Author Topic: Update on Progress  (Read 252705 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1154
  • Thanked: 317 times
Re: Update on Progress
« Reply #435 on: December 22, 2019, 06:49:21 PM »
Well, HTML has a "100%" for it's resolution options when embedding... so instead of "640x480" it would be "100% x 100%". Maybe C# can do something similar with text fields?
 

Offline firsal

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • f
  • Posts: 107
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: Update on Progress
« Reply #436 on: December 22, 2019, 10:14:08 PM »
About the resolution issues:

Back when I played Aurora on my old 1366x768 monitor, I used a nifty little program called ResizeEnable (free to download online) to shrink the oversized windows to fit on my screen (though the windows looked a bit janky and squashed). Perhaps this program may work on C# Aurora as well?
 

Offline Bughunter

  • Bug Moderators
  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 929
  • Thanked: 132 times
  • Discord Username: Bughunter
Re: Update on Progress
« Reply #437 on: December 23, 2019, 04:33:06 AM »
I know there is also some software to virtually extend your desktop space outside the monitor somehow, but maybe move this whole discussion to a separate thread.

I fully agree it's not worth Steve's development time. Just get some cheap/older external monitor, the improved Aurora experience is totally worth it on its own and you will never want to go back again once you tried it.
 
The following users thanked this post: Deutschbag

Offline Deutschbag

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 109
  • Thanked: 17 times
  • Discord Username: Pwnzerfaust
Re: Update on Progress
« Reply #438 on: December 23, 2019, 10:11:10 PM »
Just get some cheap/older external monitor

Very much this, if you're strapped for cash it's very possible to get a 1440 x 900 monitor for about $50.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: Update on Progress
« Reply #439 on: December 26, 2019, 10:59:03 AM »
I found a minor bug today. When the target of a missile with on-board active sensors is destroyed, the missile looks for a new target (as in VB6). However, due to a small coding error, the missiles in that situation in C# decided to target their own ships instead of the enemy :)
 
The following users thanked this post: Jovus

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 759
  • Thanked: 168 times
Re: Update on Progress
« Reply #440 on: December 26, 2019, 11:48:05 AM »
"Care to explain why our own missiles destroyed the flag ship?"

"A small coding error, my liege..."
 
The following users thanked this post: Steve Walmsley, Happerry, Demonides, V1D0, Mastik

Offline AlStar

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 175
  • Thanked: 125 times
  • Flag Maker Flag Maker : For creating Flags for Aurora
    Race Maker Race Maker : Creating race images
Re: Update on Progress
« Reply #441 on: December 26, 2019, 12:08:51 PM »
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=10096. msg117693#msg117693 date=1577379543
I found a minor bug today.  When the target of a missile with on-board active sensors is destroyed, the missile looks for a new target (as in VB6).  However, due to a small coding error, the missiles in that situation in C# decided to target their own ships instead of the enemy :)
Curious - did the anti-missile defenses fire at the incoming missiles, or did they ignore them, since they were "friendly"?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: Update on Progress
« Reply #442 on: December 26, 2019, 03:04:41 PM »
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=10096. msg117693#msg117693 date=1577379543
I found a minor bug today.  When the target of a missile with on-board active sensors is destroyed, the missile looks for a new target (as in VB6).  However, due to a small coding error, the missiles in that situation in C# decided to target their own ships instead of the enemy :)
Curious - did the anti-missile defenses fire at the incoming missiles, or did they ignore them, since they were "friendly"?

They ignored them - the defences only fire at hostile targets. I reloaded at that point :)
 
The following users thanked this post: V1D0

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: Update on Progress
« Reply #443 on: December 27, 2019, 07:22:22 AM »
I've updated collateral damage based on play test experience. Collateral damage will now use the base value of a weapon, rather than the base value multiplied by the weapon tech. For example, personal weapons will always do 0.0001 collateral damage per combat round regardless of tech level. A heavy anti-vehicle weapon will always cause 0.0216. This is on the basis that higher tech weapons will be more destructive but more precisely targeted. Fighter pods have also been adjusted in line with ground units. This means collateral damage will be much lower overall, about 10-12% of current values in my campaign, allowing more extensive ground combat without completely wrecking the objective. However, collateral damage from orbital bombardment support has only been lowered a little, so that should be generally avoided if you want low collateral damage.

More detail in the updated rules post.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg110508#msg110508
 
The following users thanked this post: Bremen, clement, DIT_grue, Graham, Alsadius

Offline Tikigod

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 195
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: Update on Progress
« Reply #444 on: December 28, 2019, 07:18:16 AM »
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=10096. msg117693#msg117693 date=1577379543
I found a minor bug today.  When the target of a missile with on-board active sensors is destroyed, the missile looks for a new target (as in VB6).  However, due to a small coding error, the missiles in that situation in C# decided to target their own ships instead of the enemy :)
Curious - did the anti-missile defenses fire at the incoming missiles, or did they ignore them, since they were "friendly"?

They ignored them - the defences only fire at hostile targets. I reloaded at that point :)

*Gasps*

Steve save scums!

On a side note, some way to trick hostile missiles to turn on their own ships would be pretty neat for a weird twist on a pacifist culture..... they refuse to use their own weapons, but see no problems turning their enemies weapons against them. lol


I've updated collateral damage based on play test experience. Collateral damage will now use the base value of a weapon, rather than the base value multiplied by the weapon tech. For example, personal weapons will always do 0.0001 collateral damage per combat round regardless of tech level. A heavy anti-vehicle weapon will always cause 0.0216. This is on the basis that higher tech weapons will be more destructive but more precisely targeted. Fighter pods have also been adjusted in line with ground units. This means collateral damage will be much lower overall, about 10-12% of current values in my campaign, allowing more extensive ground combat without completely wrecking the objective. However, collateral damage from orbital bombardment support has only been lowered a little, so that should be generally avoided if you want low collateral damage.

More detail in the updated rules post.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg110508#msg110508

With these changes to conventional attacks are there still reasonably easy means to essentially just scorch earth a target without being pigeon holed into just one option like dirty orbital bombs?

Probably beyond the scope of what you'd consider worth working on, but I quite liked the Stellaris approach where each empire had a selection of bombardment policies based on government type and you could then pick from the list that would represent your maximum stance for a fleet when attacking a planet.

Depending on your government type, some of the lighter policies might not even be available, for others you could only have lighter policies as viable. So for a standard empire you could set a higher government policy for allowed level of bombardment severity (At the risk of annoying other races), but still have fleets switch to lower bombardment stances on a case by case basis.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2019, 07:25:02 AM by Tikigod »
The popular stereotype of the researcher is that of a skeptic and a pessimist.  Nothing could be further from the truth! Scientists must be optimists at heart, in order to block out the incessant chorus of those who say "It cannot be done. "

- Academician Prokhor Zakharov, University Commencement
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: Update on Progress
« Reply #445 on: December 28, 2019, 08:03:12 AM »
*Gasps*

Steve save scums!

Only for bugs :)

With these changes to conventional attacks are there still reasonably easy means to essentially just scorch earth a target without being pigeon holed into just one option like dirty orbital bombs?

Assuming you can get past the planetary defences and you don't plan on using the planet afterwards, you can still follow a scorched-Earth approach.
 

Offline Tikigod

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 195
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: Update on Progress
« Reply #446 on: January 07, 2020, 05:43:38 AM »
Hope everyone had a great New Year!


So.....


Are we there yet?  ;D
The popular stereotype of the researcher is that of a skeptic and a pessimist.  Nothing could be further from the truth! Scientists must be optimists at heart, in order to block out the incessant chorus of those who say "It cannot be done. "

- Academician Prokhor Zakharov, University Commencement
 

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1154
  • Thanked: 317 times
Re: Update on Progress
« Reply #447 on: January 07, 2020, 02:34:16 PM »
NO!
 

Offline Kristover

  • Gold Supporter
  • Lt. Commander
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 259
  • Thanked: 135 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: Update on Progress
« Reply #448 on: January 07, 2020, 03:03:19 PM »
I sympathize.  This along with Kerbal Space Program 2 and Crusader Kings 3 are my day one purchase/downloads.  There are some other games out there I'm interested in but those three are the ones I most interested.  If Steve releases before end of March, then my year is nicely set with each in nice decent intervals.
 

Offline Nori

  • Bug Moderators
  • Lt. Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
  • Thanked: 42 times
  • Discord Username: Nori Silverrage
  • Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter : Support the forums with a Bronze subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Update on Progress
« Reply #449 on: January 08, 2020, 11:03:19 AM »
I'm a little on the fence about KSP2 just because they got bought by TakeTwo (however so far TakeTwo seems decent). So I'll reserve judgement. No doubt it'll be great, but time will see. I also strongly think that KSP is as popular as it is because of the highly robust modding community. So long as they keep that going in KSP2 I'm sure it'll be great.

CK3 is looking interesting. I do love paradox, but they don't always hit home runs (early HOI4 comes to mind) so again we shall see.
I'm mostly looking forward to Mount and Blade Bannerlord and Cyberpunk. Oh and Baldur's gate III could be good given that Larian is behind it.