Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 6 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

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: Coleslaw
« on: Yesterday at 09:28:19 PM »

In the Shipyards tab, in the SY activities, would it be possible to add the option to prepare multiple splipways in one activity? in case, the more slipways to add, the less the time for each one?

As a sort of follow-up to this, could ship construction/scrap tasks be made to be queueable? I'm pretty sure this has been suggested before, but being able to queue multiple ships for construction/deconstruction would be a god-send (at least, in my opinion.)
Posted by: paolot
« on: Yesterday at 05:35:57 PM »

In the Shipyards tab, in the SY activities, would it be possible to add the option to prepare multiple splipways in one activity? in case, the more slipways to add, the less the time for each one?
Posted by: paolot
« on: Yesterday at 02:30:45 PM »

Maybe already suggested.
In the Commander window, in the selection list on the right, would it be possible to toggle between showing all the officers and only the unassigned ones?
Posted by: paolot
« on: Yesterday at 02:25:05 PM »

In the Shipyard Tasks list, would it be possible to add also the "Sort by Progress" option?
Posted by: paolot
« on: Yesterday at 02:24:00 PM »

Another quality-of-life addiction, if possible: to refresh all the open windows at the end of a turn.
Too many times I unintentionally changed the commander of a ship, while I was selecting a new one for a new ship, because the Commander window didn't update and the lists of the commanders were no more aligned, or, in the Galactic Map, looked for a ship that already moved to another system!   :(
Posted by: lumporr
« on: August 25, 2025, 06:16:52 PM »

Thinking of things that might save a lot of clicks in a longer game...

It might be nice if there was a "create waypoints at jump points" button in the Waypoints tab of the System screen. I don't know how everybody else does it, but I have to scroll-zoom all the way in and out every time I want to make a waypoint to deploy a second-stage buoy to a JP - which gets tedious when doing it for every system, for multiple player empires. The button could just create normal, numbered waypoints at every Empire-discovered jump point in the system, every time you click the button, and it'd save a whole lot of scrolling in and out every time for those who value this particular method of sensor deployment.
Posted by: paolot
« on: August 25, 2025, 08:46:35 AM »

...

I made the decision long ago to emphasis readability, ease of coding and *especially* ease of debugging over trying to implement parallel processing, or anything else that increases development complexity for possible performance gains.

I've seen a lot of people start Aurora-type games and they all seem to go down the 'clever architecture' route, focusing on the coding rather than the game design. I'm a reasonable programmer in technical terms, but I am certain there are many more capable programmers than me. My philosophy for Aurora is a primary focus on game design, implemented in a relatively straightforward way, and maintaining enthusiasm over a long period.

In summary, I agree that adding multi-threading could result in some performance gains. However, given the downside in development time and debugging complexity, I would rather spend my limited free time adding new features and keeping Aurora simple to develop.

Thank you, Steve!
Always helpful and clear.
I thought that modern SW development environments have become more approachable and simple to ease parallel programming.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: August 25, 2025, 03:22:24 AM »

Editable value in Game Options for

Maximum number of Civilian Shipping Lines (per Race)
Maximum number of ships per a Civilian Shipping Line

Shipping Lines have changed in v2.6 and will have far fewer ships.

Steve, sorry, elaboration for civ lines is it performed using CPU core(s) different from the one(s) used for the player? or even using GPU?
I'm not sure, but C# should allow the selection of the processor(s) where a program is executed, and, if not already implemented, parallelism and/or GPU could improve a lot the performance for this part of the game.

I made the decision long ago to emphasis readability, ease of coding and *especially* ease of debugging over trying to implement parallel processing, or anything else that increases development complexity for possible performance gains.

I've seen a lot of people start Aurora-type games and they all seem to go down the 'clever architecture' route, focusing on the coding rather than the game design. I'm a reasonable programmer in technical terms, but I am certain there are many more capable programmers than me. My philosophy for Aurora is a primary focus on game design, implemented in a relatively straightforward way, and maintaining enthusiasm over a long period.

In summary, I agree that adding multi-threading could result in some performance gains. However, given the downside in development time and debugging complexity, I would rather spend my limited free time adding new features and keeping Aurora simple to develop.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: August 24, 2025, 03:02:24 PM »

Steve, sorry, elaboration for civ lines is it performed using CPU core(s) different from the one(s) used for the player? or even using GPU?
I'm not sure, but C# should allow the selection of the processor(s) where a program is executed, and, if not already implemented, parallelism and/or GPU could improve a lot the performance for this part of the game.

As someone who works on parallel codes: code performance might go up, but developer performance will go way, way down. As someone who wishes to see the next update sometime this century I would not wish for Steve to be sucked into the time trap of parallelizing Aurora...
Posted by: paolot
« on: August 24, 2025, 01:55:37 PM »

Editable value in Game Options for

Maximum number of Civilian Shipping Lines (per Race)
Maximum number of ships per a Civilian Shipping Line

Shipping Lines have changed in v2.6 and will have far fewer ships.

Steve, sorry, elaboration for civ lines is it performed using CPU core(s) different from the one(s) used for the player? or even using GPU?
I'm not sure, but C# should allow the selection of the processor(s) where a program is executed, and, if not already implemented, parallelism and/or GPU could improve a lot the performance for this part of the game.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: August 22, 2025, 10:49:59 AM »

In the View Technology window, when missiles are shown, is it possible to add the information about retargeting capability?

Added, along with ATG.
Posted by: randakar
« on: August 21, 2025, 01:17:00 PM »

But what if you like having lots of civilians around?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: August 21, 2025, 11:07:37 AM »

Editable value in Game Options for

Maximum number of Civilian Shipping Lines (per Race)
Maximum number of ships per a Civilian Shipping Line

Shipping Lines have changed in v2.6 and will have far fewer ships.
Posted by: paolot
« on: August 18, 2025, 02:26:15 PM »

I've found this suggestion for v2.0
https://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13020.msg166200#msg166200
while I was overthinking about more or less the same item for accuracy of weapons.
No answer to this and no other similar proposal i found.

High speed/high power computing can increase the aiming ability of weapons (turrets, CIWS, STOs) I think.
Using this feature they can perform better and faster calculation of the target future position, and therefore the direction to aim to, increasing the probability that a shot hits the target.
I've done some hypothesis.
The research cost could start at 1,000 (one thousand) research points, then increases e.g. like
RP_lev(X) = RP_lev(1)*(1+int((lev(X)-1)^3)).
While, at each level, the multiplicative factor for the accuracy could be
ACC_lev(X) = int(10,000*(1.2+(1.0025-1.2)/(1+(lev(X)/10)^4)))/10,000
starting from 1.0025 and capped at 1.20 for high levels.
For the first 20 levels, the values from these formulas are:
RP;Acc:
1,000.00;1.0025 - 2,000.00;1.0028 - 9,000.00;1.004 - 28,000.00;1.0074 - 65,000.00;1.0141 - 126,000.00;1.0251 - 217,000.00;1.0407 - 344,000.00;1.0598 - 513,000.00;1.0807 - 730,000.00;1.1012 - 1,001,000.00;1.1198 - 1,332,000.00;1.1357 - 1,729,000.00;1.1487 - 2,198,000.00;1.1592 - 2,745,000.00;1.1674 - 3,376,000.00;1.1738 - 4,097,000.00;1.1788 - 4,914,000.00;1.1828 - 5,833,000.00;1.1859 - 6,860,000.00;1.1883
The mass of the computers should influence the outcome too: the ability of small units (e.g. 50 kg, or 0.001 HS) could be reduced (e.g., dividing this factor by 4 or 5); the listed numbers could be obtained with at least 1 ton (0.2 HS) computer, while large ones (50 or 100 tons, i.e. 1 or 2 HS) could increase it a bit more (30% maximum).
But, as BwenGun said, computers can really be applied to everything in the game: research, factories, tracking stations, shipyards, finance, terraforming, ship components, prisoners interrogation, etc. etc..
Apart coding it, the hard point is the balance of this with the rest of the mechanics in the game.
Posted by: Indefatigable
« on: August 18, 2025, 04:42:56 AM »

Editable value in Game Options for

Maximum number of Civilian Shipping Lines (per Race)
Maximum number of ships per a Civilian Shipping Line