C# Suggestions

[TMaekler]

Kyle added "current location" to the options for orders in Quasar4x. I think I would like to see that feature in C#-Aurora as well  Very handy...

[TMaekler]

I was wondering if there is a way for Steve to create some kind of automation for sub fleets. I am thinking along this line. Sending out an attack fleet that contains a fleet tanker set to refill the attack fleet constantly. Once that tanker goes below a certain % of its fuel it searches for a reachable refuel station, detaches its own sub fleet to refill at that refuel station, and auto returns to the attack fleet, and joins as a sub fleet, and continues refueling it. Possible?

Something similar for Deep Space Fuel Depots would be nice. At strategic points, I have placed Fuel Depots close to jump points at which certain fleets can refuel to extend their range. Usually cargo fleets. Those depots get drained over time and if they could generate a refuel request to certain fleets in the area to be restocked automatically when they get below a certain % of their capacity would be awesome.

[db48x]

For the new eccentric orbits, I suggest coloring the orbit of the selected body based on colony cost instead of the current table of numbers. You already have a mode for drawing the orbit of just one body. All you would need to add is one or more color schemes and a visible key. I suggest having a color scheme based on the absolute colony cost, so that going from 0.0 to a positive colony cost, as well as going above and below 2.0, is easy to see. I also suggest having a color scheme based on changes relative to the current colony cost which will emphasize changes for an orbit like Pluto’s where the orbit would be almost the same color all the way around.

[idefelipe]

Would it be possible for officers who are on a ship, but who are not the commanders, to add the accomplishments they achieved while on the ship?

For example, a science officer could add stellar objects he discovers with minerals, or new systems he discovers, to his achievement record.

An executive officer, tactical officer, CAG, etc. could add the tons of ships destroyed, ground units destroyed, etc.

In this way, the character's entire career would be recorded.

Thanks Steve!

[nuclearslurpee]

Would it be possible for officers who are on a ship, but who are not the commanders, to add the accomplishments they achieved while on the ship?

For example, a science officer could add stellar objects he discovers with minerals, or new systems he discovers, to his achievement record.

An executive officer, tactical officer, CAG, etc. could add the tons of ships destroyed, ground units destroyed, etc.

In this way, the character's entire career would be recorded.

Thanks Steve!

It would also be nice if medals were awarded in the same way. For survey fleets for example, if I jump an entire fleet of GSVs into a new system to explore it, only the senior commander of the fleet receives the medal, and no science officer does. Ideally all officers of all ships in the fleet would receive a medal since they jumped in at the same time...

[ISN]

While we're on the subject of medals, I would like to point out that currently as far as I can tell there is no way to award a medal to officers rescued from lifepods (besides going through the officer list manually). I like to award medals to fleets that participate in major battles, and I consider it a travesty that rescued officers -- who deserve the nation's highest honors! -- don't receive these campaign medals.

I know the game stores the officers on the ships that rescued them, even though they don't seem to be listed anywhere I can see, because if the rescuing ship is itself destroyed the officers that were previously rescued by it may die or end up in the lifepods again. So it should be possible to add an option for rescued officers to the Award Medals screen.

[TMaekler]

Planets and Moons which have an orbit that lasts only days or weeks "jump around" a lot because their position is only calculated every 5 days. I was wondering if it would be possible to add an extra layer of position calculations for objects which have an orbital turnaround of fewer than 30 days (or whatever number makes sense)? The position for these objects should then be calculated every 1 day... .

[Droll]

Planets and Moons which have an orbit that lasts only days or weeks "jump around" a lot because their position is only calculated every 5 days. I was wondering if it would be possible to add an extra layer of position calculations for objects which have an orbital turnaround of fewer than 30 days (or whatever number makes sense)? The position for these objects should then be calculated every 1 day... .

There is, in the game settings you can change the length of the production increment - this is also the time that is used when calculating orbits. I've started always playing on 1 day increments so the jumping around problem is much less pronounced for me.

[Froggiest1982]

Planets and Moons which have an orbit that lasts only days or weeks "jump around" a lot because their position is only calculated every 5 days. I was wondering if it would be possible to add an extra layer of position calculations for objects which have an orbital turnaround of fewer than 30 days (or whatever number makes sense)? The position for these objects should then be calculated every 1 day... .

There is, in the game settings you can change the length of the production increment - this is also the time that is used when calculating orbits. I've started always playing on 1 day increments so the jumping around problem is much less pronounced for me.

How do you find performances? Also what about failures on ships but especially on fighters? Still acceptable or more "risky"?

[Droll]

Planets and Moons which have an orbit that lasts only days or weeks "jump around" a lot because their position is only calculated every 5 days. I was wondering if it would be possible to add an extra layer of position calculations for objects which have an orbital turnaround of fewer than 30 days (or whatever number makes sense)? The position for these objects should then be calculated every 1 day... .

There is, in the game settings you can change the length of the production increment - this is also the time that is used when calculating orbits. I've started always playing on 1 day increments so the jumping around problem is much less pronounced for me.

How do you find performances? Also what about failures on ships but especially on fighters? Still acceptable or more "risky"?

Maintenance failure chance is I think also based on the size of increments so it wouldn't overall affect maintenance costs/life for standard ships.

As for fighters, I usually have a fighter maintenance storage onboard, but only if the fuel time of the fighter is longer than 24 hours, if the fighter spends less then a production increment out of a hangar then you don't have to worry about maintenance on it.

Game performance wise, it's the same pretty much, a single 1 day increment is only slightly faster than a single 5 day increment. Only thing to note that doing 5 1 day increments takes longer than doing 1 5 day increment.

Another benefit of 1 day increments are when terraforming really small bodies and/or with lots of terraforming modules/facilities. 1 day increments allow you to avoid situations where you "overterraform" and have to rectify/SM fix the mangled atmosphere.

[Froggiest1982]

Planets and Moons which have an orbit that lasts only days or weeks "jump around" a lot because their position is only calculated every 5 days. I was wondering if it would be possible to add an extra layer of position calculations for objects which have an orbital turnaround of fewer than 30 days (or whatever number makes sense)? The position for these objects should then be calculated every 1 day... .

There is, in the game settings you can change the length of the production increment - this is also the time that is used when calculating orbits. I've started always playing on 1 day increments so the jumping around problem is much less pronounced for me.

How do you find performances? Also what about failures on ships but especially on fighters? Still acceptable or more "risky"?

Maintenance failure chance is I think also based on the size of increments so it wouldn't overall affect maintenance costs/life for standard ships.

As for fighters, I usually have a fighter maintenance storage onboard, but only if the fuel time of the fighter is longer than 24 hours, if the fighter spends less then a production increment out of a hangar then you don't have to worry about maintenance on it.

Game performance wise, it's the same pretty much, a single 1 day increment is only slightly faster than a single 5 day increment. Only thing to note that doing 5 1 day increments takes longer than doing 1 5 day increment.

Another benefit of 1 day increments are when terraforming really small bodies and/or with lots of terraforming modules/facilities. 1 day increments allow you to avoid situations where you "overterraform" and have to rectify/SM fix the mangled atmosphere.

I'll give it a go then. I am enjoying my current setup with reduced growth for realistic pop, capped mines based on body size, 5% survey, 10% terraforming and DB edited for infrastructures produced only by colonies over 500 million pop. I was about to post some findings about it but the 1 day increment sounds nice addition.

[TMaekler]

There is, in the game settings you can change the length of the production increment - this is also the time that is used when calculating orbits. I've started always playing on 1 day increments so the jumping around problem is much less pronounced for me.

I wanted to avoid the game performance loss - but it is viable this way, yes.

Another benefit of 1 day increments are when terraforming really small bodies and/or with lots of terraforming modules/facilities. 1 day increments allow you to avoid situations where you "overterraform" and have to rectify/SM fix the mangled atmosphere.

I didn't know that. Interesting... . Maybe Steve should take this into consideration and "fix" it.

I'll give it a go then. I am enjoying my current setup with reduced growth for realistic pop, capped mines based on body size, 5% survey, 10% terraforming and DB edited for infrastructures produced only by colonies over 500 million pop. I was about to post some findings about it but the 1 day increment sounds nice addition.

Where can you edit that into the DB? Only produce when over 500 mill pop?

[Froggiest1982]

Where can you edit that into the DB? Only produce when over 500 mill pop?

Trade Goods DIM. Change from the default value to 500 or any other number that suits you best

[Garfunkel]

I've been using 1-day production cyclen with 1-day increments since Day 1 of C# and it works well for me, I'd definitely suggest switching to it. In fact, it should probably be the default now.

[Froggiest1982]

I've been using 1-day production cyclen with 1-day increments since Day 1 of C# and it works well for me, I'd definitely suggest switching to it. In fact, it should probably be the default now.

Quick one. In my current game, I seem not to be able to change the production cycle. Is it possible only at the start?

Also, the current cycle of 5 days is 430,000 while it should be 432,000. Eventually, should I do just 430,000/5 (86,000)?

Looking at the DB and modifying there directly works, maybe a bug?

Thanks

EDIT: I am going for 1 day x 24 hours x 60 minutes x 60 seconds (total cycle 86,400). But would like to know how you have set it up.