I dont understand why this is wrong.
it’s obviously an eclipsing binary with the amount of light amplitude .
People are clearly not playing this right.
I dont understand why this is wrong.
You just didn’t marked anything. You shall have been to mark those sinks as transitions.
we should mark eclipsing binaries as planets ?
You should mark transits. Does not matter what it was.
It pays more to always mark something down.
I’ve failed analyses and had my percentage go up, instead of down. My guess is because I got most of the plotpoints right.
So my guess is that having some guesses on the board is better than having none.
I do 10 guesses a day for the double rewards, and so far am 90.1% and level 33. Hopefully this game lasts the year or two I will need to get to level 500 or whatever the max is.
Very good advice, also has a chance of being correct.
Some players have already reached level 5000 @ 99% accuracy.
That’s an unimaginable level, that’s a lot of clicking!
The Marshall BPC inspired me to climb up from level 250. Thanks to this event “The Federation Grand Prix” I managed to pass through the last 40 levels faster.
I can say now:
“What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been!”
I wish mining was this detailed and involved. Would kill the botters and raise rock prices up dramatically.
CCP why you no sped any effort to do this level of work with mining?
How can you find strength to sit thru that? Its like sorting nuts at facility for a minimal wage in some god forgotten country at the end of the world. Even mining is better because you can watch You Tube instead in a separate window.
I performed like a level or two per in game session under that XP bonus. Sometime more levels. I marked most transitions during traveling, in warp. Time to time I gained just shiny levels, while dodged some Null-Sec dirty Gate camps - that was an ‘Epic Trial of Patience’ for them. To gain 1 level at high ranks, it’s like will take the same time as to travel from Jita to Ammar in a Cruiser.
P.S. I think I’ll not have enough patience to mine, especially in Hi-Sec, for a hour or two. Moreover, I’m sure that I’ll not have patience completely to mine and mark transitions into Project Discovery at the same time.
From what I’ve heard Project Discovery is the only content in-game that’s 100% completely safe and profitable.
In my opinion that alone makes it worth the time.
Now I just gotta figure out why I haven’t done it myself.
Looking over this i know its an old form but i want to learn this if I can, any help on figuring out how to read this one, ive tried many of times but cant seem to understand what im looking at.
It’s a hard sample. At first glance it seems that sink at the left border is an epoch, but that’s not true at all. There is still exist under a 10% chance that sink is a correct response btw. Your sample has a 50/50 chance to have an epoch at all and, if the sample has it, that must be a periodic one. From the image above is hard (or near impossible) to figure out the epoch and it’s period. You have to use the Detrend and Folding multiple times at different values. Just try it or start with simpler samples.
If I’ll find a similar sample somehow, I’ll show how to sort out it in few steps, because I’m not doing the PD so frequently nowadays.
It’s not a perfect sample, but it’s the right one to start with. It has some obvious sinks which allows us to start the examination, compared to your diagram. As I mentioned previously, this kind of diagram has a high probability to contain a periodic Epoch.
The periodic Epoch means that the diagram should have multiple sinks situated at the same distances from each other (the horizontal axis is a time one, see Sample-2).
To check if a periodic Epoch exists, the Folding tool must be used to match the previously marked above sinks (green arrows, see Sample-1). For this, you have to click over a random sink and drag the mouse horizontally in any direction to spread the periodic “markers” (vertical thin lines). “Markers” must be posited over each visible and imperceptible sinks to determine the period correctly. After that, click “Fold”. This will turn into a more detailed folding UI to set the period more accurate. Your task is just to get a sharp sink in the middle of the folding UI with the main marker situated in the middle of it as shown below. Markers not always must cover all visible sinks (yelow arrow, see Sample-1), to get a “sharp folded sink”. Some sinks (transition signals) are just noise. You have to set the periodic condition of positioned markers and for this you have to put them at diferent locations and test them multiple times.
If the folded diagram has a noticeable sink, than it has a periodic Epoch. Click “Confirm”. But the data can be very distorted and it will not show any folded sinks as a result. These samples can be marked as “No Transit”, which means that they can have a periodic Epoch, but it can’t be identified.
I have another failed analysis here. Had to do it with 2 transits because with just 1 it wouldn’t match the dips. However it still failed, with plenty of red dots where there clearly are dips.
I did find it odd to have 2 identical orbits. Is this because I marked it as an eclipsing binary, i.e. one dip is caused by the binary partner and the other one is a real transit?
Perhaps someone can point out my error in the following classification. Currently I feel there is a problem with this specific evaluation dataset but I couldn’t find a way to bring this to the attention of the people in charge.
The areas you are supposed to recognize as transits here are - to my eye - indistinguishable from background noise while the position I marked seems to me to be a solid candidate for a transit.
You should have been done it with one transition. Almost 90% of spike sinks have the same amplitude.