Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 65872 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Iranon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 460
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #900 on: June 15, 2017, 05:02:38 AM »
The only good beer is German beer, and all other nations should be annexed and forced to brew it. Our purity laws say so.
 

Offline Erik Luken

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5005
  • Thanked: 78 times
    • View Profile
    • Arkayn Game Design
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #901 on: June 15, 2017, 09:04:34 AM »
At least no "sex on a raft" beer...
 

Offline Shuul

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • Posts: 20
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #902 on: June 28, 2017, 02:05:07 PM »
Quote
Turret Update

Hey, I thought you are on vacation! Why you make me hype again?
 

Offline mtm84

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #903 on: June 29, 2017, 04:05:33 AM »
Something always seemed wrong with turret armor.  I always figured maybe armor tech wasn't being applied or something.  Glad to see it's fixed, it will let me come that much closer to emulating WW2 ship classes in aurora!
 

Offline DreadPirateLynx

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • Posts: 3
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #904 on: June 29, 2017, 09:56:44 PM »
I haven't read through all of the posts in this thread, so sorry if this has already been requested:

One thing that's always bothered me is the implementation of the Naval Organization tab in the Task Groups window.  Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the idea of it, and this is the only 4x space game I've ever played to even attempt anything like it, but it could still use some work.  Specifically, being able to issue commands to all the ships in a branch (including sub-branches) when they're in different locations.  I tend to organize my navy in an Armada->Fleet->Squadron->Individual Ships fashion, and I'm constantly separating and recombining task groups based on my needs.  Being able to issue a single command to an entire armada or fleet to assemble at a specific location when individual ships are in different systems would be hugely beneficial to me.  I admit that there are ways to accomplish this currently, but doing so is fairly cumbersome.

Thanks for your time and consideration.   
« Last Edit: June 29, 2017, 10:45:57 PM by DreadPirateLynx »
 
The following users thanked this post: superstrijder15

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 6465
  • Thanked: 809 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #905 on: July 02, 2017, 03:59:11 AM »
I haven't read through all of the posts in this thread, so sorry if this has already been requested:

One thing that's always bothered me is the implementation of the Naval Organization tab in the Task Groups window.  Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the idea of it, and this is the only 4x space game I've ever played to even attempt anything like it, but it could still use some work.  Specifically, being able to issue commands to all the ships in a branch (including sub-branches) when they're in different locations.  I tend to organize my navy in an Armada->Fleet->Squadron->Individual Ships fashion, and I'm constantly separating and recombining task groups based on my needs.  Being able to issue a single command to an entire armada or fleet to assemble at a specific location when individual ships are in different systems would be hugely beneficial to me.  I admit that there are ways to accomplish this currently, but doing so is fairly cumbersome.

Thanks for your time and consideration.   

This area has been revamped in C# Aurora to become much easier to manage: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8455.msg96785#msg96785

However, issuing simultaneous orders to multiple fleets in different locations will not be available (at least initially). The potential orders list is created based on the position and capabilities of the selected fleet, and the order may not be possible for all fleets within the same organisation. It is still theoretically possible to handle this but it would require a lot of extra code. Given the amount of other work required for C# Aurora, this change isn't a high priority
 
The following users thanked this post: waresky, superstrijder15

Offline ardem

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 749
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #906 on: July 10, 2017, 12:03:15 AM »
This mean Multistage rockets could be much quieter on thermals, you could launch from afar at a lower velocity, then hit high gear close to impact. Actually I could see benefits now to a three stage rocket.

Quiet running -> Medium to avoid antimissile -> Final impact to avoid point defence.

Honor Harrington here we come. Although I am disappointed about laser missiles not being around but such is life.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 802
  • Thanked: 16 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #907 on: July 10, 2017, 02:10:59 AM »
Quote from:    Steve Walmsley
As missiles (for now anyway), don't have thermal reduction or an option to travel below maximum speed, their thermal signature is equal to the power of their engines. Combined with the changes to passive detection, this means that missiles in C# Aurora will probably be detected by thermal sensors at much greater distances than in VB6 Aurora.

Hmm. I wonder if you could make an effective passively guided AMM after this change?

With all the changes to Thermal and EM emissions as well as these being serious ways to guide missiles now it really feels like we need some way for Missile Fire Controls to fire on calculated interception points of target and relying on missiles picking up their emissions once close enough.

Doing that math and geometry by hand every time while possible is going to be pretty frustrating.

This way of playing could also could support making missile design even more interesting and deep. Maybe a 0.1 MSP component to enable a search pattern or loitering if missiles find nothing at their destination as well (continuing until out of fuel), or Friendly Fire risk for passively guided missiles unless you equip a 0.1 MSP IFF component to missiles.
 
The following users thanked this post: Titanian, superstrijder15

Offline Tuna-Fish

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #908 on: July 11, 2017, 06:10:57 PM »
I wouldn't want to make my AMMs heatseeking just because of the amount of passive sensors and contacts for them it would mean on the map.  I mean, C# with all work done in memory is better, but it's not magic. . .

But yeah, it seems to me that a decent thermal sensor should now be usable as missile early warning -- so long as it's up, you don't need to run on actives to make sure your PD works, you can just turn on the actives after you see missiles.
 

Offline infernobirdkrpt

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #909 on: July 15, 2017, 11:37:31 PM »
Sorry if this has been asked already but is it real time pause or more of the same from Aurora 4x?
 

Offline mrwigggles

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 137
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #910 on: July 16, 2017, 08:57:35 PM »
Sorry if this has been asked already but is it real time pause or more of the same from Aurora 4x?
Like Sins of a Solar Empire?
 

Offline Gyrfalcon

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 123
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #911 on: July 17, 2017, 02:10:23 AM »
It's going to be more of the same. Changing Aurora to a realtime game would be far more then changing the codebase, you'd basically be building a new game entirely.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 146
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #912 on: July 17, 2017, 02:11:30 AM »
Why on earth would you say that?
 

Offline Gyrfalcon

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 123
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #913 on: July 17, 2017, 08:40:04 AM »
Because the backend of a game where everything has to run in realtime is going to be completely different from a backend where you can expect to perform all the calculations and database work only when the turn (or in this case, time) is incremented?
 

Offline Bughunter

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 584
  • Thanked: 32 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #914 on: July 17, 2017, 11:03:17 AM »
While not realtime, what maybe could be in scope for the next Aurora release (Steve willing) is better management of the pausing. Like some control over what events cause a pause with some spam control feature like "do not pause for this event type again unless X time has passed since the last one".
 
The following users thanked this post: MagusXIX, Barkhorn

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51