Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 2 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: March 29, 2018, 05:51:40 AM »

Do check the C# Aurora sub-forum. All the 7.2 changes are rolled in that version of Aurora. Version 7.2 of VB6 Aurora will not be released at all.
Posted by: Neceros
« on: March 26, 2018, 08:53:32 PM »

I need this in my life.  It sounds so nice!
Posted by: iceball3
« on: November 14, 2017, 02:25:36 PM »

Possibly you could say you need to use infrastructure 'X per million if over Y million pop' for terraformed planets with 0 cost otherwise but a large hydrosphere.
Sounds good in my opinion. Infrastructure is up to and including domes and farms suited to keep people alive in the vacuum of a barren planet, after all. Ice with atmosphere would be suitably less problematic. Water a little difficult, but...
Posted by: superstrijder15
« on: July 08, 2017, 04:48:19 AM »

Quote from: Barkhorn link=topic=8152. msg103462#msg103462 date=1499465084
Can we have a tech (possibly with corresponding installations) to reduce the negative affect that having too large a hydrosphere has on population limits; to simulate underwater, floating, or stilt-supported cities?
Possibly you could say you need to use infrastructure 'X per million if over Y million pop' for terraformed planets with 0 cost otherwise but a large hydrosphere.
Posted by: Barkhorn
« on: July 07, 2017, 05:04:44 PM »

Can we have a tech (possibly with corresponding installations) to reduce the negative affect that having too large a hydrosphere has on population limits; to simulate underwater, floating, or stilt-supported cities?
Posted by: byron
« on: July 07, 2017, 03:30:53 PM »

Another question, sorry if I asked this before:
Will hydrosphere extent limit the maximum population possible if it is frozen solid?
Not having it do so seems like an invitation for hilarious mishaps when you pack Hoth full of people, melt it, and then realize that it has 99.9% hydrosphere.  Pack ice doesn't seem like a particularly good place to live, either, so keeping hydrosphere as a constant seems not entirely unrealistic.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: July 02, 2017, 04:02:52 AM »

Another question, sorry if I asked this before:
Will hydrosphere extent limit the maximum population possible if it is frozen solid?

As things currently stand, yes.

It probably makes sense for a frozen hydrosphere to have less of an impact on total population, although the population would still be limited by the other factors such as temperature (limited in terms of requiring infrastructure) so it may not make much practical difference.
Posted by: iceball3
« on: June 27, 2017, 10:27:01 PM »

Another question, sorry if I asked this before:
Will hydrosphere extent limit the maximum population possible if it is frozen solid?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: June 01, 2017, 03:42:57 PM »

Hey, @Steve Walmsley , a thought just came across my head: You know how you mentioned tidal locking being a factor in colony costs, right?
How does this apply to moons and the like, who are listed as tidally locked to their respective planet, but are not tidally locked to the sun in a manner that the restriction elaborates on?

Moons aren't affected by tidal lock when calculating colony costs - only planets
Posted by: iceball3
« on: May 31, 2017, 07:05:43 PM »

Hey, @Steve Walmsley , a thought just came across my head: You know how you mentioned tidal locking being a factor in colony costs, right?
How does this apply to moons and the like, who are listed as tidally locked to their respective planet, but are not tidally locked to the sun in a manner that the restriction elaborates on?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: May 27, 2017, 04:10:54 AM »

While it's nice to get ships to use a lot more commanders in general, task force structure, as it has been in VB6 aurora, was at least sorta useful for staffing commanders there and emulating some sort of regional military structure.
Is it within consideration to implement some kind of regional position for commanders that at least superficially emulates task force commanders? Less for usefulness, more for the feeling that having 8 levels of military promotions somewhat means something, in one way or another.

C# Aurora has a hierarchy of 'admin commands' to which you can assign higher-ranked commanders.
Posted by: iceball3
« on: May 22, 2017, 08:56:44 PM »

While it's nice to get ships to use a lot more commanders in general, task force structure, as it has been in VB6 aurora, was at least sorta useful for staffing commanders there and emulating some sort of regional military structure.
Is it within consideration to implement some kind of regional position for commanders that at least superficially emulates task force commanders? Less for usefulness, more for the feeling that having 8 levels of military promotions somewhat means something, in one way or another.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: January 23, 2017, 03:38:15 PM »

Thought I would check. Will Auto-fire and/or Auto-assignment rank limits/priorities be fixed?

I'll be rewriting the auto-assignment and auto-fire from scratch.
Posted by: iceball3
« on: January 23, 2017, 02:32:52 PM »

Thought I would check. Will Auto-fire and/or Auto-assignment rank limits/priorities be fixed?
I believe Steve said that auto-fire will be replaced by something at some point.
Posted by: 83athom
« on: January 23, 2017, 02:05:32 PM »

Thought I would check. Will Auto-fire and/or Auto-assignment rank limits/priorities be fixed?
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52