Author Topic: Aurora II  (Read 160243 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5657
  • Thanked: 372 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #135 on: July 21, 2011, 10:00:28 PM »
You know, the amount of people seeing this game isn't ALL that low, 3000 Forum Members is a acceptable number for a free indie game, not counting the dozens of guests that ocasionally appear during a day.

Now about the Money/Purchase question, you guys are forgetting about the other half of players: The ones that don't have much money, but like to play good games. (Like me)

Sure, selling Aurora would get more cash for Steve to spend somewhere else and would give him more free time to spend on the game, but Aurora huge complexity, steep learning curve, almost complete lack of graphics (Not that I care for it, but some people judge a game entirely by graphics, not gameplay or depth) and all those famous bugs and corrupt files would shy people away from the game.

Hell, most of my campaigns don't reach even the 2nd year
That's just my opinion anyways.

Steve has mentioned one reason he is not planning on charging for Aurora, is then he'd have to spend more time on it and it'd be a job instead of his hobby.

Offline Xkill

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 101
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #136 on: July 21, 2011, 10:07:37 PM »
I know, I read it too, I just wanted to express my opinion about the issue.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11672
  • Thanked: 20455 times
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #137 on: July 24, 2011, 08:20:51 AM »
Hi.
I would like to ask whether there is any news on Aurora II.
Seems to me that this could be even better than Aurora I.


I have been concentrating on Aurora I for the last few months so I haven't got any further with Aurora II. It will progress once I have another burst of enthusiasm for it :)

Steve
 

Offline waresky

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1486
  • Thanked: 8 times
  • Alpine Mountaineer..ohh Yeah!
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #138 on: July 29, 2011, 05:58:26 AM »
I have been concentrating on Aurora I for the last few months so I haven't got any further with Aurora II. It will progress once I have another burst of enthusiasm for it :)

Steve

Aurora I r ever a excellent game,Steve.

if u have been concentrating on it,and better performance,for me are OK!!

5.50 are absolutely and strictly AWESOME...and welcome.

We waitn for this..(that?..zzzz..my funny english..:))..)
 

Offline Antagonist

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • *
  • A
  • Posts: 124
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #139 on: August 22, 2011, 01:42:28 PM »
Signed in to say I love the game, and to voice my enthusiasm for a possible Aurora II.

It just makes me very very sad to see such awesomeness held back basically only by the technology of its time.   I knowyour dev on Aurora II is on a little hiatus, but I thought I'd just weigh in on it and the advantages of developing it in modern C# over old pre-. NET VB.

1.  Themable windows and newer controls.  Pretty obvious but the UI elements haven't aged well.  Its functional, but UI standards have moved on.

2.  Database.  It breaks my heart every time I read on forums about some new fancy feature idea, but which isn't done due to performance issues.  Much of this I would blame on the Access database.   My advice would be using a SQL Express or SQLite database, both of which should give significant performance improvements.   The nice thing about Access though is it can be used to access and maintain other databases if the SQL Management Express is undesired, but just have the actual data sit on a better database.

3.  nHibernate or ADO. NET Entity Framework.  In a previous post storing all the data in memory as opposed in the database to speed up was mentioned.  These two, if you are unfamiliar with them, are ways of reaching a compromise.  They are basically database middleware that turns rows and columns into actual objects with methods and properties, making it MUCH easier to work with and develop game logic, then afterwards save the objects again as rows and columns, all without even a single line of SQL.

4.  Databinding.  Right now the multiple windows don't communicate very well.  If something changes the other windows have to be manually updated which doesn't always catch everything.  By using databinding the controls will update themselves when the underlying data changes, resulting in a lot less code you have to implement.

5.  Performance.  Modern . NET has changes A LOT of things improving all round performance.

6.  Installer.  That installer you got leaves MUCH to be desired.  Honestly.  Installer projects these days are much simpler and allows you create a much better working setup without asking to install so manu useless DLLs.

These are all straight technology advantages received simply by using modern . NET.  Honestly you don't have to use C#, you can keep VB, they both use the same libraries, though I would advise C# for the better power.

There have been some suggestions to use XNA, but I must say I don't think its a good idea for Aurora.  While XNA is pretty epic if you quickly want to throw together a DirectX game, Aurora isn't 3D and consists mostly of forms and windows, neither of which XNA does well, or at all really.

Now for some game mechanics musings:

As for Jump Gates in a hyperspace world? Way I am imagining it is kinda like EVE accelerators or like existing mass drivers.   The jump gate creates a hyperspace bubble around the ship, then launches that ship at high speed at the paired Jump gate, which then catches the ship and pops its bubble.  This is why it is important to have them paired, since you need a beacon to aim for, and since systems move pretty fast compared to one another.   And naturally you need something to catch you on the other end, which makes the destruction of a catching jump gate while you have ships in transit a pretty scary thing.

These jump gates are created independantly but can be paired with another, perhaps even have its pairing changed multiple times, and perhaps even able to lie INSIDE the hyperspace limit.   They are expensive, but allows non-hyperspace ships to hyperspace (much cheaper ships), its fast (though highly performant ships may be faster) and reliable, since all ships will emerge near the endpoint gate.

Its disadvantages would be that they take time to build, can be destroyed and all ships emerge near the endpoint, meaning that the gates can be camped.

So in short, would work same way jump points work now.  You find a jump point, take grav jump ship or military vessels through, explore, if you decide you want a colony build a gate which allows your freighters and colony ships access to the system.
 

Offline PTTG

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 125
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #140 on: August 29, 2011, 12:55:44 PM »
I would pay a blockbuster-game level price for that game.
 

Offline Tilla

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • T
  • Posts: 1
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #141 on: August 29, 2011, 03:38:04 PM »
If there were a donate button I'd certainly consider pressing it, as I have done twice now for Dwarf Fortress.  Of course Toady does consider that his job but there's no obligation to it necessarily, people are giving because they love the game.  If the 3000 forum members each pitched in $10 that's a decent standard of living.  And assuming Aurora 2 has a much better interface surely the fanbase could grow considerably.
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5657
  • Thanked: 372 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #142 on: August 29, 2011, 04:39:25 PM »
If there were a donate button I'd certainly consider pressing it, as I have done twice now for Dwarf Fortress.  Of course Toady does consider that his job but there's no obligation to it necessarily, people are giving because they love the game.  If the 3000 forum members each pitched in $10 that's a decent standard of living.  And assuming Aurora 2 has a much better interface surely the fanbase could grow considerably.

Steve does accept donations via PayPal as described in this post http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,2755.0.html


Offline Lafe Sparhawk

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • L
  • Posts: 27
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #143 on: September 02, 2011, 09:22:16 PM »
Hello,
I just took the time to go though all ten pages of this thread. I look forward to Aurora II. Hyperdrive is a great idea, it will open up many avenues for exploration and travel.  I would like to see jump points remain in at least a limited way though. Perhaps in an "Honorverse" sort of way. It would be great to set up a junction system such as Manticore and use grav survey vessels to find a few of the jump points. As technology increases more of the jp's could be found until the "theoretical limit" is obtained.

Lafe
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11672
  • Thanked: 20455 times
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #144 on: September 04, 2011, 03:55:29 PM »
Hello,
I just took the time to go though all ten pages of this thread. I look forward to Aurora II. Hyperdrive is a great idea, it will open up many avenues for exploration and travel.  I would like to see jump points remain in at least a limited way though. Perhaps in an "Honorverse" sort of way. It would be great to set up a junction system such as Manticore and use grav survey vessels to find a few of the jump points. As technology increases more of the jp's could be found until the "theoretical limit" is obtained.

Lafe

The FTL system I described for Aurora II is almost certainly what I am going to use for Newtonian Aurora.

Steve
 

Offline voknaar

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 201
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #145 on: October 25, 2011, 06:40:08 PM »
Just a question in regards to the features you have posted about Newtonian aurora: Will any of the new aspects of Newtonian aurora be ported over to Aurora 2? Like the equations mechanics or balancing. Because I think it would be good if Aurora 2 would be a mixture of both Aurora and Newtonian Aurora, from what I have read about both games.  :)
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11672
  • Thanked: 20455 times
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #146 on: October 26, 2011, 12:21:38 PM »
Just a question in regards to the features you have posted about Newtonian aurora: Will any of the new aspects of Newtonian aurora be ported over to Aurora 2? Like the equations mechanics or balancing. Because I think it would be good if Aurora 2 would be a mixture of both Aurora and Newtonian Aurora, from what I have read about both games.  :)

At this point I don't even know if Newtonian Aurora will actually work :). I hope so but it is an experiment as to what is possible. If it turns out to be playable then I'll make a decision then on what to include in an eventual Aurora II. That is a long time in the future at the moment though.

Steve
 

Offline Xelanthol

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • X
  • Posts: 33
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #147 on: October 26, 2011, 10:08:36 PM »
Hey Steve, I don't know what I am doing half the time in your game but that's why I love it so much (Lots to learn). I wish you the best of luck and hope you get a nice boost of inspiration/creativity/money, whatever you need for your future projects. Looking forward to Aurora 2 to keep my brain turnin'
 

Offline PayneRamsey

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • P
  • Posts: 30
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #148 on: October 27, 2011, 01:57:59 AM »
Just wanted to say i love aurora and looking forward to more of the fruits of your hobby
 

Offline Antagonist

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • *
  • A
  • Posts: 124
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #149 on: October 27, 2011, 03:37:23 AM »
I'm curious... what IS Steve's views on open or closed source C# Aurora clones or games inspired by Aurora?

Once the December holidays come up I should have some time I can use to program... unsure whether I'd rather work on one of my other games but if Steve is okay and there is interest from other devs I could put some hours towards it, since it seems Aurora II would otherwise be a long time coming.