Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread

[83athom]

Well, that is kind of the point is it not? It is supposed to be the "endgame" launcher. It still has its drawbacks like having to be reloaded in a hangar or maintenance facility. Additional limitations could be put on it like maximum missile size be 10 or maximum amount of missiles be 15, the reload time could be expanded to several hours per pod, ect. Looking at the box launcher, it takes 7.5min per size to reload in a hangar and 1.25hr at a maintenance facility, so we could do 15min per size per missile in hangar 2hr MF. It could be redone from a 0.2 size to a 0.5 size so size; (30*0.15)+(1.5\0.75)+1 = 7.5HS (I used .75 for base feed efficiency). The conventional launcher (for the Size 3) its 3HS + 6HS at base for the magazine to carry all the missiles = 9HS for a launcher and magazine. However, you cannot armor the pod launcher like you can for the magazine and it does not have an ejection system (other than firing at the enemy), so a lucky hit can take out your whole ship in one go. Also, the conventional launcher has the ability to fire using a collier's ammo supply, whereas the pod cannot and needs either a lapse of time where it is defenseless with a specialized collier (with said special reloading module in original suggestion) or a shipyard/carrier/maintenance facility, and I don't know about you, but I don't have (or want) carriers to carry around my cruisers while maintaining its fighter/bomber/gunboat complement, so you could restrict reloading in hangars to ships under 1000 tons (20HS). Like I said at the beginning of this post, its meant to be an "endgame" launcher so it could be expensive research wise (as much as gas/plasma core anti-matter engines) just to be able to design them, then more to research the designs. And as you said, it is currently OP, it can use some restrictions to its use, like it can only re-target at another ship once the entire salvo of missiles from your ship mid-flight are gone (destroyed or impacted on the hulk of what was the ship you were firing at). And its a suggestion thread, it doesn't need to be perfect on the first go through.

[83athom]

The ability to resize the windows with scrollbar support. This would help people with laptops (like me) a lot. I know in several posts by other people, some said there are some utilities you could install but are difficult to use/hack the laptop (ie resolution set where it cant be displayed). The last time (that I could find) that this was in the suggestions was in 2012 (and twice more in 2010), so I was also wondering if the game could not support that at that time, and if it can support it now.

[Charlie Beeler]

The ability to resize the windows with scrollbar support. This would help people with laptops (like me) a lot. I know in several posts by other people, some said there are some utilities you could install but are difficult to use/hack the laptop (ie resolution set where it cant be displayed). The last time (that I could find) that this was in the suggestions was in 2012 (and twice more in 2010), so I was also wondering if the game could not support that at that time, and if it can support it now.

The version of VB that Steve is using, IIRCVB 6.0, scalable screens/windows are not possible.  Steve has stated over the years that this is on his 'to do list', just not a priority.

[Erik L (OP)]

The ability to resize the windows with scrollbar support. This would help people with laptops (like me) a lot. I know in several posts by other people, some said there are some utilities you could install but are difficult to use/hack the laptop (ie resolution set where it cant be displayed). The last time (that I could find) that this was in the suggestions was in 2012 (and twice more in 2010), so I was also wondering if the game could not support that at that time, and if it can support it now.

Look into the Reduced Height Windows menu option.

[83athom]

Look into the Reduced Height Windows menu option.

Already doing that and I still am missing many buttons in TG orders, Intel and FR (SM Options), and System Display.

The version of VB that Steve is using, IIRCVB 6.0, scalable screens/windows are not possible.  Steve has stated over the years that this is on his 'to do list', just not a priority.

Ok, I did not know.

[Vandermeer]

@athom: Maybe you could try little tools like resize enablers. (I think there was one that was named directly ResizeEnabler) I don't have mine anymore since setting up the computer anew, but those do exactly what you would guess: You become able to resize any program window that normally disallows you to.
I have not tried it with Aurora yet, because my 1080p display works just fine with everything, but the tool has never failed me so far.

[MarcAFK]

@athom: Maybe you could try little tools like resize enablers. (I think there was one that was named directly ResizeEnabler) I don't have mine anymore since setting up the computer anew, but those do exactly what you would guess: You become able to resize any program window that normally disallows you to.
I have not tried it with Aurora yet, because my 1080p display works just fine with everything, but the tool has never failed me so far.

Resize enable is the only option, but isn't perfect, it tends to scramble windows badly and often requires several attempts before you can reach something, I only just discovered the spacetime bubble option today due to it always being hidden. A good compromise would be for more options to be available through the menu bar.

[83athom]

@athom: Maybe you could try little tools like resize enablers. (I think there was one that was named directly ResizeEnabler) I don't have mine anymore since setting up the computer anew, but those do exactly what you would guess: You become able to resize any program window that normally disallows you to.
I have not tried it with Aurora yet, because my 1080p display works just fine with everything, but the tool has never failed me so far.

My original suggestion/question was about how to do it without the additional stuff. I guess I have to use it then. But my problem was that stuff didn't fit on screen at all (ie window was aligned to the very top where you cant move it higher and stuff was still cut off on the bottom), so will this ResizeEnable really work with my problem. Found out what you were talking about but hesitant to download.

[Vandermeer]

In that case it likely wont help you. It doesn't hurt in trying maybe, because this requires no install, but chances are low after what MarcAFK said.

[MarcAFK]

In that case it likely wont help you. It doesn't hurt in trying maybe, because this requires no install, but chances are low after what MarcAFK said.

Honestly I can't play aurora on anything less than what my laptop has( I forget the specs, I think it's 1366 by 900) the easiest solution is to get your hands on a cheap hd monitor and plug that into your box, the extra screen helps immensely . However I've had at least one netbook that wouldn't allow even an external monitor to use higher resolution, you may need upgraded display drivers.

[Father Tim]

On the various Ship Details / Class Design views, 'Maint Life' is given in years and 'Intended Deployment Time' is given in months.  I'd prefer if both used the same increments.

[Theodidactus]

I've lost my patience and deleted it, so in this particular campaign I have yet to see a yard getting destroyed. I did destroy a lot of them in my previous one though, but I don't remember whether or not it was the same game version.

Having just conducted my first full-scale planetary assault, I second the suggestion that shipyards should be a bit more vulnerable. I dumped 40 size 20 warheads on one 18,000 ton shipyard, an amount that could easily crater a moon, or aerosolize a small battle line of starfrigates, and it had no in-game effect. Given that the primary mission objective was to destroy the shipyard, this was a little disappointing.

[Rich.h]

On the various Ship Details / Class Design views, 'Maint Life' is given in years and 'Intended Deployment Time' is given in months.  I'd prefer if both used the same increments.

The two are slightly different as deployment time refers to how long before you crew start to stink up the ship and demand time away with tribbles. Whereas the maintenance life is how long before the ships begins to literally fall apart.

I think the reason for them being given in different scales is due to some ships only being meant to have short service crews such as fighters and FAC.

[alex_brunius]

Having just conducted my first full-scale planetary assault, I second the suggestion that shipyards should be a bit more vulnerable. I dumped 40 size 20 warheads on one 18,000 ton shipyard, an amount that could easily crater a moon, or aerosolize a small battle line of starfrigates, and it had no in-game effect. Given that the primary mission objective was to destroy the shipyard, this was a little disappointing.

That does indeed sound like a bug.

If I understand the wiki correctly each warhead should have 22.2% chance to destroy the shipyard, and the odds of the shipyard not being destroyed after 40 hits would be something silly like 0.004% even if each missile only had a damage 20 warhead.

[Father Tim]

The two are slightly different as deployment time refers to how long before you crew start to stink up the ship and demand time away with tribbles. Whereas the maintenance life is how long before the ships begins to literally fall apart.

I think the reason for them being given in different scales is due to some ships only being meant to have short service crews such as fighters and FAC.

I know the two refer to different things - I'd just prefer not to multiply (or divide) by 12 in my head to compare them when I'm designing a ship.  And the reason they're given in different scales is that they were implemented at different times, and each used the scale that seemed most sensible for that specific purpose.