Posted by: UnLimiTeD
« on: September 22, 2012, 02:07:27 AM »How come I didn't notice this for a full week?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: September 21, 2012, 04:40:49 PM »Nevermind, figured out what I did wrong. 10hs/FE .6/power standard correct?
Yes, correct - a lot more options with engines now.
Steve
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: September 21, 2012, 11:52:10 AM »Steve I've got another pesky specs query. 
What are the design specs for your engines?
This one:
Terradyne ION-120 Military Drive Power 120 Fuel Use 54% Signature 120 Exp 10%
at first blush looks like it's a 6hs Ion drive because of the "Fuel Use 54%" and "Exp 10%" appears to say that power multiplier is from tech level 2 but the "Power 120" is to high for a 6hs engine at the boost level.
I'm assuming that engines can only be built in 1hs increments.
With your Terradyne specs and can then plug them into my engine builder and find where I've made formula errors.
If I've backed into the numbers correctly these engines burn fuel at a little over 65 liters an hour.
Charlie
Nevermind, figured out what I did wrong. 10hs/FE .6/power standard correct?
What are the design specs for your engines?
This one:
Terradyne ION-120 Military Drive Power 120 Fuel Use 54% Signature 120 Exp 10%
at first blush looks like it's a 6hs Ion drive because of the "Fuel Use 54%" and "Exp 10%" appears to say that power multiplier is from tech level 2 but the "Power 120" is to high for a 6hs engine at the boost level.
I'm assuming that engines can only be built in 1hs increments.
With your Terradyne specs and can then plug them into my engine builder and find where I've made formula errors.
If I've backed into the numbers correctly these engines burn fuel at a little over 65 liters an hour.
Charlie
Nevermind, figured out what I did wrong. 10hs/FE .6/power standard correct?
Posted by: chrislocke2000
« on: September 21, 2012, 08:57:56 AM »How on Earth did I manage to miss this one? Great reading and interesting to see the new ship designs. Also quite nice to that I'm not the only one having a hard time with those particular aliens.
Posted by: Marski
« on: September 21, 2012, 07:51:06 AM »Every time you ask for a release date for 6.00, an angel pushes it back one week.
Then allow me to ruin it for everyone:
When will 6.00 be released?
When will 6.00 be released?
When will 6.00 be released?
When will 6.00 be released?
When will 6.00 be released?
When will 6.00 be released?
When will 6.00 be released?
When will 6.00 be released?
When will 6.00 be released?
When will 6.00 be released?
When will 6.00 be released?
When will 6.00 be released?
When will 6.00 be released?
When will 6.00 be released?
When will 6.00 be released?
When will 6.00 be released?
When will 6.00 be released?
When will 6.00 be released?
When will 6.00 be released?
When will 6.00 be released?
There, delayed for atleast 6 and half months.
No need to thank me
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: September 20, 2012, 08:51:48 PM »I've been working with the new missile engine techs. I see that the Dagger is as maxed as it can get.
About the only thing I'd do different with the Gladius is to drop the thermal sensor, cut the fuel back to .0437msp, take the engine to 4msp, and add .1563msp. If I've got the figures correct, speed will be 33,600kps and a range of a little over 70m km and an agility rating of 15. percentages for 3000/5000/10000 go from 70/42/21 to 168/101/50. It fits my tactical style better, but not necessarily anyone else's.
About the only thing I'd do different with the Gladius is to drop the thermal sensor, cut the fuel back to .0437msp, take the engine to 4msp, and add .1563msp. If I've got the figures correct, speed will be 33,600kps and a range of a little over 70m km and an agility rating of 15. percentages for 3000/5000/10000 go from 70/42/21 to 168/101/50. It fits my tactical style better, but not necessarily anyone else's.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: September 20, 2012, 04:36:05 PM »Well, it needs to be before Xcom is released 
Steve
Steve
Posted by: HaliRyan
« on: September 20, 2012, 04:11:21 PM »Love it
Dare I ask about the estimated release date for 6.00?
Every time you ask for a release date for 6.00, an angel pushes it back one week.
Posted by: Marski
« on: September 20, 2012, 02:34:54 PM »http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,4835.0.html
Steve
Love it
Dare I ask about the estimated release date for 6.00?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: September 19, 2012, 02:12:55 PM »Well unless there is a specific thread for this, but do you care to list what are the new additions and changes in the version 6.00?
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,4835.0.html
Steve
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: September 19, 2012, 01:50:30 PM »YAY for new Steve fiction. Very interesting start!
Posted by: clement
« on: September 19, 2012, 07:38:00 AM »There is a sticky'd thread in the Mechanics forum called "Change for v6.00" that contains all of the changes.
Posted by: Marski
« on: September 19, 2012, 07:35:55 AM »Well unless there is a specific thread for this, but do you care to list what are the new additions and changes in the version 6.00?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: September 18, 2012, 02:02:41 PM »A question Steve - I notice your ASM missile has more then twice the range of its sensor. Why is that? I can understand having extra range to allow for advances in sensors and fire control, and to allow the missiles to chase an enemy, but 210% of the range of the fire control seems... excessive.
If you haven't researched the higher levels of power boost tech your missiles won't be as fast but they will be very fuel efficient. This is only 0.2 MSP fuel in a 5 MSP missile. I thought I may as well build in some future proofing for when sensors improve.
Steve
Posted by: Gyrfalcon
« on: September 18, 2012, 09:06:27 AM »A question Steve - I notice your ASM missile has more then twice the range of its sensor. Why is that? I can understand having extra range to allow for advances in sensors and fire control, and to allow the missiles to chase an enemy, but 210% of the range of the fire control seems... excessive.
