Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - MarcAFK

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Portable Launcher Utility / Re: Error 399 [WINDOWS 10]
« on: August 06, 2017, 08:19:01 PM »
This is a tough one. I've never seen a 399 error from Aurora before.
Microsoft's Visual basic site describes a 399 as following :
Code: [Select]
Visual Basic Reference
Visual Studio 6.0
You can't put a Default or Cancel button on a User Control unless its DefaultCancel property is set (Error 399)

See Also

You can't set a control's Default or Cancel property to True on a User Control unless the User Control's DefaultCancel property is True. This error has the following causes and solutions:

    You tried to set the Default or Cancel property of a control contained by a User Control to True, but the DefaultCancel property of the User Control was set to False.

    Set the DefaultCancel property of the User Control to True. This allows the User Control to participate in form wide Cancel/Default behavior.
You say every window does this? It can't be a simple bug then. I might assume that Visual basic isn't installed correctly, but windows 10 comes with visual basic already installed so It's improbable. I'm going to keep digging around and see what I can find through google.
The following users thanked this post: Fl1nchous

2
Aurora Chat / Re: [Game Setup][Problem]Dahakish/SG Universe-ish game.
« on: July 30, 2017, 05:47:03 PM »
On the research tab of the population and production window (F2) At the bottom below the tech description there is a bunch of buttons to switch between display of projects that are; Available, All Projects, Completed, or Completed(Ex start).
Switch from Available to Completed, then you can select the project and use the new "remove" button.
The following users thanked this post: TheBawkHawk

3
Supposdely yes
It's a great idea really, I'm sure the rest of the military likes the idea...
Quote
This proposal is opposed by the U.S. Air Force, Air Force Space Command, and other military leaders, including Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson, Chief of Staff of the Air Force General David L. Goldfein, and the current commander of Air Force Space Command General John W. Raymond.[5][6][7][8] Other former military and space leaders in opposition to this effort include Secretary Sean O'Keefe, former Secretary of the Navy and NASA administrator; Lisa Disbrow, former Under Secretary of the Air Force; General Victor E. Renuart Jr., former commander of U.S. Northern Command and NORAD; and Lieutenant General Edward G. Anderson III, former deputy commander of U.S. Northern Command and NORAD
...Uh, well ok, but what do they know.
The following users thanked this post: superstrijder15

4
Theres no way those ranks are genuine, are they?
The following users thanked this post: xhunterx

5
Aurora Chat / Re: Naming Convnetions
« on: July 07, 2017, 12:34:13 AM »
So this thread is a year old and I've posted here a few times... I only just noticed the misspelling of the word 'Conventions'.
The following users thanked this post: Drgong

6
C# Aurora / Re: Release date?
« on: May 31, 2017, 06:13:43 AM »
This year if we're lucky?
It's a guess but I'm probaby pretty close.
The following users thanked this post: Ynglaur, iceball3

7
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: May 28, 2017, 01:29:41 AM »
I don't like the idea of artificially adding in an extra multiplier to missiles, but Honestly i think missile ranges are far too long and if making an arbitrary change results in an improvement  to gameplay I'm all for it.
Personally I don't like shields being decoupled from fuel usage, but only because I'm a fan of the idea of them requiring power plants, and power plants needing fuel anyway. XD.
The following users thanked this post: serger

8
Aurora Chat / Re: The GRAND AURORA TOURNAMENT
« on: April 03, 2017, 07:58:40 AM »
It's a great idea to be sure, you would be interested to know this kind of thing has come up in the past, I'm sure you'll get some ideas on how to organize your competition from the following threads.
War Stories of Alpha Centauri Arena
Alpha Centauri Fleet Challenge
Battle for Barnard's Star
[Forum Game] The Design Championship.
[Forum Game] SAC 6000
The Aurora Yacht Club
Thx to sublight for getting the ball rolling with those first 3 threads, shebs design championships was also quite succussful.
The following users thanked this post: SerBeardian

9
Bureau of Ship Design / Re: engine-less ships
« on: February 14, 2017, 06:12:39 AM »
Even better, if you put an orbital habitat onto a vessel it adds 200'000 tons, but also makes the 'ship' buildable using planetary factories. You can cram a ton of harvesting modules onto a ship and put a good percentage of industry towards it then afterhowever long you're willing to wait you'll get a massive fuel harvesting platform.
The following users thanked this post: Tor Cha

10
The Academy / Re: My ship broke ... what now?
« on: February 13, 2017, 01:55:49 AM »
The ship doesn't quite have enough MSP storage to allow for repair of the broken component.
The following users thanked this post: Tor Cha

11
The Academy / Re: [solved]change empire name
« on: February 08, 2017, 11:22:18 PM »
No problem. Apologies to the other guy who's post appears to have vanished.
The following users thanked this post: Odin

12
Population over 2 trillion causes an overflow bug, but growth stops after 200 billion anyway, even though the planet will still show a positive growth percentage.
The following users thanked this post: Darknote

13
The Academy / Re: Mines that go boom and missile buoys
« on: February 05, 2017, 11:43:25 PM »
Putting thermal sensors on the warheads is a good way of avoiding overkill, you might still get every mine launching at one ship, but once that's destroyed the remainders will retarget anything in range. If you don't put thermals on the sensor stage then you shouldn't get friendly fire incidents. Unless some unlucky NPR wanders into a warp point assault or something.
Theres some other ways to avoid mine overkill. Laying mines with alternating sensor range, or missile speed is one idea, or maybe having each mine launch different submunitions.
You could even make multistage mines where after being triggered half the mine jumps out as warhead stages following the enemy, and the other half of the mine is an entirely new mine.
The following users thanked this post: Tor Cha

14
The Academy / Re: Mines that go boom and missile buoys
« on: January 31, 2017, 09:50:12 PM »
Post your mine design here.
If your first stage has no engine and fuel then it's considered a buoy, it will be dropped exactly where the launching ship is and will wait around with it's sensors on looking around, if it detects something it will launch the second stage at it. That second stage should have a sensor on it too but I don't think that's actually required, but I could be wrong, the first stage might vanish the second it launches it's payload. (which makes no sense as it should stick around long enough to light it's target to destruction).
If your first stage has engines and fuel then it's not a bouy, it will travel to a waypoint it's aimed at, or any other target, when it reaches that target or runs out of fuel it will fire it's secondary. Which means if your secondary payload is the warhead it'll be wasted.
If you want to long range launch mines you'll need 3 stages, a Payload missile to hit the target, a secondary bouy with sensors to look for targets, and a tertiary stage which carrys the bouy to the waypoint.
That stage will probably be quite large unless you make the mines very small, In my opinion since mines don't require fuel or an engine, and you can lay carefully with large slow reloading launchers then it makes sense to make them quite large, potentially able to mission kill a ship with a single hit. Or at least carry enough standard missiles to cause a decent alpha strike.
The following users thanked this post: Tor Cha

15
The Academy / Re: Populations and Worlds
« on: January 31, 2017, 09:38:54 PM »
http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.php?title=Terraforming#Colony_Cost_and_Terraforming
A world that is perfectly habitable to your people is displayed as colony cost of 0.
This requires an acceptable gravity and atmosphere.
If a planet is within the gravity tolerance of your species then the colony cost displays how much infrastructure is needed to sustain a population on that body due to the hostile atmosphere, colony cost of 1 requires 100 infrastructure for 1 million people, cost of 2 requires 200 for a million, etc.
Reducing colony cost requires removing toxic gasses, changing the temperature to one acceptable to your species, lowering or raising the pressure, and finally ensuring there is the right quantity of oxygen.
If the body is very low gravity then you'll need to use underground infrastructure, which is always calculated as if the body has a colony cost of 3.0, and must be built on site, by the population and initially by construction engineers. Normal infrastructure costs 2 duranium each but underground costs 10 duranium, so it's more expensive and takes a while to build but is the only sensible option for low gravity colonies. Unless you use orbital habitats which have the advantage of being movable.
The following users thanked this post: Tor Cha

Pages: [1] 2 3 4