Laser overheating, yawn ;)

[m4r35n357]

Is it just me, or does the laser cut out when the temperature bar is well short of maximum . . . ? OK I'm probably not really losing any firing time, but it does look a bit odd once you notice it, and difficult to ignore from then on.

[Wildeblood]

Is it just me, or does the laser cut out when the temperature bar is well short of maximum . . . ? OK I'm probably not really losing any firing time, but it does look a bit odd once you notice it, and difficult to ignore from then on.

Yes, cuts out around 80%. Yes, looks wrong, and yes is difficult to ignore. Was it always like that, or is it a recent change?

[another_commander]

Somebody had asked the question back in March last year. The answer was:

The laser firing circuits cut-off shortly before the laser reaches meltdown temperature. This is why you don't see the bar reaching full length.

[Micha]

Hmm, ninja'd. And where is my post? This is the second time a post of mine has gone missing because others posted in the meantime.

[SandJ]

Hmm, ninja'd. And where is my post? This is the second time a post of mine has gone missing because others posted in the meantime.

The problem is that when someone posts before you, the buttons that come up suggesting you review what you've written are not logical and do not come up with what you think they say - I too have lost posts this way. I cannot remember the wording and location, but the default activity is to cancel your own post.

It is a feature of how phpBB is configured; it can be turned off. It is meant to prevent 500 people all answering the same question at the same time on really busy fora.

[m4r35n357]

Somebody had asked the question back in March last year. The answer was:

The laser firing circuits cut-off shortly before the laser reaches meltdown temperature. This is why you don't see the bar reaching full length.

Nice bit of handwavium Nothing in principle to stop the gauge indicating maximum at the cut-off point itself is there? Just seems like a waste of accuracy to me . . .
So is there something in the game core that makes this hard to fix?

[Eric Walch]

[Nice bit of handwavium Nothing in principle to stop the gauge indicating maximum at the cut-off point itself is there? Just seems like a waste of accuracy to me . . .
So is there something in the game core that makes this hard to fix?

You only need to fix stuff that is broken and this is not broken. When designing a laser there is always a small variation in specifications. To prevent the laser from burning completely you need a cut-off temperature were even bad maintained lasers stop when getting hot. Its for your own safety.

This safety is added in code with the lines:

Code: Select all

	if (weapon_temp / PLAYER_MAX_WEAPON_TEMP >= 0.85)
	{
		[self playWeaponOverheated];
		[UNIVERSE addMessage:DESC(@"weapon-overheat") forCount:3.0];
		return NO;
	}

I see no easy way to fix this without the risk of occasionally completely melting a laser. I assume this 15% safety margin was experimentally defined by aegidian and should not be tampered with.

[Wildeblood]

Code: Select all

	if (weapon_temp / PLAYER_MAX_WEAPON_TEMP >= 0.85)
	{
		[self playWeaponOverheated];
		[UNIVERSE addMessage:DESC(@"weapon-overheat") forCount:3.0];
		return NO;
	}

I see no easy way to fix this without the risk of occasionally completely melting a laser. I assume this 15% safety margin was experimentally defined by aegidian and should not be tampered with.

Perhaps, just maybe, as an experiment, that 0.85 could be changed to 0.9 so it wasn't quite so obvious? And, you know, if lots of people report melting lasers, it could be changed back to 0.85 in the next build.

[Micha]

It could be improved (pseudo-code-ish as I haven't had time to look at the code, but weapon_temp_per_shot must be retrievable from somewhere):

Code: Select all

if ( (weapon_temp + weapon_temp_per_shot) / PLAYER_MAX_WEAPON_TEMP >= 1.00 )
{
   /* Disable weapon */
}

[Eric Walch]

It could be improved (pseudo-code-ish as I haven't had time to look at the code, but weapon_temp_per_shot must be retrievable from somewhere):

For the military laser the heat-up per shot is 8. The highest heating up is the mining laser with 10 per shot. So when setting the cut-off at 85% the temperature can still raise to 94.999% after the shot. So the 15% safety margin is in fact only a 5% margin when anticipating on the shot that might follow.

[m4r35n357]

I see no easy way to fix this without the risk of occasionally completely melting a laser. I assume this 15% safety margin was experimentally defined by aegidian and should not be tampered with.

Having worked with lasers in the past I understand perfectly, I just think appealing to physics in Oolite is a bit like Godwin's law . . .
But I'll bite, I still think this is a display issue, the HUD could just display the 85% as 100%, ie. display_temp = weapon_temp / 0.85, no?

[cim]

But I'll bite, I still think this is a display issue, the HUD could just display the 85% as 100%, ie. display_temp = weapon_temp / 0.85, no?

The problem is that the weapon temperature can increase above 85% under normal operation because the check is for current temperature, not expected temperature after this shot. So if it was capped for display at 0.85, what would happen is that you would fire, the temperature would go red-full, and then it would stay there for a little while before starting to decrease again.

Whereas now, you can see the temperature decreasing back from (say) 92% towards 85%, and have a better idea of when your next shot will be available. That, I think, is better.

(There is perhaps a small display issue still: it should be possible for HUD manufacturers to put a little red line at the 85% mark of the laser temp gauge to make it clearer how close one is to the cut-out, if it's a problem)

[Cmdr James]

Of course changing the value from 0.85 to 0.9 makes all lasers, especially ones that heat up quick (i.e. military) 5% better. This could be significant for some things where the amount of killing a ship takes has been carefully worked out to require all four lasers to be maxed out.

It may also interfere with how NPC lasers compare with player lasers.

Overall I don't see why anyone would want this changed. I think the idea is clear, and its not exactly hard to manage laser temperature. Keep the laser cool and it works, use it in the red and it cuts out.

[SandJ]

Hmm, ninja'd. And where is my post? This is the second time a post of mine has gone missing because others posted in the meantime.

Just had it happen to me.

You do the post and the screen appears to have gone back to the discussion. But in normal sized text at the top it says:

At least one new post has been made to this topic. You may wish to review your post in light of this.

and if you scroll all the way down to the bottom, there is the dialog box with your post in it, which has not actually been submitted. So you have to scroll down and click on [Submit] again.

If you fail to notice the "one new post has been made" message (easily done) and click on any other link (e.g. View unread posts or Board Index) then your carefully crafted posting will be lost.

[Cmdr. Maegil]

It could be improved (pseudo-code-ish as I haven't had time to look at the code, but weapon_temp_per_shot must be retrievable from somewhere):

For the military laser the heat-up per shot is 8. The highest heating up is the mining laser with 10 per shot. So when setting the cut-off at 85% the temperature can still raise to 94.999% after the shot. So the 15% safety margin is in fact only a 5% margin when anticipating on the shot that might follow.

Since the subject has been brought up, I'd like to remind you that I once posted about declaring equipment energy requirements on the Wiki, thinking it could be of use for some OXPs, etc..

At the time I wasn't taken seriously so I didn't insist, but it might be a good time to mention it.