Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
The Academy / Re: What are flight crew berths good for?
« Last post by Garfunkel on Today at 12:58:17 PM »
Fighters continue to accrue deployment time if there are no flight crew berths available. Double check whether they are, and also as Barkhorn said, whether they are getting hit by morale penalties.
2
The Academy / Re: How to set up a multiplayer game?
« Last post by Garfunkel on Today at 12:57:14 PM »
Yes, every change is constantly saved, as the GUI interacts with the database directly. There is no need to advance time. Forum games are run that way. Each player puts in their orders and designs and what else, then the referee acts as SM and advances time for a set period, after which all players can review events and issue new orders.
3
Aurora Chat / Re: Are NPRs supposed to be this barren?
« Last post by Titanian on Today at 09:32:19 AM »
Conventional NPRs usually have nothing but 5 maintainance facilities (and a tracking station?), so having only 3 left after you conquer them seems reasonable to me. TN NPRs can have very little installations, if they got a very bad government type.
4
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by Rabid_Cog on Today at 05:24:32 AM »
A requirement for this would be coding in the concept of "partially functioning" (%) parts and what effect that would have on functionality. For some it is easy:
Engines: Deliver % of engine power.
Jump engines: % of tonnage capacity (this would effectively mean 'non-functioning' unless you overdesigned your jump engines)
Missile launchers: % of firing rate (rounded down?)
Sensors: % of range/sensor strength
Magazines: Increased magazine explosion chance (on hit) (% of non-explosion chance if that makes sense)
etc.

But what impact would it have on a Laser? Reduced range? Reduced rate of fire? Reduced damage? All of the above?
What about a turret? What about a CIWS? What about a fuel tank?

Only once these questions have been answered, can this be implemented. And only once % part functionality is implemented can a fractional maintenance system as you describe really make sense.  However, as a simpler alternative, I can suggest the following:
  • Increase the MSP cost for parts. This is the full replace cost for the part, basically ripping the whole thing out and replacing it. Increase cost accordingly.
  • Change the repair cost to instead of being the full msp for the part, make it a random % of the full MSP, randomly rolled upon breakage.
  • Complicate as necessary. (Increased every time a part breaks, etc)

This doesnt really fit the fractional maintenance system as you suggest, as parts are still only in the binary state of 100% or 0%, but it does make maintenance a bit easier and could tie into a future fractional maintenance system.
5
C# Aurora / Re: 2018 : The #C Era?
« Last post by QuakeIV on Today at 04:04:27 AM »
6
C# Aurora / Re: 2018 : The #C Era?
« Last post by MarcAFK on Today at 01:02:08 AM »
Rip 2018 release, Steve has discovered Battletech. You have fans of Aurora over at Paradox :p
7
The Academy / Re: Most efficient engine/payload ratios?
« Last post by Iranon on Yesterday at 10:48:57 PM »
Tonnage efficiency. Assuming a fixed engine size and a given weight budget for engines+fuel, that will net you the longest range at a given speed or vice versa.

Byron solved this in 2012. Here's my most complete look at it: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=9146.0
8
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by QuakeIV on Yesterday at 04:17:19 PM »
That could be highly amusing, you could have ships typically be partly functional and get weird numbers for a slightly lowered top speed which could both make things look a little more realistic and give you an intuitive sign about when you might want to go in for overhaul.
9
The Academy / Most efficient engine/payload ratios?
« Last post by Jovus on Yesterday at 03:20:21 PM »
With freely scaleable missile engines, your most efficient propulsion setup uses 31% of engine weight for fuel.
With a fixed engine size (ship or missile), your most efficient propulsion setup uses 40% of engine weight for fuel.
Short-ranged high-performance missiles will often use less fuel, because the sweet ratio with your highest power multiplier results in excessive range and you're rather have more speed.

What math is this based on? What is optimized by this 'efficiency' and what formula are you using? I've been noodling around with engine formulae and haven't found anything like this, but to be fair I've also not tried really hard or sat down with pen and paper to do a real analysis - I've just been throwing crap at my Python IDLE to see what sticks.

(Not trying to call you out specific-like, Iranon; you're just the person I found saying this via the forum search.)
10
Aurora Chat / Re: Are NPRs supposed to be this barren?
« Last post by JacenHan on Yesterday at 01:32:09 PM »
Ground battles and orbital bombardment can destroy industry, so if the fight was particularly long or intense you might end up with fewer buildings. That number seems unusually low, though.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10