Please don't punch me

[The Khan (OP)]

Considering that the Transnewtonian minerals are very special stuff that enable ships to achieve jump and other physical superiorities. . .  Why do I see transnewtonian minerals needed to build space academies and mundane civilian buildings? Shouldn't such buildings be built with general wealth or normal metals like steel and titanium?

[Vanigo]

I suppose the rationale is that TN minerals, in addition to being critical for spaceflight, are also extremely useful for just about everything else. The one that really confuses me, though, is conventional military. You'd think conventional military forces would use no TN minerals - by definition, even - but it takes duranium and neutronium to train them.

[UnLimiTeD]

This is a pretty decent question.
And the answer is probably gameplay.
Conventional resources are abstracted away (Thats why planets without TN stuff lack use a little), so you have to need something to build them.
It doesn't necessarily make sense, though.

[Charlie Beeler]

The short answer is that when Steve was creating Aurora the plan was that everything require TN minerals for simplicity of coding.  At the time there was no conventional start, that came in a couple of years later.

[UnLimiTeD]

Well, maybe at some point a "conventional metal" is implemented that is then needed for building up the economy further.^^

[Charlie Beeler]

I don't disagree on this point. The hard part will be getting Steve willing to make the changes since it a core foundation of the code. 

[UnLimiTeD]

Well, the chances are that at some point, he will recode part of it on a newer base than VS 2k6.^^

[The Khan (OP)]

Or just wealth.

[Erik L]

Well, the chances are that at some point, he will recode part of it on a newer base than VS 2k6.^^

Actually it's in VB6 which is circa 1996/97. VS2010 is out now, and if he does change the base, it'd be a very very huge undertaking. Migrating from VB6 to VB.NET is not a simple task.

[UnLimiTeD]

Yeh, that'll delay the development by a half year.

[Steve Walmsley]

Well, the chances are that at some point, he will recode part of it on a newer base than VS 2k6.^^

Aurora is going to stay VB6. It would be just too much work to convert it and I would probably be better starting from scratch. There is a possibility I might write some add-ons at some point in a more modern language but I don't have any plans along those lines at the moment.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley]

Yeh, that'll delay the development by a half year.

While I think that is a very optimistic number , the time involved isn't the problem. The amount of work I do on Aurora is entirely based on my level of motivation and enthusiasm. That's why certain large-scale change get implemented fairly quickly and other minor annoying problems stick around for years. Rewriting the whole program in its current form simply wouldn't be much fun, which is why I know it won't happen.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley]

Actually it's in VB6 which is circa 1996/97. VS2010 is out now, and if he does change the base, it'd be a very very huge undertaking. Migrating from VB6 to VB.NET is not a simple task.

Plus I have decided to learn C# 2010 instead of VB 2010, which makes it even worse

Steve

[Steve Walmsley]

I that I'm straying even more off topic here...  Why C# and not JAVA?  I'm assuming that it's not cost since JAVA is open source.  Base assumption is that it's more complementory to your system.

I know very little about JAVA and I have used Microsoft IDEs for the last 15 years or so. So even though C# is a new language for me the Visual C# development environment is still very similar to VB6.. I think the last non-MS IDE I used was Borland C++ back in the mid-1990s. I am one of those strange people who likes Microsoft

Steve

[UnLimiTeD]

Your strange.