Post reply

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: Tavik Toth
« on: Yesterday at 01:31:26 PM »

Oh awesome! Tysm!

Reading "2.6.0 Changes List", this doesn't mean it's out, right? Cause I'm not seeing a patch in installation files

Steve always makes a new thread for each new release once it is ready.
Posted by: Collin Thomas
« on: Yesterday at 01:29:48 PM »

Oh awesome! Tysm!

Reading "2.6.0 Changes List", this doesn't mean it's out, right? Cause I'm not seeing a patch in installation files
Posted by: paolot
« on: Yesterday at 10:06:09 AM »

I'm trying to design an ambush ship: I feel a bit reductive calling it a scout (by the way, there is no "Ambush something" class type  :) ).

Would be fun to have some space submarine equivalent. Substellar? Subcosmic? Subcelestial?

I am designing that ship with high level cloaking: it shall appear as 7% of the ship mass (and I'm studying 5%).
I think of it as a submarine-like vessel.   ;)

In the last update of the Gothic V campaign of Steve, you can read a clear example of the possibility that this feature can open.
Fantastic! Thank you Steve! ;D
Posted by: paolot
« on: Yesterday at 10:01:11 AM »

In the System windows, when All System View is selected, is it possible to include at least also the "Sort by" options for "population" and "atmosphere"?
Posted by: Zed 6
« on: Yesterday at 09:55:52 AM »

I was wondering would it make sense/be interesting if you could transport water for terraforming purposes?

Considering how many times you would need to do and repeat this, I think it would soon become tedious.

And eat a lot of fuel stocks.

This is a severe understatement.

We can make a back-of-the-envelope calculation to see how impractical this would be:

Let us assume that volumetric compression can be neglected as a transportation option. Let us also assume that we wish to cover 20% of the surface area of a terraformable body with liquid water to a depth of 10 m---this is a gross underestimate, but by being so it should more than cancel out the previous assumption to yield a conservative estimate.

Consider a Mars-like world, which has a mean radius of about 3,400 km (3.4e6 m), yielding a surface area of 1.45e14 m^2. To accomplish our stated goal will require (1.45e14 * 0.20 * 10) = 2.9e14 m^3 of water. Now consider a standard 25,000-ton cargo hold: if we neglect compression of the water and use the Walmsley ton (1 t = 14 m^3), we can transport 350,000 m^3 of liquid water per standard cargo hold per round trip. The number of (round trips * standard holds) required to complete this terraforming goal is therefore (2.9e14 / 3.5e5) = 830 million.

In fact, even if we assume a ridiculous Trans-Newtonian compression factor of 100x, we're still looking at over 8 million standard cargo holds worth of water to transport. Now, I've been known on occasion to give a freighter flotilla cycled orders with dozens of cycles and let them run around unsupervised for a few years, but this is well beyond that and probably well beyond the realm of feasibility. And of course, this is ignoring the fact that for a real, sustainable planetary water cycle, bodies much deeper than 10 m are certainly required, increasing the transport throughput required by potentially multiple orders of magnitude still.

A similar analysis could be done for terraforming gases, where the much higher compression achievable with gases is offset by the fact that an atmosphere must be many dozens of kilometers deep rather than 10 meters. This is why in Aurora, our terraformers magically scientifically produce gases out of nothing through Trans-Newtonian handwaving.  :)

Senator: What is line item in your budget proposal for an 8 inch hose at 250 Million miles????

Terraforming Secretary: Sir, that is the max distance from Earth to Mars, but we'll probably have to extend that by at least 4-5 times to go around the Sun over the pole. At a cheap $1 a foot, that is 6.6 Trillion.  Plus pumps. Should be $ 10 trillion.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: Yesterday at 03:25:09 AM »

Hey, longtime player, MASSIVE fan, please be patient as I am incredibly new to forums and their etiquette.

One thing I think the game needs is a clear breakdown of how my minerals are being spent. I can read things like how much ships cost and through experience know the resources needed for fuel and maintenance supplies, but when I see my stockpile change info in Empire Mining, it's not clear what's being spent on what. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the stockpile change chart isn't recorded per month or per year, but rather how much was changed in the stockpile since my last time increment (however long that was).

Thanks for making this awesome game!

You mean like this? :)

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13463.msg173710#msg173710
Posted by: Collin Thomas
« on: August 11, 2025, 08:28:47 PM »

Hey, longtime player, MASSIVE fan, please be patient as I am incredibly new to forums and their etiquette.

One thing I think the game needs is a clear breakdown of how my minerals are being spent. I can read things like how much ships cost and through experience know the resources needed for fuel and maintenance supplies, but when I see my stockpile change info in Empire Mining, it's not clear what's being spent on what. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the stockpile change chart isn't recorded per month or per year, but rather how much was changed in the stockpile since my last time increment (however long that was).

Thanks for making this awesome game!
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: August 11, 2025, 04:52:58 PM »

A similar analysis could be done for terraforming gases, where the much higher compression achievable with gases is offset by the fact that an atmosphere must be many dozens of kilometers deep rather than 10 meters. This is why in Aurora, our terraformers magically scientifically produce gases out of nothing through Trans-Newtonian handwaving.  :)

They take the gases from the Aether :)
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10239.0
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: August 11, 2025, 04:11:08 PM »

I was wondering would it make sense/be interesting if you could transport water for terraforming purposes?

Considering how many times you would need to do and repeat this, I think it would soon become tedious.

And eat a lot of fuel stocks.

This is a severe understatement.

We can make a back-of-the-envelope calculation to see how impractical this would be:

Let us assume that volumetric compression can be neglected as a transportation option. Let us also assume that we wish to cover 20% of the surface area of a terraformable body with liquid water to a depth of 10 m---this is a gross underestimate, but by being so it should more than cancel out the previous assumption to yield a conservative estimate.

Consider a Mars-like world, which has a mean radius of about 3,400 km (3.4e6 m), yielding a surface area of 1.45e14 m^2. To accomplish our stated goal will require (1.45e14 * 0.20 * 10) = 2.9e14 m^3 of water. Now consider a standard 25,000-ton cargo hold: if we neglect compression of the water and use the Walmsley ton (1 t = 14 m^3), we can transport 350,000 m^3 of liquid water per standard cargo hold per round trip. The number of (round trips * standard holds) required to complete this terraforming goal is therefore (2.9e14 / 3.5e5) = 830 million.

In fact, even if we assume a ridiculous Trans-Newtonian compression factor of 100x, we're still looking at over 8 million standard cargo holds worth of water to transport. Now, I've been known on occasion to give a freighter flotilla cycled orders with dozens of cycles and let them run around unsupervised for a few years, but this is well beyond that and probably well beyond the realm of feasibility. And of course, this is ignoring the fact that for a real, sustainable planetary water cycle, bodies much deeper than 10 m are certainly required, increasing the transport throughput required by potentially multiple orders of magnitude still.

A similar analysis could be done for terraforming gases, where the much higher compression achievable with gases is offset by the fact that an atmosphere must be many dozens of kilometers deep rather than 10 meters. This is why in Aurora, our terraformers magically scientifically produce gases out of nothing through Trans-Newtonian handwaving.  :)
Posted by: Laurence
« on: August 11, 2025, 12:30:31 PM »

I was wondering would it make sense/be interesting if you could transport water for terraforming purposes?

Considering how many times you would need to do and repeat this, I think it would soon become tedious.

And eat a lot of fuel stocks.
Posted by: paolot
« on: August 11, 2025, 12:29:13 PM »

I was wondering would it make sense/be interesting if you could transport water for terraforming purposes?

Considering how many times you would need to do and repeat this, I think it would soon become tedious.
Posted by: GrandNord
« on: August 11, 2025, 11:36:49 AM »

Would it be possible to keep the "Unassigned weapons" list closed when an action is performed with the fire controls? I am currently in a fight and I have ships with around a hundred box launchers and the unassigned weapons list opens and shoots me to the bottom of the page whenever I so much as assign a target to a fire control.

If the list didn't open automatically that would reduce the tedium of ship combat with bigger ships.
Posted by: Eretzu
« on: August 11, 2025, 06:41:06 AM »

I was wondering would it make sense/be interesting if you could transport water for terraforming purposes?
Posted by: paolot
« on: August 10, 2025, 01:11:45 PM »

I'm trying to design an ambush ship: I feel a bit reductive calling it a scout (by the way, there is no "Ambush something" class type  :) ).

Would be fun to have some space submarine equivalent. Substellar? Subcosmic? Subcelestial?

I am designing that ship with high level cloaking: it shall appear as 7% of the ship mass (and I'm studying 5%).
I think of it as a submarine-like vessel.   ;)
Posted by: DNAturation
« on: August 10, 2025, 02:51:11 AM »

I'm trying to design an ambush ship: I feel a bit reductive calling it a scout (by the way, there is no "Ambush something" class type  :) ).

Would be fun to have some space submarine equivalent. Substellar? Subcosmic? Subcelestial?