Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 449982 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5657
  • Thanked: 372 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1515 on: February 26, 2018, 03:55:30 PM »
Like this?



Do those colors match the Galactic map notations for the same? My preference would be to have consistent colors between the two.

Offline Conscript Gary

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 292
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1516 on: February 26, 2018, 03:58:33 PM »
Will the new Auto-route options be stored with the task group and used with standing/conditional orders? Now that we have fleets that will want to move to different systems on their own without player input, it might make sense for them to obey the same restrictions the player has set when issuing movement orders. If I have a geosurvey fleet set to move to the next system when done with the one they're currently in, I might want them to respect the danger rating of any systems they might want to pathfind through. And if I have a quick-response fleet that wants to investigate a point-of-interest waypoint I've just set, I might want them to not pathfind through alien territory to do so.

Under the hood, I'm curious if civilian and NPR traffic will make use of these flags in their pathfinding as well.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11669
  • Thanked: 20441 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1517 on: February 26, 2018, 04:16:20 PM »
Do those colors match the Galactic map notations for the same? My preference would be to have consistent colors between the two.

The galactic map colours are for habitability of planets rather than type of population. The colours do match the Economics window, which displays populations greater than zero in light green and mining colonies in dark green. I've made a further improvement, which is to show the total population or, if the pop is zero, the number of the primary installation. In order of priority these are automated mines (including asteroid miners), then terraformers (including orbital), then tracking stations. This is also the same way the Economics window functions.

 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11669
  • Thanked: 20441 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1518 on: February 26, 2018, 04:19:56 PM »
Will the new Auto-route options be stored with the task group and used with standing/conditional orders? Now that we have fleets that will want to move to different systems on their own without player input, it might make sense for them to obey the same restrictions the player has set when issuing movement orders. If I have a geosurvey fleet set to move to the next system when done with the one they're currently in, I might want them to respect the danger rating of any systems they might want to pathfind through. And if I have a quick-response fleet that wants to investigate a point-of-interest waypoint I've just set, I might want them to not pathfind through alien territory to do so.

Under the hood, I'm curious if civilian and NPR traffic will make use of these flags in their pathfinding as well.

There aren't stored with the fleet at the moment, but that seems like a sensible idea. Civilians will use the danger rating but not the alien control function. NPR movement AI isn't written yet but they will make use of some of the functions.

EDIT: Fleets now have two stored values, Avoid Danger and Avoid Alien Systems. These are set on the Movement Orders tab (using the appropriate check boxes) and will affect the algorithm used in Auto Route and for the Standing and Conditional Orders.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2018, 04:49:23 PM by Steve Walmsley »
 
The following users thanked this post: Conscript Gary

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11669
  • Thanked: 20441 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1519 on: February 26, 2018, 05:21:02 PM »
I've updated the rules posts with the Auto Route changes above
 

Offline snapto

  • Bronze Supporter
  • Petty Officer
  • *****
  • s
  • Posts: 27
  • Thanked: 14 times
  • Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter : Support the forums with a Bronze subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1520 on: February 26, 2018, 06:25:27 PM »
Just curious, looking at the latest screenshots, I didn't see anywhere to add movement order templates.   Will this be going away given the new auto-move feature?  I commonly used a template to move fuel harvesters to a given location.  If templates do go away, would it be possible to add harvesters to the important installation display list?  These changes are looking great!
 

Offline JacenHan

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 454
  • Thanked: 115 times
  • Discord Username: Jacenhan
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1521 on: February 26, 2018, 06:30:36 PM »
"Order Templates" is right below"Autoroute by system", so the options might appear only when that is selected.
 

Offline snapto

  • Bronze Supporter
  • Petty Officer
  • *****
  • s
  • Posts: 27
  • Thanked: 14 times
  • Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter : Support the forums with a Bronze subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1522 on: February 26, 2018, 07:33:29 PM »
Quote from: JacenHan link=topic=8497. msg106885#msg106885 date=1519691436
"Order Templates" is right below"Autoroute by system", so the options might appear only when that is selected.

Ah, excellent.   Good eyes!
 

Offline clement

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • *
  • c
  • Posts: 137
  • Thanked: 13 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1523 on: February 27, 2018, 09:32:00 AM »
For the Auto Route by System pathing, if the "Exclude Alien-Controlled" check box is ticked, and you have a diplomatic relationship with an Alien that allows military ships to pass through their territory, will it still avoid their systems?

To use your example, if the US and the Commonwealth had a Military Cooperation Level of Friendly or Allied, would the US Fleet path be routed through through Commonwealth systems or would it still avoid their systems?

Great new features! The progress looks really good.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11669
  • Thanked: 20441 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1524 on: February 27, 2018, 10:15:16 AM »
For the Auto Route by System pathing, if the "Exclude Alien-Controlled" check box is ticked, and you have a diplomatic relationship with an Alien that allows military ships to pass through their territory, will it still avoid their systems?

To use your example, if the US and the Commonwealth had a Military Cooperation Level of Friendly or Allied, would the US Fleet path be routed through through Commonwealth systems or would it still avoid their systems?

Great new features! The progress looks really good.

Longer term I will probably replace the simple on/off with an option for setting the acceptable diplomatic status (none, neutral, friendly, etc.).
 
The following users thanked this post: clement

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1525 on: February 27, 2018, 12:15:05 PM »
*strokes chin*

if the waypoint system is being extended like this, you could also mark Mining and Sorium Mining waypoints
 

Offline PlasmaXJ

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1526 on: March 01, 2018, 12:44:05 PM »
I can't wait to play this version!
If your reading this, your not reading my post.
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2005
  • Thanked: 134 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1527 on: March 01, 2018, 06:50:14 PM »
Finally intelligent civilian!
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1528 on: March 02, 2018, 02:11:55 AM »
Is there a cutoff limit  to how often the checks for trade routes are done?

I mean, say that I am running on 5-seconds interval due to combat. Will the checks be done every 5 seconds, if there are civilian ships with no available routes? Because it would seem unnecessary to me. Even if the delay is small, it's still useless.

I don't know, having this code run at most once per hour seems a good tradeoff to me.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11669
  • Thanked: 20441 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1529 on: March 02, 2018, 02:51:29 AM »
Is there a cutoff limit  to how often the checks for trade routes are done?

I mean, say that I am running on 5-seconds interval due to combat. Will the checks be done every 5 seconds, if there are civilian ships with no available routes? Because it would seem unnecessary to me. Even if the delay is small, it's still useless.

I don't know, having this code run at most once per hour seems a good tradeoff to me.

It runs (like Standing Orders) during increments that are longer than one hour.