Posted by: Konisforce
« on: August 10, 2012, 09:19:36 AM »Hmm. In that case, my "Spaceballs"-themed role-play style makes even more sense . . .
Posted by: xeryon
« on: August 09, 2012, 09:45:26 PM »Do to some programming oversights by running 30 day increments on 5.6 you are missing out on a large number of officer promotions as well. As it turns out the officers have a skill advance roll every 5 days and when you hit a 30 day increment your officers still only roll once for a skill advance 
Posted by: madmarcus
« on: August 09, 2012, 05:24:24 PM »I'm a new player so I suppose no one is going to be surprised that I use the 30 day step. As a generally slow turtling player I tend to spend 20 years puttering around in a starting system teching, setting up colonies, and building up an industrial base. With most research queued I don't think I'm losing much and 1/6th the pauses its much much easier to wait for your first 30k ton freighter to be built to really start moving around the system.
Posted by: boggo2300
« on: August 09, 2012, 04:41:03 PM »soon-to-be massive Norse Confederacy juggernauty empire.
I hope thats it's actual name, because that would be awesome!
Matt
Posted by: Konisforce
« on: August 09, 2012, 03:18:47 PM »Ya, I was doing 30-day but keeping an eye on research and industry and creeping up on those major events when they were close.
Of course, that's not going to be tenable in my soon-to-be massive Norse Confederacy juggernauty empire.
Of course, that's not going to be tenable in my soon-to-be massive Norse Confederacy juggernauty empire.
Posted by: xeryon
« on: August 09, 2012, 02:41:45 PM »Won't hurt me one bit. I too prefer the auto-turn 1 day increment method. I suspect only new players use the 30 day. As soon as they come to the realization that many relevant actions do not produce a time stop and you have to elapse the full time increment to see the result they likely stop using it. Scientific discoveries come to mind. You lose a lot of RP generation hitting the 30 day button when a research project will be finished in another 5 days and you go 25 without an assigned project.
Posted by: Erik L
« on: August 09, 2012, 01:52:42 PM »I'm seriously tempted to remove the 30 day timestep. I only ever use it at the start of conventional campaigns. I usually put one day increments on auto-turns and occasionally use 5-days, which means the 30 day increment never really gets tested in development.
Steve
I used to use it a lot, but realized I can do a lot more in the 5 day than the 30 day I stopped using the 30 day.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: August 09, 2012, 01:51:04 PM »Aha!! The old "30 day timesteps" (I never go above 5 days). If a complete cycle of a set of orders can be completed in one timestep (I don't remember if this is the impulse time or the total time), then the cycle could get messed up in the past. I don't remember if Steve fixed the issue, but I suspect that something like this is what's going on with you.
John
I'm seriously tempted to remove the 30 day timestep
. I only ever use it at the start of conventional campaigns. I usually put one day increments on auto-turns and occasionally use 5-days, which means the 30 day increment never really gets tested in development.Steve
Posted by: sloanjh
« on: August 08, 2012, 09:12:39 PM »Hmm, of the two possibilities above, the first one sounds likely. The point is close enough to my homeworld that - depending on the timing - it would be able to execute the "move from Primary LP, load colonists at homeworld, jump through LP to Secondary LP" all in one 30-day time chunk. In which case, you're saying it's glitching and not correctly hitting the second jump event?
Aha!! The old "30 day timesteps" (I never go above 5 days). If a complete cycle of a set of orders can be completed in one timestep (I don't remember if this is the impulse time or the total time), then the cycle could get messed up in the past. I don't remember if Steve fixed the issue, but I suspect that something like this is what's going on with you.
John
Posted by: Konisforce
« on: August 08, 2012, 01:00:34 PM »Hmm, of the two possibilities above, the first one sounds likely. The point is close enough to my homeworld that - depending on the timing - it would be able to execute the "move from Primary LP, load colonists at homeworld, jump through LP to Secondary LP" all in one 30-day time chunk. In which case, you're saying it's glitching and not correctly hitting the second jump event?
Posted by: xeryon
« on: August 08, 2012, 11:37:21 AM »Oh, something that occurred to me just now. If you are traveling between two stars that are 200AU apart and travel time is 23455 days even if you tell it to use the LP it still seems to think it will take that much time to get there. If your bodies orbit takes it in between the LP and your destination the AI might just be skipping the LP navigation because it thinks it is shorter to just drive straight there.
In any case, this will all be resolved soon as this was an item specifically addressed in the 5.7 update. Steve made an official announcement about it yesterday, I believe.
In any case, this will all be resolved soon as this was an item specifically addressed in the 5.7 update. Steve made an official announcement about it yesterday, I believe.
Posted by: sloanjh
« on: August 08, 2012, 08:47:05 AM »Are you taking really big timesteps, and does the LP get close to the planet sometimes?
In the past (and possibly still) there have been problems if a repeat route between Earth and Mars can be executed in a single timestep - the repeated orders don't get correctly copied (I forget the details). It's conceivable that the messing up of the repeat order is due to executing two "move tos" in the same timestep. I doubt this is the case, but that's the only thing I can think of that might mess up the repeat list.
John
In the past (and possibly still) there have been problems if a repeat route between Earth and Mars can be executed in a single timestep - the repeated orders don't get correctly copied (I forget the details). It's conceivable that the messing up of the repeat order is due to executing two "move tos" in the same timestep. I doubt this is the case, but that's the only thing I can think of that might mess up the repeat list.
John
Posted by: Konisforce
« on: August 07, 2012, 04:05:17 PM »Ah, slick. Just ran across this in the Lost Mechanics thread.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Posted by: Redshirt
« on: August 07, 2012, 02:56:47 PM »Nah, create it as a civilian ship, but mark it "obsolete" immediately. You can still build it, but civilian shipping lanes will not.
Posted by: Konisforce
« on: August 07, 2012, 02:21:50 PM »Ya, I tried that with my own public civilian ships, no luck.
The odd part (from a bug / glitch standpoint) is that it does seem to work anywhere from 1 to 3 times before ignoring the jump point.
I guess it's hyperdrive time. I'm loathe to make a hyper-capable civvie ship that my private shipping companies will waste money on, though. Maybe I'll do a design with military engines and hyperdrive and just run one yard waaaaaay up.
The odd part (from a bug / glitch standpoint) is that it does seem to work anywhere from 1 to 3 times before ignoring the jump point.
I guess it's hyperdrive time. I'm loathe to make a hyper-capable civvie ship that my private shipping companies will waste money on, though. Maybe I'll do a design with military engines and hyperdrive and just run one yard waaaaaay up.
