It appears that you have not registered with Aurora 4x. To register, please click here...
VB6 Aurora > Newtonian Aurora
So No Reason to Hold My Breath?
Borealis4x:
Now, I wanted to try this game because it was supposed to be ultra-realistic in every sense of the word, only to find out that the ships break physics thanks to some magic rocks humanity just now found in the ground after centuries of mining the earth. I never really liked the Applied Phlebotinum trope in sci-fi, whether it be magic rocks or element zero from Mass Effect.
Now this project looks interesting, but unfortunately it seems to have been put to the wayside in favor of the next iteration of Aurora. But on the off hand that this version ever does get released is it worth me playing and learning the game or will too much change with the addition of true Newtonian physics?
83athom:
Yes it is worth playing and learning. The only thing that will change to Newtonian Aurora is acceleration based on mass and engine-power instead of a speed based on mass and engine power.
Barkhorn:
I thought Newtonian Aurora had been cancelled anyways, and that the current big project was porting the current version from VB6 to C#.
Sheb:
--- Quote from: BasileusMaximos on May 06, 2016, 10:48:41 AM ---Now, I wanted to try this game because it was supposed to be ultra-realistic in every sense of the word, only to find out that the ships break physics thanks to some magic rocks humanity just now found in the ground after centuries of mining the earth. I never really liked the Applied Phlebotinum trope in sci-fi, whether it be magic rocks or element zero from Mass Effect.
--- End quote ---
Now, I think you've been misled. This game isn't ultra-realistic, it's ultra-detailed. Even Newtonian Aurora would still have FTL communication, detection, and energy weapon that can work for more than five seconds.
Still, this game is fun. I think it's worth trying it, but you should try it for its own value, not as some kind of preparation for a Newtonian version that will likely never come.
Vandermeer:
It is realistic in the regard that it notices all other scientific concepts which aren't touched by the 3 great breaks of non-newtonian sub-light travel, the completely mysterious FTL, and the FTL communication.
Otherwise it is really exact, for example with the rate at which lasers disperse over distance, and what wavelength would get you what range on a certain focal. Also it respects the Volume-to-SurfaceArea growth disparity when calculating armor thickness, so larger ships have it easier to gain thicker hulls. Many other values follow halfway arbitrary, but still much sense making formulas (the greenhouse formula, the fuel burning, or the sensor detection formula) that exist for the purpose of simulating realistic circumstance, and they totally succeed.
For planets you have details, yes, but accurate details that follow official records or predictions. The Lagrangian points may do something sci-fi, but their placement is accurate. You can also go look up those star classes and get educated if you want, because they are all right, and I think with that kind of scientific detail, it becomes indeed more realistic. ..It is just sci-fi placed into a realistic back-frame.
(Neill Degrasse Tyson once said that there are lesser and higher sci-fi's. You have to respect all the facts and knowledge we already understand, and only then you can place upon this some fantastic stuff, and that then is true sci-fi.)
So when somebody told Basileus that Aurora is realistic, I presume he meant something like this, that it is the most realistic(=science respecting) setting you can find, but not that it would actually be realistic, because if it actually was, then this would be like no sound in space during Star Trek: Boring
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version