Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Iceranger
« on: May 03, 2020, 11:42:48 AM »

Quote from: Alsadius on May 03, 2020, 11:06:46 AM
I'm pretty sure this is WAI, because I've seen 16.5 tons cited as the lowest size in a lot of places. The "size 6" is just a hold-over from the VB version that didn't have fractional-sized missiles. So the text is oversimplified, but the mechanic is correct.
hmm interestingly I have never seen the reference of 16.5 tons in wiki page or elsewhere, perhaps it was from ancient time, and later people just use 6MSP as a rough approximate?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: May 03, 2020, 11:12:12 AM »

Quote from: Alsadius on May 03, 2020, 11:06:46 AM
I'm pretty sure this is WAI, because I've seen 16.5 tons cited as the lowest size in a lot of places. The "size 6" is just a hold-over from the VB version that didn't have fractional-sized missiles. So the text is oversimplified, but the mechanic is correct.

Yes, I obviously made it 0.33 for a reason. I just can't remember what that reason was :)

Size 6 missile is what everyone usually remembers though.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: May 03, 2020, 11:11:03 AM »

The static value MINCONTACTSIGNATURE was set to 0.33. I've changed to 0.3.
Posted by: Alsadius
« on: May 03, 2020, 11:06:46 AM »

I'm pretty sure this is WAI, because I've seen 16.5 tons cited as the lowest size in a lot of places. The "size 6" is just a hold-over from the VB version that didn't have fractional-sized missiles. So the text is oversimplified, but the mechanic is correct.
Posted by: Iceranger
« on: May 03, 2020, 10:31:52 AM »

It seems this bug existed in VB6 Aurora too so I will leave it out of a bug report thread for a particular version.

We know that for targets smaller than a sensor's resolution, its max detection radius is

Code: [Select]
(target size / sensor resolution)^2 * sensor max range
Let's check the following sensor:


Code: [Select]
Resolution 1     Maximum Range vs 50 ton object (or larger): 8,574,929 km
Range vs Size 6 Missile (or smaller): 933,810 km
Range vs Size 8 Missile: 1,371,989 km
Range vs Size 12 Missile: 3,086,975 km
For size 8, it is
Code: [Select]
(8/20)^2*8,574,929=1,371,988.64 close enough.

For size 12, it is
Code: [Select]
(12/20)^2*8,574,929=3,086,974.44 again, close enough

However, as shown in the picture, for size 6 the calculation breaks down.
Code: [Select]
(6/20)^2*8,574,929=771,743.61 which is apparently much smaller than 933,810. Instead, if we do the following:
Code: [Select]
(6.6/20)*2*8,574,929=933,809.7681 this time, it seems to match exactly.

Let's look at another senor:
Code: [Select]
Active Sensor Strength 60.0   Sensitivity Modifier: 320%
Sensor Size 1.0 HS  (50 tons)    HTK 1
Resolution 1     Maximum Range vs 50 ton object (or larger): 24,721,520 km
Range vs Size 6 Missile (or smaller): 2,692,174 km
Range vs Size 8 Missile: 3,955,443 km
Range vs Size 12 Missile: 8,899,747 km
Again:
Code: [Select]
(6/20)^2*24,721,520=2,224,936.8
(6.6/20)^2*24,721,520=2,692,173.528
Again, seems the second one matches perfectly.

Since the calculations for 8 and 12 MSP missiles are correct, I suspect the bug is in the code that limits the min missile size, where 6MSP is typoed as 6.6MSP, or something like that.