Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 66589 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline razanon

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #15 on: May 17, 2016, 03:44:13 AM »
hi friends, is there any way to test, as a demo, work done so far? thx in advance
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 6470
  • Thanked: 813 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #16 on: May 17, 2016, 01:27:59 PM »
No, its a long way from that stage :)

I am busy with work at the moment so only doing small amounts when I can. I have a week off in three weeks so will make some more progress then.
 
The following users thanked this post: sneer

Offline razanon

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #17 on: May 18, 2016, 01:46:07 AM »
great news.  youre making the best 4x anyone can found on pc.  trust me! thx in advance master
 

Offline BasileusMaximos

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 165
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #18 on: June 03, 2016, 04:53:49 PM »
Is this game going to be able to use multiple cores? Aurora gets super slow when you get enough civilians running around...
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1196
  • Thanked: 79 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #19 on: June 03, 2016, 08:56:11 PM »
In C# it probably will.
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 146
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #20 on: June 04, 2016, 04:30:41 AM »
C# doesn't particularly mean that you have multithreading.  It is my understanding that he is not adding that with this update, though if memory serves he is considering moving some of the computations into different threads eventually.
 

Offline Frick

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • Posts: 24
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #21 on: June 04, 2016, 08:19:43 AM »
AFAIK the slowdown is not about CPU speed and more about database/VB6 limitations. The slowdown is just as bad on a hyper clocked Skylake CPU with the game on a RAMdisk as it is on a C2D based laptop with a slow HDD.
 
The following users thanked this post: NihilRex

Offline BasileusMaximos

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 165
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #22 on: June 15, 2016, 12:25:37 AM »
Will there be an overhaul of the OoB system? I want to be able to subordinate staff commands to other staff commands (So you can have a solar staff be subordinate to a sector staff be subordinate to the High Command staff) as well as dictate that an officer beyond a certain rank will not be assigned to a ship class (no more admiral fighter pilots).

I outlines my thoughts a little better here.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8630.0
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 6470
  • Thanked: 813 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #23 on: June 18, 2016, 06:47:15 AM »
I probably will look at fleet organization when I start on the Fleet window ( and I will add a max rank for commanders)
 
The following users thanked this post: hiphop38, BasileusMaximos

Offline BasileusMaximos

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 165
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #24 on: June 20, 2016, 09:05:18 PM »
Wow, thanks a lot bro. That will really make the game better, at least for me.

Might I also suggest further modelling the central government? So far we have sector governors and planetary governors (and hopefully now solar governors) but it would also be cool to have an actual leader with a cabinet/advisers you can assign.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2016, 10:32:52 PM by BasileusMaximos »
 

Offline Erik Luken

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5006
  • Thanked: 78 times
    • View Profile
    • Arkayn Game Design
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #25 on: June 21, 2016, 09:17:30 AM »
Wow, thanks a lot bro. That will really make the game better, at least for me.

Might I also suggest further modelling the central government? So far we have sector governors and planetary governors (and hopefully now solar governors) but it would also be cool to have an actual leader with a cabinet/advisers you can assign.

I'd like to see in addition, more ship officer positions. Science officer, Chief Engineer, First Officer, etc.
 

Offline iceball3

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 374
  • Thanked: 30 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #26 on: June 21, 2016, 01:18:10 PM »
I'd like to see in addition, more ship officer positions. Science officer, Chief Engineer, First Officer, etc.
I'd imagine with a few of these, you'd see new bonuses as well, such as Damage Control Bonus, MSP usage reduction, random chance that ship components are treated as 1 or so HTK tougher, crew casualty chance reduction, boarding combat bonuses (against boarders), etc.
Not sure what the science officer would do. Increase the science yield from salvage operations perhaps?

Just thought of another bonus the Chief Engineer could give: Life Support Tenacity Bonus. As long as the commander remains alive, the carrying capacity for life support until dangerous failures occur is higher based on their bonus. Makeshift life support systems will meanwhile last longer based on their bonus if it comes to that.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2016, 01:20:14 PM by iceball3 »
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1196
  • Thanked: 79 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #27 on: June 21, 2016, 01:37:01 PM »
Maybe even having the personality traits of the officers' having a part, both positive and negative. You would of course lose the opportunity to change/add/remove personalities from officers without SM mode (or at all). For example, an Optimist would give a moral bonus while a Pessimist a slight hit, the Hard Worker would give a bonus to other skills of the officer, etc.
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 

Offline Erik Luken

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5006
  • Thanked: 78 times
    • View Profile
    • Arkayn Game Design
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #28 on: June 21, 2016, 01:44:50 PM »
I'd imagine with a few of these, you'd see new bonuses as well, such as Damage Control Bonus, MSP usage reduction, random chance that ship components are treated as 1 or so HTK tougher, crew casualty chance reduction, boarding combat bonuses (against boarders), etc.
Not sure what the science officer would do. Increase the science yield from salvage operations perhaps?

Just thought of another bonus the Chief Engineer could give: Life Support Tenacity Bonus. As long as the commander remains alive, the carrying capacity for life support until dangerous failures occur is higher based on their bonus. Makeshift life support systems will meanwhile last longer based on their bonus if it comes to that.

You could also set a chain of command. Captain, XO, Chief Engineer, Science Officer, CMO, etc. Then as battle loses mount, your command structure changes.
 

Offline iceball3

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 374
  • Thanked: 30 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #29 on: June 21, 2016, 08:03:42 PM »
You could also set a chain of command. Captain, XO, Chief Engineer, Science Officer, CMO, etc. Then as battle loses mount, your command structure changes.
Perhaps. Though, while I may not be able to talk much on the matter, due to lack of combat experience, I think there is a possibility that over-granularity of such may not be particularly important, due to the sheer in-battle insignificance of some of the buffs some commanders would give due to lack of a reasonably high percentage or just lack of applicability, that and a ship taking enough damage to lose officers may often enough already be in such a bad situation that said buffs would not quite make a difference. Adding in different bonuses would be nifty and might make extended granularity more feasible, though I think we should see the bonuses begin to exist first so we can determine if it's worth it.
 

 

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