Aurora II

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Steve, have you considered switching from MS Access to MS SQL Server?  It handles larger databases much better.  The Express edition is free and deployable.

I have the Express version installed as I was considering it for Aurora II. I find Access is a lot easier to play around with but I assume that is just familiarity. The main issue would be changing every SQL query in the program to use SQL server. I am still using DAO at the moment

Steve

[ndkid]

I have the Express version installed as I was considering it for Aurora II. I find Access is a lot easier to play around with but I assume that is just familiarity. The main issue would be changing every SQL query in the program to use SQL server. I am still using DAO at the moment

Steve

I would recommend sticking to DAO for SQL as well, honestly. Part of the point of DAO (and DAO.NET) is to provide some database backend abstraction so that you can easily change what the data source is. Of course, in the .NET world,  how you'd use DAO would be different, but you've already done some of that work in Aurora II, as I remember.

[sloanjh]

Autopsy Performed

Shouldn't that be "Alien Autopsy Performed"?  And shouldn't there be a movie?

I am beginning to wonder if some sort of gradual transition might be possible, using C# to replace some key existing parts of Aurora and run a program with elements from both languages.

The good news:  since both C# and VB.NET compile into CIL (or CLI or CLR or .NET or whichever of the Microsoft acronyms is correct in this context), you can trivially call a C# assembly (DLL) from VB code and vice-versa.

The bad news:  I'm 99% certain that the VB.NET compiler (i.e. the current VB compiler in Visual Studio) won't compile VB6 code without a port.  From the wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Basic_.NET#Relation_to_older_versions_of_Visual_Basic_.28VB6_and_previous.29 it sounds like there might be some auto-conversion tools out there....

John

[UnLimiTeD]

So it's essentially about finding good conversion tools now?
We're not the first to ask for that though... http://bytes.com/topic/misc/answers/588553-how-convert-vb6-code-c-there-any-translator-available
Aside, wouldn't it be theoretically (I never actually got into those languages deep enough, I'm lazy) possible to split the current Aurora into several chunks of code, convert them, make dlls out of them that are called by the new A2, and then gradualle replace the bits with new code?
On the other hand, the result is the same; if you work on A1, you'd have to do everything again in A2, if you work on A2, it'll result in no actual progress for ever a year until all critical parts are ported.

[voknaar]

Might I suggest that you outsource some of the more tedious work to people with free time and knowledge of the tools, then they send back their work and you go over it with a fine comb looking for faults and making sure nobodies attempting to "upload a virus into the mothership"? It could save you some time for the more fun aspects and move things along faster and possibly help you learn the language? I've always been tempted to learn to programme just do what you've done which is to make a game of your liking.

[Charlie Beeler]

I'll confess that PC/LAN programming and database handling is a major weak point for me (mainframe background).  My specific knowledge of MS SQL Server is next to nonexistent.  In my new job, less than a month, we're using it for AdHoc reports only.  In my research to figure even that much out is where I can across the issues that Access  has with 100mb+ databases and multiple users.  With SQL Server handling larger DB's and multiple users it would appear to be a better route to take for Aurora II. 

I have no doubt that there are significant hurdles to overcome, and I'm the first to stick with what I already know.  This just seems like an nearly ideal point to make is switch if one was going too.

[antofdeath]

Sorry if it has been said already. Multithreading. I noticed this game takes up like 80% of a single CPU on my computer and was like WTF?

[ardem]

Curious is Aurora II still on the cards, I noticed Steve still expanding Version 1.

[wodin]

Not keen on the real time idea...hate real time games and always preferred turn based....if the game goes real time I'm out.

I would love to see a in depth tactical ground warfare element, not talking hex based map or anything, just the ability to issues high level orders etc....expand the ground warfare and I'd be happy...also be able to issues tactics to your ships during combat which you can train them in to get better at them (esp at fighter level)...you'd have to use your imagination to think up different types of tactics that would be used, maybe look into modern ship combat tactics...or base them on WW2 tactics but in space at greater range, sure there is alot of info out there with regards to this.

Howabout chemical warfare....you meet a new race and then after capturing some be able o research chemical warfare against that particular species...so you can bombard them and wipe them out yet keep all their stuff......or it could all go wrong and they mutate into more powerful beings!!

[Thiosk]

There is already some light chemical warfare in-- don't let alien terraformers sit in orbit.

I feel similar about the real time thing though.  The level of complexity is so high... but, being able to set semi-continuous tics would be nice just so long as they're easy to halt and alter. 

But whats really needed more than anything is an engine overhaul-- same game, just running with a main window and pop ups instead of fixed height windows.  Thats a good plan.

[Ziusudra]

It's not "real time" in the normal sense.

From the original post: "you can pause it, or accelerate it. This is isn't as different as it sounds because it will be similar to permament automated turns with the sub-pulses equal to the acceleraton rate and no defined increments."

From a later post: "I think my comment about real time may have given a false impression. I still don't intend to allow a command and conquer style interface where you command ships as they are moving. You will give orders while the game is 'paused', just as in Aurora, and then let it run until something happens, just as you currently do with automated turns. In effect I am making automated turns part of the normal function and removing the higher level increments while retaining the lower-level sub-pulses. The function will be internally very similar to the way it is now but the impression should be a smoother-flowing game."

[wodin]

That sounds better....thank god it's not a C&C RTS idea....

Steve is a genius

[darbycmcd]

I think this is a very exciting idea.   I like the pausible real-time! 
My only suggestion, and I know you will hate the idea  . . . .  please document the mechanics somewhat completely for game play.
It seems like your pattern has been to make changes as they occur to you, which is great.   But I think it becomes a huge huge obstacle for new players to get into the game if you aren't in at the beginning.   There are so many features that are unexplained, and interactions that are opaque, processes that are arcane. . .  it just gets a bit messy.   Just a single source with 'this item does this by this process' would be super helpful.

[Charlie Beeler]

I think this is a very exciting idea.   I like the pausible real-time! 
My only suggestion, and I know you will hate the idea  . . . .  please document the mechanics somewhat completely for game play.
It seems like your pattern has been to make changes as they occur to you, which is great.   But I think it becomes a huge huge obstacle for new players to get into the game if you aren't in at the beginning.   There are so many features that are unexplained, and interactions that are opaque, processes that are arcane. . .  it just gets a bit messy.   Just a single source with 'this item does this by this process' would be super helpful.

Welcome to the world of Aurora!!  It's chalk full of "undocumented features"!!   

[Shadow]

Not keen on the real time idea...hate real time games and always preferred turn based....if the game goes real time I'm out.

There's nothing wrong with the realtime method per sé. It doesn't mean Aurora II will suddenly become StarCraft just because it works in realtime.

While I support pausable realtime with a number of speed settings, I do believe processing must be optimized for that. There's no way any single CPU on Earth could process the first Aurora's calculations in realtime, but I'm guessing it'll be easier for Aurora II with a good deal of optimization, a different coding language and multicore support. There needn't be a significant graphic jump either: just seeing the dots and lines in a tad better quality moving, with simple, clever effects and creative information display would be awesome.