Kalku

Gah, that would do it, my mistake. I forgot I have to edit globals every time I DL a new version .

 

Starfox

You can just use your own .simcraft and incluse Globals_Tx.simcraft at the top.
Then you can overwrite the options you want in your file.

Hello.
Light the fuse.
For all my homies.
Do not run, we are your friends.

 

Naesstrom

I just have a quick question, I'm trying to make a new .simcraft for my hunter, she's a BM but specced so she gets Aimed Shot. I tried adding aimed_shot to the end of actions+ but it doesn't show up in the calculations!

I tried doing a search but didn't find anything usefull so I'm hoping to know what I did wrong?

 

dedmonwakeen

The actions list is a priority list. Whenever a player is "ready to do something" the AI walks the action list and executes the first command in that list that is ready (ie: not on cooldown, not still ticking, etc).

The last action in the current BM list is Steady Shot which is pretty much always "ready", so therefore it never gets to Aimed Shot.

You need to insert "aimed_shot" in a place in the action list that reflects its relative priority.

http://code.google.com/p/simulationcraft

 

MagisterLudi

Are Optimal_Raid=0, and Optimal_Raid =1 my only choices for defining raid buffs when running simcraft parses?

I would like to be able to manually configure the raid buffs so as to simulate a suboptimal_raid setting, perhaps to be called by setting optimal_raid=2

I am not able to find any documentation on the topic, and would appreciate any guidance anyone might have. Thanks.

::EDIT:: ---v

Can this be done by editing the globals file?

 

Starfox

optimal_raid just switches all de/buff defaults to active, you can then diable all those you don't.
Just do it like this:

Hello.
Light the fuse.
For all my homies.
Do not run, we are your friends.

 

dedmonwakeen

SimulationCraft r2439 available for download.
- Patch level 3.1.2
- Includes best-guess at Tier8 BiS

http://code.google.com/p/simulationcraft

 

dedmonwakeen

SimulationCraft r2532 available for download.

SampleOutput updated. (EDIT: googlecode is having indigestion..... new wiki pages not showing up yet)

http://code.google.com/p/simulationcraft

 

Fizzl

A couple of changes that I always make to Mage_T8_20_51_00 to improve it.

As spirit goes up the requirement for regeneration while casting goes down. As Mage_T8_20_51_00 has 474 spirit arcane meditation can be dropped all together in favour of more student of the mind. I still see no down time and obviously the damage goes up.

talents=http://www.wowhead.com/?talent=of0Vcu0cZ0EcoRhIhVhbhct

I've also removed combustion and taken a point in the range talent as with so much crit and living bomb consuming the charges it doesn't seem to do anything worth while these days.

'/mana_gem,trigger=1000' becomes '/mana_gem' I think the trigger at 1000 was for T7 2set. A mana gem is worth about 3400 mana these days.

Just to make a point that it wasn't needed unless its a very mana intensive fight (I'm using lots of AoE) evocation is commented out. '#actions+=/evocation'

Scorch is taken out of the rotation an ISB warlock or someone with the scorch glyph is doing it.

__

Also is this appropriate for simulating Hyperspeed Accelerators as a glove enchant?

actions+=/haste_trinket,name=eng_hyperspeed,rating=340,length=10,cooldown=60

 

dedmonwakeen

Thanks for the feedback Fizzl. I'll work on getting those changes into the profiles.

As for the pseudo haste trinket, you did it perfect.

http://code.google.com/p/simulationcraft

 

Septhaka

I searched the thread for this question but was not able to locate it. I noticed that Rogue results incorporate Tricks of the Trade (TotT) buffs while other classes do not. I was curious the results are computed with only Rogues receiving TotT? To my knowledge, a Rogue is unable to cast TotT on himself. Therefore, the simulation results assume the Rogue being tested has another Rogue in the raid and that other Rogue is casting TotT on the tested Rogue. Other classes do not incorporate this assumption. Yet, a Fury Warrior, a Ret Paladin, or any other DPS class could also just as easily be the target of a Rogue's TotT. The results seem to skew results in favor of Rogues by making available a buff to them that is not made available to other classes in other simulation results even though the buff in question, TotT, is equally available to all classes.

 

dedmonwakeen

I waffle back and forth on issues like this......

When you run a single Rogue through the sim, he does not (by default) get the benefit of TotT. I do allow the Rogue to cast it on himself if desired because I want to model both the benefit and the energy cost.

In the Raid_T8 config the Rogues perform a "circle jerk" of TotT casting. I chose to keep the buffs to just Rogues in this example because I'm trying to measure the full value that they bring. I do the same with the Focus Magic buff: Only those mages with the talent get to be in the "circle jerk".

Of course, the sim allows you to select ANY target for TotT or to turn if off entirely. The Raid_T8 is just an example...... one in which people sometimes put a bit too much weight....

http://code.google.com/p/simulationcraft

 

nuoHep

In reality though, on most of Ulduar fights rogues (well, for my guild that is) actually have to TotT the tank.

 

minx69

Would love to see some numbers for a 20/51/0 mage that hasnt got to keep up scorch/have the scorch glyph for comparison.

am having the "Lock V Mage" crit debuff argument and without comparable data its hard to work out who should be doing it.

 

dedmonwakeen

I would love to be able to upload wiki files!!! It has been a week now and the GoogleCode folks still have not resolved it.

http://code.google.com/p/simulationcraft

 

Kalle

I wrote a small addon that queries mana and time with UnitPower() and GetTime() API functions to generate a timeline for the pet's mana. I have a value for mana each 0.1s (approximately). I emptied the pet's manapool and recorded from there until its mana was full again.

I tested mana regeneration of imp, felhunter, succubus and felguard in this way. The three melee pets seem to use the same formula, the imp uses a different one. All pets use the five second rule mechanic; I derived different formulas for the mana regeneration in the first five seconds after a cast and for the time after five seconds. There is no simple relationship between the regeneration in and out of the 5SR, the regeneration out of the 5SR depends on the pet's spirit, the in 5SR regeneration does not.

I first tested the scaling of mana regeneration with the pet's intellect by swapping out different items. I found that their mana regeneration increases linearly with their intellect. Since pets don't benefit from their master's spirit, I had to use spirit increasing buffs to test spirit scaling. This was the point where it started to get complicated, because some buffs were taken into account for computing mana regeneration but others were not.

I will show the intellect sclaing with different buffs on the pets. If you're only interested in the results, scroll down to the bottom. MPS = mana gained per second. Uncertainties are in the last digit for all values.

Imp, in 5SR
The increase per intellect is more or less constant except for fel vitality and BoK. 369 intellect is the base value for the imp, so we most likely have 0.2*(int-369). Let's take a closer look at Fel Vitality: 0.1753 ~ 0.2/1.15 and 424 ~ 369*1.15 - the talent seems to be neglected in the calculation. BoK and MotW too: 0.1800 ~ 0.2/1.1, 403 ~ 369*1.1; 420/419 ~ 369+51 (improved MotW).

Succubus, in 5SR
Base intellect for the succubus is 150. Arcane Intellect is not taken into account (209 ~ 150+60), neither is Fel Vitality (0.0583 ~ 0.0667/1.15, 173 ~ 150*1.15). MPS per int may be 1/15.

Felhunter, in 5SR
Base intellect is again 150. Fel Vitality as above. At least the intellect portion of fel intelligence is neglected (197 ~ 150+48). Looks like the same formula used for succubus.

Felguard, in 5SR
Base intellect is again 150. Looks like the same formula used for succubus and felhunter.


Imp, out of 5SR
Fel Vitality, BoK and MotW look strange again. Both parameters seem to be influenced by spirit. The spirit from BoK and MotW may be taken into account, the MPS per intellect is slightly higher for MotW+Divine Spirit than for just Divine Spirit.

Succubus, out of 5SR
Fel Vitality and Arcane intellect look strange. Dependence on spirit.

Felhunter, out of 5SR
Values with fel intelligence are not what they should be. As MPS per int is higher than without buffs, the spirit increase is probably used in the formula. Fel Vitality looks strange again.

Felgueard, out of 5SR
Fel Vitality. Rest looks like the formula used for succubus and felhunter.


I think this is enough to say, that mana regeneration out of the five second rule depends on spirit. When looking at the values for the regeneration out of the 5SR (leaving out those from neglected buffs), I see a pretty much perfect plane, so thats what I'm going to assume. There seems to be some curvature, but the deviation from the plane is very small (< 1 MPS for the range I tested). I wasn't able to recognize any parameters that can be derived from the pet's stats in this case.

To summarize:
Mana regeneration in the 5SR:
MPS = 0.2 * (int - 369) for imps and
MPS = 1/15 * (int - 150) for melee pets
(where "int" is the pet's intellect without Fel Vitality, Blessing of Kings, Mark of the Wild, Fel Intelligence and Arcane Intellect).

Mana regeneration out of the 5SR:
MPS = 0.2308 * int + 0.070 * spi - 87.3 for imps and
MPS = 0.0911 * int + 0.053 * spi - 16.3 for melee pets
((where "int" is the pet's intellect without Fel Vitality, Blessing of Kings, Mark of the Wild, Fel Intelligence and Arcane Intellect and "spi" is its spirit including all buffs).

Note: The above formula doesn't really explain the values I got with Fel Vitality, Arcane Intellect, Fel Intelligence, Mark of the Wild or Blessing of Kings. It also doesn't explain them if you only count the increase of spirit and neglect the increase of intellect. The difference in MPS isn't that large though.

 

dedmonwakeen

Kalle, thanks for the meticulous detail! We'll work on getting this implemented before next release.

http://code.google.com/p/simulationcraft

 

• Zakalwe

When you did these tests with buffs, were the buffs present only on the pet, or on the master as well?

I'm asking because it seems like the discrepancies with the buffs and with fel vitality might be explained by the MP5 scaling directly with the master's intellect, not with the pet's own intellect.

 

Kalle

I didn't pay attention. I instructed my buffers to buff the pet, but I remember that they sometimes buffed me, too.

I assumed that the regeneration was derived from the pet's stats because I did some tests with spi/int scrolls that I didn't mention. A scroll of spirit on the master didn't influence the pet's regeneration, a scroll of intellect on the pet did. For the scroll of spirit values in the post above I only buffed the pet.

 

Fizzl

Does anyone have a good way to model Aura of Celerity? (+20% haste).

 

dedmonwakeen

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

Any folks out there living on the ragged edge building simcaft execs straight from the latest commits: There has been a fairly substantial incompatible change to profiles. Please examine the default configs to catch the changes. Mage_T8_20_51_00.simcraft is a very good example.

A new release is imminent, including some info on Armory downloads among several other new interesting features.....

http://code.google.com/p/simulationcraft

 

Erdluf

I'd like to bring up the old topic of the latency model (discussed on first couple of pages of this thread).

From one of the globals.simcraft files:

The code in sc_player.cpp seems to be consistent with this quote. Ignoring channeled spells, SC uses an average lag of .075 for casts that are >= to the GCD and .150 for casts that are < GCD.

For a nominal 1.5s cast (= GCD), which has been hasted to 1.01s, the average SC spam-cast time will be 1.085s. Add a bit more haste so that the theoretical cast time is 0.99s, and the SC average spam-cast time will actually jump to 1.14s. In this neighborhood, SC Haste scaling is negative.

I believe the actual mechanics are closer to:

1) You can't queue a spell during the first second of the GCD. This gives you a Not Ready message.

2) You can't queue a spell while your previous spell has more than about 0.3s left to complete. This gives you an "Another action is in progress" message.

3) You can queue a spell during the GCD as long as you satisfy both (1) and (2) above.

If I'm correct you should not see a jump in cast times as haste increases. Rather, you will reach a point where the value of haste drops to zero, but it won't have a neighborhood of negative value.

Moonkin formulation tools typically implement this as something like

delta_time = max(tooltip_cast_time+queue_lag, gcd+queue_lag, 1.0+gcd_lag)



Here is some limited testing that suggests that instants can be queued, when the GCD is > 1s, and that queueing breaks down when the gcd is 1s and cast time is < 1s. (Note, at the time of this test, Nature's Grace was 0.5s off of cast times, rather than the current 20% spell haste, and Wrath's GCD under Nature's Grace was 1s).

Old moonkin tests


Some more recent tests by Skjaven seem to show that for a spell at the GCD, queueing is less effective when the GCD is down to 1s.

 

dedmonwakeen

When generating scale factors I had to change the latency code to allow queuing on non-zero cast times that went below the min gcd. It seems as if this should be the default behavior.....

http://code.google.com/p/simulationcraft

 

dedmonwakeen

SimulationCraft r2808 available for download.

There is considerable amount of new functionality that has been unannounced (and undocumented ofc). I suppose I should let more people in on the fun. A big thanks goes out to Nenad for doing the initial exploratory work in most of these areas:

(1) combat_log=filename This will generate a Blizzard style combat log that can be loaded up into WWS-like tools. While there is the remote possibility for abuse, the generated combat logs will never withstand any real scrutiny.

(2) smooth_scale_factors=1 An enormous amount of research was done in the area of not-so-random numbers. This option is on by default. It does not effect the normal dps reporting, but it does affect scale factor calculation by creating a new "smooth" baseline for comparison with stat-delta runs. The end result are reliable scale factors that can be calculated in 10x to 100x fewer iterations. (Essentially, we allow our "absolute" accuracy to drop while vastly improving our "relative" accuracy given stat changes.)

(3) raid_events=... It is now possible to simulate raid events such as movement, stuns, (in)vulnerability, splash damage. The splash damage will trigger effects like Incanters Absorbtion. When moving, the player is still able to perform instant actions, etc. You can see opt_raid_mov.simcraft for some examples. More will be forthcoming.

(4) armory=region,server,name It is now possible to download your character directly from the armory. Since the sim defaults to max_time=300 and optimal_raid=1 AND determines optimal spell priorities based upon talents, to simulate your char you just need: simcraft.exe armory=us,Llane,Segv

(5) wowhead=region,server,name OR wowhead=id It is now possible to download your character from wowhead in a manner similar to the armory. You can also download a virtual profile via wowhead=id. This allows you to copy your char, change talents/gear/glyphs/etc, and then see how it affects DPS: simcraft.exe wowhead=123456

(6) save=filename OR save_profiles=1 It is now possible to save a character to a config file after download. This config file will contain everything necessary to run. It will also include an "origin=" link to show where it came from. We will be using this feature extensively: We plan to put all our default configs into the wowhead profiler. Our "golden" data will be online and we will just re-generate the scripts for distribution.

Of course, all the usual modeling stuff should be up-to-date, including PTR mechanics which can be accessed via patch=3.2.0 on the cmd line.

I'll re-generate the wiki pages sometime tonight when I can steal some server time.

Enjoy!

PS: Erdluf: This recent version has the change you requested.

http://code.google.com/p/simulationcraft

 

Erdluf

This worked well for me (except not wearing PvE gear in Armory). If running from a windows cmd window, use a '+' to replace a space in the server name: armory=us,Echo+Isles,Erdluf

I'll take a closer look at the numbers.

Thanks.