Author Topic: No Thermal when Stationary  (Read 11210 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Deutschbag

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 109
  • Thanked: 17 times
  • Discord Username: Pwnzerfaust
Re: No Thermal when Stationary
« Reply #30 on: March 27, 2019, 10:08:40 AM »
I vote two, with the caveat of having some technological means to (temporarily?) reduce that signature.
 

Offline Bughunter

  • Bug Moderators
  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 929
  • Thanked: 132 times
  • Discord Username: Bughunter
Re: No Thermal when Stationary
« Reply #31 on: March 27, 2019, 10:49:26 AM »
The assumption in C# would be the ship would accelerate to dodge missiles. Missiles are much easier to detect in C# so this isn't too much of a stretch. I might need to add something to show a thermal signature when the ship dodged, but it would be a rare situation where that was meaningful (as the ship would need to be detected already in order to have to dodge the missiles).

I know we are deep into tiny details now, but where I can see it make a difference is intel gathering on the class.

And yes option #2 is better.
 
The following users thanked this post: space dwarf

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2788
  • Thanked: 1051 times
Re: No Thermal when Stationary
« Reply #32 on: March 27, 2019, 11:21:52 AM »
My vote goes for Option 2 too.
 

Offline space dwarf

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • s
  • Posts: 42
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: No Thermal when Stationary
« Reply #33 on: March 27, 2019, 11:42:53 AM »
The assumption in C# would be the ship would accelerate to dodge missiles. Missiles are much easier to detect in C# so this isn't too much of a stretch. I might need to add something to show a thermal signature when the ship dodged, but it would be a rare situation where that was meaningful (as the ship would need to be detected already in order to have to dodge the missiles).

I know we are deep into tiny details now, but where I can see it make a difference is intel gathering on the class.

And yes option #2 is better.

Yeah, if they're dodging missiles you're gathering information on speed/engine power or whatever i guess
 

Offline JacenHan

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 454
  • Thanked: 115 times
  • Discord Username: Jacenhan
Re: No Thermal when Stationary
« Reply #34 on: March 27, 2019, 12:39:48 PM »
Can we assume that cloaking will reduce the base thermal output?
 

Offline clement

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • *
  • c
  • Posts: 137
  • Thanked: 13 times
Re: No Thermal when Stationary
« Reply #35 on: March 27, 2019, 12:43:24 PM »
Option 2.

I would start with 10 or 15% of ship size. In the future a tech could be added to allow that to be reduced. A tech in the same category as cloaking that gets it down to 5% would be worthwhile.
 

Offline CheaterEater

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • C
  • Posts: 50
Re: No Thermal when Stationary
« Reply #36 on: March 27, 2019, 01:30:26 PM »
Ships shouldn't get to dodge missiles and have low thermal emissions. It could create a situation where thermal sensors on missiles or mines have trouble detecting a vessel that is still "moving" to dodge. I can see a situation where an enemy jumps into an area and finds many mines, or I use missiles with thermal sensors for some reason. I could fire other missiles and force them to either not dodge or to come into view of the thermal sensors, but if the evasion is emissions-free there's no point. Or a missile with a thermal sensor could be passing nearby, but I'm unsure what detection range it has. If I can sit still and reduce my thermal signature, the best choice is definitely to sit still: I get all the benefits of reduced detection, but if the missile does notice me I can still evade it without activating further ones.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 744
  • Thanked: 151 times
Re: No Thermal when Stationary
« Reply #37 on: March 27, 2019, 02:50:27 PM »
Having a tech to reduce the base thermal signature seems like it would overcomplicate things to me. Not everything needs a tech line.
 

Offline Scandinavian

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • S
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: No Thermal when Stationary
« Reply #38 on: March 28, 2019, 03:26:29 AM »
Maybe base the base thermal emissions on # of armor columns instead of # of hull spaces? Would still increase with size, just not linearly.
 

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: No Thermal when Stationary
« Reply #39 on: March 28, 2019, 08:01:47 AM »
BTW, I always thought that thermal output was proportional to speed in the first place.  When approaching a potentially inhabited planet during scouting I used to have an involved process where I would gradually slow down as I got closer.  It sounds like this was all for naught - that my thermal output was the same no matter what (which sounds counter-intuitive to me).

Slowing down does matter in VB6. As you slow down your thermal output drops. The problem in VB6 is that a ship with max speed is assumed to have full thermal, even when it isn't moving (has no orders). Everything is based on current speed, not current orders. In VB6, you can set a ship to 1 km/s using the picket order and drop its thermal output to virtually nothing.

The difference for C# would be that anything without orders would be assumed to have zero speed (effectively the same as setting the 1 km/s order in VB6) and anything with orders would use the current speed (as per VB6).

Ahhh - now I remember.  My recollection is the "picket speed" command was to make it easier to for people to perform your option 1 by hand.

John
 

Offline serger

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 634
  • Thanked: 120 times
  • Silver Supporter Silver Supporter : Support the forums with a Silver subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
Re: No Thermal when Stationary
« Reply #40 on: March 30, 2019, 06:19:52 AM »
Vote for 2, as it will be less disbelieve and less micromanagement.
 

Offline totos_totidis

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 32
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: No Thermal when Stationary
« Reply #41 on: March 31, 2019, 08:14:18 AM »
I vote for 2
 

Offline iceball3

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 454
  • Thanked: 47 times
Re: No Thermal when Stationary
« Reply #42 on: April 01, 2019, 05:39:08 AM »
What if certain ship systems had a passive thermal signature? Specifically, things like missile launchers that are loaded and ready to fire and power plants, specifically.
The former which, with some hand wavium, is another thing reigning in missile supremacy in specific roles, and the latter to a minor extent that full fire rate gunboats will be hot, where low fire rate reduced capacitor alpha strike boats would be slightly harder to detect, but may be largely helpless once it gets a salvo off. This also means certain ships are really hard to find when stationary, for example, small fighter ship with a basic sensor package onboard. As the ship only has engines and sensors, it can be invisible to passives as it doesn't have any "passively hot" equipment.

Perhaps we could allow a "stand down" stance to ships, that has weapons offline, which both sets thermals to 0 entirely, and also is noticeable on actives, so other race ships can identify that you've got weapons cold for diplomatic reasons, or enemy ships can see it as a wide opening to strike. "Weapons offline" would probably need a significant duration to toggle, of course, say several ingame hours, perhaps slightly delayed based on task force readiness. For obvious reasons, the ship would need to be expressing a "weapons active" signature while attempting the switch, in either direction.


Perhaps the "weapons online" mode could also have a specific affect on military engines, such that not being offline would make the ship slightly faster, less fuel efficient. That one's a bit of a stretch though.
 

Iranon

  • Guest
Re: No Thermal when Stationary
« Reply #43 on: April 02, 2019, 05:03:05 AM »
Option 2 sounds good as long as it's indeed a floor (I'm always sceptical of mechanics that scream to be played around).

The above sounds interesting, but may be a little too involved. Optional shutdown of nonvital systems, eliminating or reducing the minimum signature while giving one a warm-up period until one can use sensors/weapons/propulsion at full efficiency could be interesting.
 
The following users thanked this post: firsal

Offline dukea42

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • d
  • Posts: 13
  • Thanked: 10 times
Re: No Thermal when Stationary
« Reply #44 on: April 09, 2019, 02:39:09 PM »
I was about to post the same as Iceball3, but I realized I am late to the party.

You can make the equation simply Heat Sig = Base + Engines and save you a line of code to get the greater of the two.

The you can later add features as you wish with += Powergens/capacitors, += LaunchingTubes (lasts for whole reload. . . a big negative for single shot pods as they can't quickly cool to hide), -= heatsinks, etc. .
« Last Edit: April 09, 2019, 02:42:47 PM by dukea42 »