Difference between revisions of "Talk:Science"
From Kerbal Space Program Wiki
(→Image versus table: new section) |
(added discussion about incorrect "repeating experiments" formula) |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
* “Loseless compressed”: Especially the small thumbnails look awful with the jpg artefacts. | * “Loseless compressed”: Especially the small thumbnails look awful with the jpg artefacts. | ||
— [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>[[[User talk:XZise|talk]]]</small> 16:43, 18 October 2013 (CDT) | — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>[[[User talk:XZise|talk]]]</small> 16:43, 18 October 2013 (CDT) | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Formula for repeating experiments == | ||
+ | |||
+ | According to the "Repeating experiments" section, when an experiment is repeated its future science potential is P - P * 0.8 where P is the current value. For ground samples on the launch pad, which give you 9.0 at first, you would expect this to be 1.8 the next time. However it is actually 2.3. Same for transmitting: P - P * 0.8 * E where E is the efficiency of the transmission seen on the blue "transmit" button. For this example that would be E = 0.5 so the next P should be 5.4, but it is 5.6. That formula is also missing a source (and google didn't yield any). |
Revision as of 22:48, 18 October 2013
Image versus table
Hi, my justification, why I remove that image here and only leave the table:
- Better readability: You have to click on the image to get a readable version
- Easier to edit
- “Loseless compressed”: Especially the small thumbnails look awful with the jpg artefacts.
— xZise [talk] 16:43, 18 October 2013 (CDT)
Formula for repeating experiments
According to the "Repeating experiments" section, when an experiment is repeated its future science potential is P - P * 0.8 where P is the current value. For ground samples on the launch pad, which give you 9.0 at first, you would expect this to be 1.8 the next time. However it is actually 2.3. Same for transmitting: P - P * 0.8 * E where E is the efficiency of the transmission seen on the blue "transmit" button. For this example that would be E = 0.5 so the next P should be 5.4, but it is 5.6. That formula is also missing a source (and google didn't yield any).