Posted by: Hawkeye
« on: December 13, 2012, 02:16:07 PM »LOL, no, additional time is not required. The delay for untrained crew is a lot shorter, perhaps up to a minute (while in combat that minute does _feel_ like days, though)
Posted by: Bandus
« on: December 13, 2012, 10:02:02 AM »I gave them 7 days. I assumed that would be long enough. Should I give them more time?
Posted by: Hawkeye
« on: December 13, 2012, 09:44:11 AM »Hm, the "preparing to launch but not ready yet" message is normally due to an unexperienced crew (training below 100).
Giving them some time to get their act together should do the trick in that case.
Giving them some time to get their act together should do the trick in that case.
Posted by: Bandus
« on: December 13, 2012, 08:51:28 AM »So, I think somehow the actual solar system I was originally attempting this in is bugged. I tried building a ship capable of launching a 2 stage missile design, brought it to the intended solar system and tried again with no effect. I received a message indicating that the ship was preparing to fire its weapons, but wasn't ready yet. I then moved the ship to an adjoining system and was able to launch the 2 stage missile at a waypoint with no problem at all and it worked exactly as intended. I'm not sure how to report a bug like this though, would the bug report sub-forum still apply?
Posted by: Bandus
« on: December 11, 2012, 10:45:33 PM »The maximum interval I can advance by is 1 day at this point due to what I think is NPR activity. I am forcing 1 day pulses because if I use automatic the pulses drop to around 6-8 hours. Ironically, the NPR activity is the genesis for this whole debacle. I'm pretty sure that the NPR activity in question is a NPR at these planets I'm trying to reach constantly scanning my ships entering and leaving the system.
I tried again with the variant booster stage which had it's own stage and received the same exact message with the same exact result, unfortunately. I think I'll have to scrap this idea and simply design an extremely efficient, slow engine.
I tried again with the variant booster stage which had it's own stage and received the same exact message with the same exact result, unfortunately. I think I'll have to scrap this idea and simply design an extremely efficient, slow engine.
Posted by: sublight
« on: December 11, 2012, 08:26:44 PM »Say, what happens if you mash the 1-day time increment a few times?
I ran a few tests with short-range drones ( less than 500m km, less than 5 day endurance) and they appear to be functioning as expected, but when I made an ultra-long range drone (40b km+, 365 day+) things started acting funny. They wouldn't move if the time steps were too short!
Ultra-Long Drone
Missile Size: 9MSP(0.45 HS) Warhead: 0
Speed: 1400 km/s Engine Endurance: 9,051.4 hours Range: 45,619.1m km
Second Stage: Size 2 Buoy x1
500km target: 20 minute increment required to move.
1.6b km target: 20 minute increment required
5.5b km target: 3 hour increment required
10.6b km target: 3 hour increment required
38b km target: 1 day increment required
Nothing scientific, just some rather unexpected independent observations.
I ran a few tests with short-range drones ( less than 500m km, less than 5 day endurance) and they appear to be functioning as expected, but when I made an ultra-long range drone (40b km+, 365 day+) things started acting funny. They wouldn't move if the time steps were too short!
Ultra-Long Drone
Missile Size: 9MSP(0.45 HS) Warhead: 0
Speed: 1400 km/s Engine Endurance: 9,051.4 hours Range: 45,619.1m km
Second Stage: Size 2 Buoy x1
500km target: 20 minute increment required to move.
1.6b km target: 20 minute increment required
5.5b km target: 3 hour increment required
10.6b km target: 3 hour increment required
38b km target: 1 day increment required
Nothing scientific, just some rather unexpected independent observations.
Posted by: Bandus
« on: December 11, 2012, 04:12:25 PM »Hey Steve, thanks for the reply! I did change that for the newly designed missile and am currently moving it to the PDC to see if that helps. I can tell you that with the previous iteration of the missile, posted above, I was absolutely 100% targeting a waypoint attached to the planet. Yet I received the message I posted above: "Tarifa 001 - Ravenki-SBDV-FCS-001- targeting Waypoint #1 at 0k km." The waypoint was 100% in the right spot though.
On a side note, it seems to me that I had problems with ships traveling in this solar system at one point. I had long range exploration scouts and when I sent them towards this secondary star the distance and ETA seemed to increase as opposed to decrease. I'm going to try dust of that design and see if that is the case as that may be playing into this if so.
On a side note, it seems to me that I had problems with ships traveling in this solar system at one point. I had long range exploration scouts and when I sent them towards this secondary star the distance and ETA seemed to increase as opposed to decrease. I'm going to try dust of that design and see if that is the case as that may be playing into this if so.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: December 11, 2012, 04:07:21 PM »You can't target planets directly. Using a waypoint attached to the planet is the only way.
I'm not sure what is happening here. There is one thing I would change though, which is to change the seperation range to zero. Otherwise the buoy will be released before you get to the target.
Steve
I'm not sure what is happening here. There is one thing I would change though, which is to change the seperation range to zero. Otherwise the buoy will be released before you get to the target.
Steve
Posted by: Bandus
« on: December 11, 2012, 03:47:29 PM »I went back and checked the combat assignments overview (F8) as well as the task groups (F12) and individual ships (F6) window but can't see a way to target planetary bodies in any of them. You can't give orders to PDCs in the task groups screen like with ships else I would give it an order to launch missiles at. In desperation, I redesigned the booster stage to have its own active sensor to see if that changes anything.
Any other suggestions on this would be appreciated!
Any other suggestions on this would be appreciated!
Posted by: Erik L
« on: December 11, 2012, 01:51:10 PM »@Erik - Planetary bodies have never shown up in my fire control even if I uncheck "only show hostile contacts." How do I target bodies using it, please?
Might be senility creeping in.
Posted by: Bandus
« on: December 11, 2012, 01:10:29 PM »@Erik - Planetary bodies have never shown up in my fire control even if I uncheck "only show hostile contacts." How do I target bodies using it, please?
Posted by: Erik L
« on: December 11, 2012, 10:52:12 AM »Try targeting the planet instead of a waypoint?
Posted by: Bandus
« on: December 11, 2012, 10:50:13 AM »@Sublight - Your steps are essentially exactly what I have done at this point. I deleted the waypoint and recreated it just to confirm no mistakes there. No dice.
Posted by: sublight
« on: December 11, 2012, 10:47:21 AM »The only thing I can suggest is double checking that you didn't accidentally make the way-point centered on your home planet.
It's been a while so my memory may be a bit fuzzy but the last time I used a geosurvey drone I:
1) click on the destination
2) clicked create waypoint on last from waypoint tab
3) assigned a single missile tube to the ICBM missile complex fire control
4) assigned the new waypoint as the fire control's target
5) opened fire.
Of course, that was a single stage design back in 6.0. I'll see if 2-stage designs in 6.2 work any differently, but it will be a few hours before I have access to my Aurora computer.
It's been a while so my memory may be a bit fuzzy but the last time I used a geosurvey drone I:
1) click on the destination
2) clicked create waypoint on last from waypoint tab
3) assigned a single missile tube to the ICBM missile complex fire control
4) assigned the new waypoint as the fire control's target
5) opened fire.
Of course, that was a single stage design back in 6.0. I'll see if 2-stage designs in 6.2 work any differently, but it will be a few hours before I have access to my Aurora computer.
Posted by: SteelChicken
« on: December 11, 2012, 10:20:56 AM »Wish I could help, I have no experience with dual-stages or sensor probes. I will say using way points for ASM missiles is problematic. Behavior is inconsistent and hard to plan for.
