EDSM-NET / FrontEnd

Issues tracker for EDSM
https://www.edsm.net/
37 stars 0 forks source link

Journal Harvesting Bug 2 of 2 #486

Open psdevil opened 2 years ago

psdevil commented 2 years ago

Hi Team,

If I enter and fully scan and map a system that EDSM does not currently have in its database, the full value of the system's bodies is added to the "Estimated Scan" on the dashboard.

It does not seem to matter if the system has already been discovered and fully scanned and mapped by other players.

I have only just started keeping an eye on my estimate scan values and noticed that I get the full value on entering a system that has multiple metal and/or terraformable planets even when they have all been discovered and mapped.

psdevil commented 2 years ago

Example. According to EDSM, I discovered this system. image

However, according to the ED journal entries and EDD, all the valuable bodies had already been both discovered and mapped. image

Yet the EDSM front end dashboard thinks I was the first commander to ever discover the system and calculates the values accordingly - which is obviously wrong. image

I hope this helps.

klightspeed commented 2 years ago

You were the first commander to submit the data on the system and its bodies to EDSM. There are a lot of commanders that do not submit data to EDSM.

Edit: sorry, I didn't notice that the issue is with EDSM's UC payout estimate, not with it telling you that you were the first to discover the system and its bodies.

psdevil commented 2 years ago

Hi Team, this is still an issue. Will it be fixed?

AnthorNet commented 2 years ago

Estimated value only use the EDSM first discover, not the one in game as it wasn't available at that time.

psdevil commented 2 years ago

The journal data clearly shows that several of the bodies in the systems I have visited were both discovered and mapped before I even got there.

However, because I was first to visit the system for EDSM, the EDSM estimator assigns the full value for discovering and mapping the system. This estimate is incorrect as I will not be given the full value by the game because I wasn't the first to visit the system.

Example: When I first visited IC 1805 Sector FC-B c14-26, all the bodies had been discovered, and body 5 had been mapped as well as it was terraformable. This is clearly shown in both the FSS and DSS data entries for body 5 shown below. There is no way the estimator should have given me the first to discover and first to map bonuses as the WasDiscovered and WasMapped elements were both set to True in the journal entry.

FSS Scan - on system entry: { "timestamp":"2022-09-12T12:43:24Z", "event":"Scan", "ScanType":"Detailed", "BodyName":"IC 1805 Sector FC-B c14-26 5", "BodyID":16, "Parents":[ {"Star":0} ], "StarSystem":"IC 1805 Sector FC-B c14-26", "SystemAddress":7223631744930, "DistanceFromArrivalLS":128.319569, "TidalLock":true, "TerraformState":"Terraformable", "PlanetClass":"High metal content body", "Atmosphere":"hot thick carbon dioxide atmosphere", "AtmosphereType":"CarbonDioxide", "AtmosphereComposition":[ { "Name":"CarbonDioxide", "Percent":95.848190 }, { "Name":"Nitrogen", "Percent":3.193114 }, { "Name":"SulphurDioxide", "Percent":0.958482 } ], "Volcanism":"minor metallic magma volcanism", "MassEM":1.946201, "Radius":7388605.000000, "SurfaceGravity":14.209287, "SurfaceTemperature":859.271057, "SurfacePressure":30061404.000000, "Landable":false, "Composition":{ "Ice":0.000000, "Rock":0.668531, "Metal":0.331469 }, "SemiMajorAxis":38469564914.703369, "Eccentricity":0.000015, "OrbitalInclination":-0.003632, "Periapsis":290.769909, "OrbitalPeriod":5726950.049400, "RotationPeriod":5774348.756500, "AxialTilt":0.082379, "WasDiscovered":true, "WasMapped":true }

DSS Scan: { "timestamp":"2022-09-12T12:56:24Z", "event":"SAAScanComplete", "BodyName":"IC 1805 Sector FC-B c14-26 5", "SystemAddress":7223631744930, "BodyID":16, "ProbesUsed":6, "EfficiencyTarget":7 } { "timestamp":"2022-09-12T12:56:24Z", "event":"Scan", "ScanType":"Detailed", "BodyName":"IC 1805 Sector FC-B c14-26 5", "BodyID":16, "Parents":[ {"Star":0} ], "StarSystem":"IC 1805 Sector FC-B c14-26", "SystemAddress":7223631744930, "DistanceFromArrivalLS":128.319568, "TidalLock":true, "TerraformState":"Terraformable", "PlanetClass":"High metal content body", "Atmosphere":"hot thick carbon dioxide atmosphere", "AtmosphereType":"CarbonDioxide", "AtmosphereComposition":[ { "Name":"CarbonDioxide", "Percent":95.848190 }, { "Name":"Nitrogen", "Percent":3.193114 }, { "Name":"SulphurDioxide", "Percent":0.958482 } ], "Volcanism":"minor metallic magma volcanism", "MassEM":1.946201, "Radius":7388605.000000, "SurfaceGravity":14.209287, "SurfaceTemperature":859.271057, "SurfacePressure":30061404.000000, "Landable":false, "Composition":{ "Ice":0.000000, "Rock":0.668531, "Metal":0.331469 }, "SemiMajorAxis":38469564914.703369, "Eccentricity":0.000015, "OrbitalInclination":-0.003632, "Periapsis":290.769909, "OrbitalPeriod":5726950.049400, "RotationPeriod":5774348.756500, "AxialTilt":0.082379, "WasDiscovered":true, "WasMapped":true }

I hope this helps.


From: AnthorNet @.> Sent: 13 September 2022 06:38 To: EDSM-NET/FrontEnd @.> Cc: psdevil @.>; Author @.> Subject: Re: [EDSM-NET/FrontEnd] Journal Harvesting Bug 2 of 2 (Issue #486)

Estimated value only use the EDSM first discover, not the one in game as it wasn't available at that time.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/EDSM-NET/FrontEnd/issues/486#issuecomment-1244965679, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AOOOHWRQ7BG4TFM42HZ4NIDV6AOPFANCNFSM56A2DPLQ. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: @.***>

psdevil commented 2 years ago

When I look at my EDSM dashboard, the flags next to the high value bodies in "Phaa Ain ZO-I d9-150" are correctly displayed. image Bodies B6, C4, B5 and C7 have been both discovered and mapped. Bodies B7, C5 and C3 have been discovered but have not been mapped (yet).

I think the issue is with the EDSM data harvester thinking that because it's a new discovery to EDSM, then the full values should be applied rather than calculated values based on the journal data, If this is the case, then it should be fairly easy to identify where the issue is.

I hope this helps :)