Talk:Science

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).

I noticed that the factor of reduction is defferent for some experiments: For crewreports it seems to be P - P * 0.627, for Evareports 0.8, for Mysterygoo 0.557 and for the Sc9001 0.715

Revised Formula

The way it appears to work is that the penalty is "science done" divided by the cap. For a crew report this is 5/8 so that's why it appears to be around 0.627 (rounding). It's actually 0.625. For EVA reports the base value is 8 and the cap is 10, hence 80%. For mystery goo the base is 10 and the cap is 18 so that results in 0.55 repeating (again, it may have appeared to be 0.557 due to the fact that KSP rounds in the GUI, though it doesn't round in the save files and you'll see that you get very tiny fractional science points). The material lab is 25/35 so that's 0.71428 etc.

The proper equation should be Y = T * S * (1 - P/C), where T is the transmission efficiency, S is the value of this experiment in this situation (base times the situation multiplier), P is the total number of points you've gained by doing this experiment in this situation (not just the last time, but the sum of all of them), C is the cap for this experiment in this situation (again this the cap from the cfg file times the situation multiplier), and Y is the yield of this experiment.

No source for this equation. But, it's in the save files more or less. Each experiment stores the science and the cap, and it also has a field called "scv" which is always equal to (1 - science / cap) and your next experiment always gives you whatever the first one did, times whatever scv was in your save file. Of course as I say it won't show up as exactly that value in the GUI due to rounding, but it will be added as exactly that amount in the save files--Akefay (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2013 (CDT)

Differential Equation

This looks like a differential equation to me. The solution should be P(t) = C - C * ( C / ( C - (S * T)))^(-t), where P(t) is the science obtained in total by doing it t times. Needs checking since I'm not confident about my maths, but at least this is correct for t = 0, 1 and infinity.

Calculate P(n+k) - P(n) for the science points you'll obtain by repeating it n times, when you've already done it k times. Or take log on both sides to calculate a particular t for some P(t). You'll only need the integer ts, though Tryourbreast (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2013 (CDT)

I don't know if you're right or wrong, but it's conceptually harder for the reader than the straight forward algebraic formula that is listed. I'd only update the page with this formula if it is more correct. --MCSquared (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2013 (CDT)

"Conceptually harder"? No, just no. Which part of it is conceptually hard at all? I didn't even include the steps on deriving it. You just plug in the value and get your result, period. Not difficult at all.

Besides, the current forumla isn't straightforward at all: each run depends on the previous run, and then the more previous run, and so on. It's convenient at calculating one step, but most of the times you want to calculate the total yield instead of each step, and this is the only way. I think it's needless to say that a equation of total yield is more useful when you want to calculate the science you'll earn, or the number of times you need to perform a experiment to get certain science.

If you still insist, though, just put both of them. It's simple.Tryourbreast (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2013 (CDT)

Now for t=0 the formula is obviously correct ($P(t=0)=C-C\cdot x^{0}=C-C=0$, $x$ is the base of the exponentation). For the first experiment the current formula in the article is $y=s\cdot m\cdot t$ while yours is $P(t=1)=C-C\cdot \left({\frac {C}{C-S\cdot T}}\right)^{1}=C-{\frac {C^{2}}{C-S\cdot T}}$ which doesn't look right. Although I'm not sure what this factor $T$ is. — xZise [talk] 11:25, 29 October 2013 (CDT)

The page used to denote the transmission efficiency $t$ as $T$, which I went with it because I used $t$ for the number of times you've did the experiment, and besides, constants should be in capital letters. Also you're wrong here; the power is $-t$, not $t$.

Let me restate the equation again: $P(t)=C\cdot (1-\left({\frac {C}{C-S\cdot T}}\right)^{-t})$. If C, S and T are all positive, then the equation reduces to $P(t)=C\cdot (1-\left({\frac {C-S\cdot T}{C}}\right)^{t})$ Tryourbreast (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2013 (CDT)

Ah darn, I didn't notice that the exponent is negative. So $P(t=1)=C-(C-S\cdot T)=S\cdot T$. But your formula doesn't take the celestial body modifier into account. Although I would guess you only need to multiply it to the transmission efficiency. $P(t)=C\cdot \left(1-\left({\frac {C}{C-S\cdot T\cdot M}}\right)^{-t}\right)$

Personally I'm also think we should show both formulas. As only your formula can give you the science yield without knowing how much you yielded before. — xZise [talk] 04:54, 30 October 2013 (CDT) Note, I fixed the formula for t=1 — xZise [talk] 05:51, 30 October 2013 (CDT)

Well, since the step equation has been changed again, let me fix the total yield equation: $P(t)=C\cdot M\cdot (1-({\frac {C-S\cdot T}{C}})^{t})$. Note that the asymptotic limit (doing the experiment infinite times) is $C\cdot M$.

Also, note that you do need to know how much you yielded before you calculate the total yield, because what you can get is the difference $P(n+t)-P(n)$, where n is the initial times of experiments you've done. When you've never done any science at all, it's $P(t)-P(0)$, and we have initial condition $P(0)=0$, so we can simply calculate $P(n)$ instead. When n is not 0, however, you need to subtract something.Tryourbreast (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2013 (CDT)

Okay your formula doesn't get you directly to science yielded with the n^th experiment, but you simply can take the difference of the n^th and (n-1)^th while you need to calculate all previous results (and not simply only the result before the n^th) with the formula currently given. Actually shouldn't $y=P(n+1)-P(n)$, where $y$ is the result from the formula in this article and where $p$ in that formula is equal to $P(n)$? Unfortunately I don't have enough time at the moment to verify this. — xZise [talk] 05:51, 30 October 2013 (CDT)

Yes.Tryourbreast (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2013 (CDT)

I'm pretty sure

$y=s\cdot m\cdot t\cdot (1-{\frac {st}{C}})^{i}$

is the incremental equation you're looking for. I've added it to the main article already -- if that was a no-no, feel free to remove it -- but my testing thus far shows it working well. It was derived using the difference equation for exponential growth/decay as presented on Wikipedia, where the equation $x_{t}=a\cdot x_{t-1}=x_{0}\cdot a^{t}$ is true. The incremental equation first put in the article is of the first (iterative) form, while the equation just added is of the second (non-iterative) form. NivvyDaSkrl (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2013 (CDT)

But we're talking about the total yield equation... What you've said was irrelevant. Also, the capital/small letter issue on that page still exists, so I fixed them. Tryourbreast (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2013 (CDT)

Ah. Sorry. I didn't intend to be irrelevant; I apologize. NivvyDaSkrl (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2013 (CDT)

Perhaps this will redeem me:

$\sum \limits _{i=0}^{n}smt(1-{\frac {st}{C}})^{i}=smt{\frac {C(1-(1-{\frac {st}{C}})^{1+n})}{st}}$ where $st\neq 0$. 10:52, 31 October 2013 (CDT)

And it simplified to $mC(1-({\frac {C-st}{C}})^{1+n})$, which is basically what I've derived above. Except in here it's $P(n+1)-P(0)$, which becomes $P(n+1)$ Tryourbreast (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2013 (CDT)

Eh, you're right. I should have read better. I'll think twice before attempting to contribute next time. NivvyDaSkrl (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2013 (CDT)

Data Scale?

How does the Data Scale value being listed for each experiment type tie into the formula? --MCSquared (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2013 (CDT)

I did some tests with the laboratory and it appears that the data scale is basically Mit/science point. See also Template_talk:Infobox/Part/laboratory#Resource_cost. — xZise [talk] 09:05, 13 February 2014 (CST)

Discussion on added equation.

I've added another form of the equation, based on the difference equation solution for exponential growth/decay equations on Wikipedia. It replaces "total science obtained" ($p$) with "number of experiments already run in the past" ($i$). I think it's worth adding; when finding the amount of science one will get from running an experiment for the nth time, it's no longer necessary to solve the equation for the other 1 through n-1 experiments previously run. It's also much more spreadsheet-friendly. NivvyDaSkrl (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2013 (CDT)

Total revamp on the equations

Now basically it's more complete than you can ever imagine. If any problems or questions arises, though, please drop it here.Tryourbreast (talk) 05:36, 4 November 2013 (CST)

I've changed the inverse forms to be a bit smaller. I mean there are a lot of formulas now. Should there be another article only about those formulas? — xZise [talk] 13:54, 5 November 2013 (CST)

Is that really a lot? It's not even occupying one-third of the page or so. Besides, spliting the forumlas will actually make them harder to find, I think. Accessibility issues.Tryourbreast (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2013 (CST)

"Biome" for lower atmosphere thermometer and KSC, Landing Pad, Runway and Shores biome when not landed.

After testing, I have found that temperature data yields points at each biome on Kerbin (and presumably on the Mun as well) rather than just once, as previously shown. The initial points at each biome on Kerbin is 5.6 (then 1.4 then 0.3) with a max possible of 7 per biome. I made the necessary change to the science table.

Also, KSC, the Landing Pad and the Runway don't show as separate biomes except while at the "on the ground" height. I'm not sure how to show this on the existing table, however. For lower atmosphere, upper atmosphere and near space (in the case of EVA's): Kerbin Shores, KSC, Landing Pad and the Runway are all one biome.Langkard (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2013 (CST)

I can only answer to the second paragraph: Isn't this already described below the table about the celestial body modifiers:

“

The only exception is Kerbin on the surface for the KSC, runway, and launch pad where the multiplier is 0.3 instead of 0.4. — The article as of revision 28273

”

Another possibility would be in the biome article which is about the different biomes. The table you editing does only say if a scientific experiment depends on the current biome or not and not if there are more biomes than at different heights.

I've also edited your original comment to avoid that the MediaWiki treats your comment as code (leading whitespaces). I also shortened the very long header. — xZise [talk] 11:06, 5 November 2013 (CST)

Thanks for fixing that for me. It's been a long while since I edited anything on a wiki. I find the section below the Celestial Body Modifier table to be somewhat confusing. It talks about the change to the modifier for those 3 biomes, but it doesn't really specify that above ground level (or an EVA to the ladder while landed, which counts as a low atmosphere height) the separate biomes for KSC, the launch Pad and the runway actually cease to exist, counting instead as all Kerbin shore once a craft has launched. Even a few meters off the ground above the launch pad, etc., any science done will only count for Kerbin Shores. I suspect Squad made it this way because it would be difficult if not impossible to differentiate between them at any altitude above more than a few hundred meters, ending up causing frustration for players trying to nudge their spacecraft one way or another to find the difference between the launch pad and the runway while high above them. It's really not important and changing anything to make the distinction about the KSC area biomes might just end up being more confusing.Langkard (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2013 (CST)

But as I said, this is a biome/Kerbin thing and it should be noted there. I mean you have a valid point, but this here is about the science in general and I don't know where this could be added here. — xZise [talk] 10:29, 7 November 2013 (CST)

0.23 Transmission Efficiencies / Processing Bonuses

A comparison of my values from a Mun East Farside Crater landing with those on the page on 2014-01-02

Mystery Goo my transmission efficiency 30%, 40% in table; agree with table processing bonus of +15%

Surface sample transmission efficiency 25%, 50% listed on page; processing bonus +12%, none listed on page

Materials study values both agree

Temperature 50% transmission efficiency (60% on page), agree with +25% processing bonus

Electric usage for processing 250 units for Materials, 300 units for Surface sample, 100 units for Mystery Goo

To clean and reset experiments: 430 for Mystery Goo and Materials

Should I go ahead and update the page with the new values, or do other people want to check them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎UltraOne (talk • contribs)

Thank you for that summary ;) I'll try to do some experiments and verify it. But I'm wondering if the transmission efficiency is equal to the transmission cap or if it is the “efficiency” (some experiments needs to be redone to fully “mined”). Although I guess it is the transmission cap, I will try to check that as well. — xZise [talk] 07:16, 3 January 2014 (CST)

Unfortunately I was yet only be able to do a Mystery Goo™ Observation and Materials Study and verified those values. I did a temperature reading but unfortunately I didn't made a screenshot or checked the value. And as I don't have any laboratory yet in orbit I can't verify all those values. But I try to check those values time after time. — xZise [talk] 14:55, 3 January 2014 (CST)

Okay I have now updated all transmission efficiencies (for the experiments, not the Crew/EVA Report and Surface Sample) by using the part.cfg of those parts. It appears that xmitDataScalar holds the transmission efficiency as it agrees with your measurements and mine (I had all except the Gravity Scan and Atmosphere Analysis). It also appears that the usage for processing is BaseValue*10 (in the part.cfg of the lab is a RESOURCE_PROCESS definition with an amount of 10 E). It also appears that that the processing bonus is calculated by using the dataTransmissionBoost of 1.5 and multiply if with the efficiency (so 50% more data can be transmitted back). As I don't have a lab currently in orbit I can test it but it would work with your values. What I don't know is how the electric charge usage for cleaning and resetting is calculated. — xZise [talk] 05:39, 10 January 2014 (CST)

Water behaves a little special

Today I've tried to max out all research on Kerbal Kerbin, and found out one thing: After having splashed down in water you can't do an atmospheric analysis nor a seismic scan (the latter makes sense, though), even if you build a raft to make sure everything is above water level. May someone confirm this? M3tal Warrior (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2014 (CDT)

According to the table at the top, is the seismic scan only on solid ground possible. But nothing about the atmospheric analysis. And btw it is Kerbin. Kerbal is the species. — xZise [talk] 15:53, 9 March 2014 (CDT)

Of course it's Kerbin - silly me. This was mainly about the atmospheric analysis, the mentioning of the seismic scan was just for the sake of completeness. Ah, and I just found out there's a difference between a surface sample on the shores in water and on land. So you have to do two surface samples at the shore biome. Maybe we could mention that too.--M3tal Warrior (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2014 (CDT)

See biome about that shore thing. But this got me thinking: Is the surface sample (or maybe all biome dependent?) in the water different from the at the land (like another biome)? On Kerbin there is only the Shore biome, so it can't be really tested. This would also explain why Eve and Laythe have a “water” biome. — xZise [talk] 17:02, 9 March 2014 (CDT)

Nope, it's not an extra biome - I figured it out. Water and shores behave different depending on how you get the surface sample: If your spacecraft is swimming while taking a water surface sample, the message is

• You have taken a sample of the water. It appears to dramatically increase the surface humidity of anything it touches.

However, landing with extended landing legs with the same craft on water lets you take a surface sample even without your Kerbal touching the water, which then yields this message:

• You scooped up a sample of the surface. It's a very humid sample, you hope the equipment has been properly waterproofed.

In the Tracking station the craft still is reported as "splashed down", but the report after recovery is filed in the science archives under 'Srf landed' and treaten totally different by the game (max. SP 12 instead of 16 for real splash-downs). Same with shores. Standing on the shore leads to

• You took a sample of the soil. It's very muddy and sandy. There might be a body of water nearby. (Srf landed; max SP 12)

while swimming right next to the beach is

• You have taken a sample of the water here. There are bits of vegetation in it, suggesting a strong likelihood that there is land nearby. (Srf splashed; max SP 16).

This just alters the surface sample, not the other researches. Even with a landed craft on water you can't do seismic and atmospheric analyses. I'll try to land next to a river next time and try to get a sample, let's see how that works out. Done. Grasslands has a splashed down extra too when swimming in the river, and I found out there's even different EVA (SP 2.4 / SP 3.2) and crew reports (SP 1.5 / SP 2.0) for landed / splashed down. Guess all other biomes have them too, although I'm not totally sure with mountains (as they're pretty often replaced by highlands in lower regions). M3tal Warrior (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2014 (CDT)

A question which I'm asking me is, does this affect only the experiments a Kerbal must do? Or do the others yield additional results? I mean you already found two which behave differently. And thank you for sharing your results. I love it, when you can do “experiments” with the game itself. — xZise [talk] 12:05, 10 March 2014 (CDT)

As far as I've seen there's no difference in the other experiments - I've landed and splashed with my research drone (all 7 experiments times 3) at the shores, which didn't yield different results (except for atmo & seismic analyzer, which don't work in water) nor additional files in the science archive. I mean, shores could be special, but I doubt it. As for the other biomes - I got 7 covered, but haven't found a highland/mountain lake yet. Think I found out everything about that - now for a gigantic space station ;) M3tal Warrior (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2014 (CDT)

Tables about the science gains gone

Hi, I guess this was accidiential or with a bigger plan behind it. But this diff completely removed all tables and info about the experiments. I've reinserted since it appears that they weren't added somewhere else. If there is a bigger plan behind please let me/us know.

Oh and btw. highlighting in a table should always be additional as there are (color-)blind people (okay I would say KSP is almost impossible for blind people) which might not be able to see that highlighting. I didn't changed that as it is already stated in the text above, but consider that highlighting tables shouldn't be the only way to tell readers something. — xZise [talk] 07:04, 13 March 2014 (CDT)

Removing those tables was entirely accidental. As for color highlighting, if including "(only in atmosphere)" in all relevant cells doesn't introduce too much clutter in your opinion, I'm fine with it. --Brendan (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2014 (CDT)

I much prefer having the highlighting (in a light color) as it made seeing what was atmosphere-only at-a-glance quite easy. I agree that it needs to be indicated in some other way for disabled browsing, but italics instead of highlighting doesn't at all solve that problem for blind people; there are better ways of doing disabled browser compatibility if that was a serious issue here. Including it in the text of the article (which it already is) is the best way. I think including "(only in atmosphere)" in every cell is a lot of clutter in this case. - Verdauga (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2014 (CDT)

Maybe I should've make it clearer, but I'm fine with any highlighting (as long as it isn't to extreme, which it wasn't) as long as there is a reasonably well explanation which works without colors. This is the case with italics and the explanation in the text. So I'll reintroduce the coloring. — xZise [talk] 03:39, 18 March 2014 (CDT)

Multipliers and Atmosphere/Space Boundaries Table

I was trying to make a checklist of the different experiments for all the bodies including surface, lower/upper atmosphere, low/high space, and the altitude ranges for them. I noticed there were a few estimates listed in the table, and that the Jool lower/upper atmosphere one was the same as the atmosphere ceiling (so must have been incorrect). I cheated myself some infinite-fuel rockets to lower into these bodies using a thermometer to see which part I was in. I updated the table, but thought I'd note here exactly which boundaries I confirmed: Jool, Laythe, and Eve's atmospheres; Pol's space. -- Mandydax (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2014 (CDT)

Celestial Body Multipliers

The table was recently edited and some values (such as the multipliers for Eeloo) look strange to me (as in, way too high). Additionally, the pages for Kerbin, Duna, Bop, Pol and Eeloo don't reflect the values on the table. I'm assuming those pages haven't been updated by the user(s) who changed the values in the table, but they haven't provided much explanation in the diffs so I'm wondering what the correct values are.

I'm a total noob with mods/cheats and I don't have the time to check each of them, but I think if someone has recently checked any of these values it would be sufficient to lean on the side of reverting these changes here or updating the specific pages. I didn't find any threads on the forum discussing changes to the multipliers either.

Just bringing this up so we can clear up the discrepancies.

--MechaLynx (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2014 (CDT)

I've added version checks for the celestial bodies who's multipliers don't agree with their pages (Kerbin & Duna). Also, for Bop, Pol and Eeloo there has been a recent edit (which was not a troll edit ) that changed those multipliers and then the change was reverted (also not a troll ) so it seems there is some uncertainty as far as those bodies are concerned. Going to those bodies is spoiler territory for me so I won't examine it myself (sorry). For anyone interested in helping, there's Hyperedit that you can use to cheat yourself into places easily in order to check multipliers.

--MechaLynx (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2014 (CDT)

Although I'm not able to contribute to this problem, I made it so that it is at least consistent. The table here and the infobox both use {{BodyData}} to determine the multipliers. — xZise [talk] 19:16, 20 April 2014 (CDT)

Dude, just saw your edit and it is _awesome_ - many many thanks for this. I didn't even know mediawiki could do stuff this clever :) and changing the superscript was also a much better idea --MechaLynx (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2014 (CDT)