at the 20 second duration mark, even most ballistics need to add a few heat sinks and it would no longer be feasible to add a medium laser or small laser to the build without negatively affecting its endurance.)
http://i883.photobuc...Frequency01.png
![Posted Image](http://i883.photobucket.com/albums/ac32/Mustrum_Ridcully/MWO-TETChartSHSHighVolumeLowFrequency01.png)
Chart 4 - Double Sinks, High Damage Volume, Low Frequency
The third chart describes damage to tonnage efficiency based on double heat sinks (with 10 "free" engine heat sinks), but this time, the damage requirements have been doubled. (Which means that at least starting at the 20 second duration mark, even most ballistics need to add a few heat sinks and it would no longer be feasible to add a medium laser or small laser to the build without negatively affecting its endurance.)
http://i883.photobuc...Frequency01.png
![Posted Image](http://i883.photobucket.com/albums/ac32/Mustrum_Ridcully/MWO-TETChartDHSHighVolumeLowFrequency01.png)
Additional Notes: I did observe some errors in the first chart I uploaded in this thread. I did calculate damage and heat inconsistently, and have fixed this now. (On the one side, I calculated the damage the weapon could deal if fired continuously, but the heat was based only on the amount of shots needed to achieve the minimum damage, regardless of the length of the time frame. I caught this as I was investigated another error that cropped up in the expansion of the sheets to account for more TET variations in parallel, which lead to bizarre results.)