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: alex_brunius
« on: March 19, 2013, 04:53:07 AM »

The same thing can be said about designing a 5 crew fighter with low speed and long range that can cruise for months and years. It is allowed to design such a craft today in Aurora as long as you have enough crew space.

Perhaps also there needs to be a cap on maximum allowed deploy time aswell for small crews, sitting isolated in a small space alone or with 5 others for years has proven to be mentally demanding driving people crazy.

It could for example scale of amount of crew so your allowed to set a maximum of 1 month deployment time per crew member (for both ships and space stations). Some examples:

10 crew = 10 months
100 crew =  8.3 years maximum allowed deploy time.
1000 crew = 83 years maximum allowed deploy time.

Another cool option would be if we could research AI/Computer techs and instead of crew add automated computer systems to smaller craft/drones fulfilling such roles as jumpgate guards.
Posted by: Conscript Gary
« on: March 19, 2013, 02:33:11 AM »

One could argue that a sufficiently-large buoy would count as such, though with less of the targeting finesse
Posted by: Thundercraft
« on: March 18, 2013, 10:43:44 PM »

Quote from: alex_brunius on March 18, 2013, 10:45:11 AM
...I think these are some of the most important properties that sets it appart from a spaceship.

I agree. Modularity is important. And as long as maintenance is still a big issue, building ship "space stations" is impractical.

To be realistic, space stations should have some maintenance requirements. But I'm thinking they should not require quite as much or as regular maintenance as starships, what with the latter having huge engines and powerplants to move around at high speeds, traversing through jump points, etc. Starships would be much more complicated and go through a lot of extreme stresses on a regular basis.

Also, I'd really like to see small, un-manned weapons platforms. You know, like "Star-Wars" type space-based weapons systems. It seems downright silly to build something like the Jump Gate Defence "Base":
Quote from: Xenogenic on May 22, 2012, 11:36:43 AM
Imagine the crew of 15 sat there for years on end, waiting for their one chance to fire their 4 missiles and then probably perish. . .   ;D
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: March 18, 2013, 10:45:11 AM »

Quote from: TheDeadlyShoe on March 14, 2013, 02:11:24 PM
We're used to the dichotomy between a harbor/naval base and a ship.  Harbors are fundamentally different than ships, but space stations are just ships without engines. But we have inertia cancellation and artificial gravity (presumably).  We can put engines on a space station without even worrying about structural factors.

You're right though that we can't really build what people want, which is giant space military space stations to guard jump points.  It's just not practical with maintenance rules :)

Various interpretations of self-maintenance modules have been proposed, I assume it's something on Steve's long term 'look at' list.
I mostly agree. But a space station is built to be deployed for much more extended times and also possible to keep building and adding modules while deployed, and while the station does have engines it's more for minor adjustments to keep a "stationary" orbit.

I think these are some of the most important properties that sets it appart from a spaceship.
Posted by: TheDeadlyShoe
« on: March 14, 2013, 02:11:24 PM »

Well, I would say it's in part because there's very little difference between a space station and a ship in practice.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISS_Propulsion_Module

We're used to the dichotomy between a harbor/naval base and a ship.  Harbors are fundamentally different than ships, but space stations are just ships without engines. But we have inertia cancellation and artificial gravity (presumably).  We can put engines on a space station without even worrying about structural factors. 

You're right though that we can't really build what people want, which is giant space military space stations to guard jump points.  It's just not practical with maintenance rules :)

Various interpretations of self-maintenance modules have been proposed, I assume it's something on Steve's long term 'look at' list.
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: March 14, 2013, 08:42:53 AM »

Ofcourse mostly semantics but in any dictionary I have seen "massive structure" was as not one of the interpretations of "vessel".  ;)

But thanks for reminding me that Aurora is pretty flexible so you can build alot of ships that behave similarly to how a starbase would, which is ofcourse good and something I acknowledge.

Also interresting to know some history on this matter, thanks for that Charlie.
Posted by: TheDeadlyShoe
« on: March 12, 2013, 09:13:07 AM »

Quote
Aurora for me is about generating and experiencing a sci fi story, and without space stations it's a bit of an immersion breaker for me.
:|

Code: [Select]
Harbor class Starbase    502,500 tons     2050 Crew     11545.2 BP      TCS 10050  TH 7200  EM 0
716 km/s     Armour 5-563     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
MSP 14    Max Repair 200 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 68   
Habitation Capacity 50,000    Tractor Beam     
Maintenance Modules: 30 module(s) capable of supporting ships of 6000 tons

Heliosys Stable Booster (30)    Power 240    Fuel Use 1.73%    Signature 240    Exp 3%
Fuel Capacity 2,000,000 Litres    Range 41.4 billion km   (669 days at full power)

UN PHALANX  (6x6)    Range 1000 km     TS: 12000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
X-Band Navigational Scanner (1)     GPS 1600     Range 12.8m km    Resolution 100

This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as an Orbital Habitat for construction purposes
Code: [Select]
Agincourt class Citadel    12,500 tons     173 Crew     1361 BP      TCS 250  TH 0  EM 0
1 km/s     Armour 5-47     Shields 0-0     Sensors 14/14/0/0     Damage Control Rating 11     PPV 0
Maint Life 9.91 Years     MSP 1749    AFR 113%    IFR 1.6%    1YR 32    5YR 485    Max Repair 40 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 60 months    Flight Crew Berths 184   
Hangar Deck Capacity 4000 tons     Troop Capacity: 1 Battalion   

Fuel Capacity 500,000 Litres    Range N/A

UN PHALANX  (4x6)    Range 1000 km     TS: 12000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Navigational Psidar (1)     GPS 1600     Range 22.4m km    Resolution 100
Psi Link (1)     GPS 26     Range 3.6m km    Resolution 1
Thermal Scope (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  14m km
Magnetic Scope (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  14m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Code: [Select]
Y203 Marathon - Copy class Fuel Harvester    135,750 tons     538 Crew     2695.2 BP      TCS 2715  TH 0  EM 0
1 km/s     Armour 1-235     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
MSP 12    Max Repair 100 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months    Spare Berths 1   
Cryogenic Berths 1000    Tractor Beam     
Fuel Harvester: 50 modules producing 1400000 litres per annum

Fuel Capacity 6,000,000 Litres    Range N/A

UN PHALANX  (2x6)    Range 1000 km     TS: 12000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
X-Band Navigational Scanner (1)     GPS 1600     Range 12.8m km    Resolution 100

This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: March 12, 2013, 07:46:06 AM »

True, Steve has not made it absolute canon that jumpgates are stabilized wormholes. 

Some things to take into consideration. 

Gate construction does not use any minerals/components in the current version of the game.  Most of you have not been around long enough to remember that this was not always the case.  It used to be that gate components were manufactured by your industry and only assembled by gate construction ships. 

Back when the component feature of gate construction was removed there had been a growing push to have a way to target and destroy the gates.  Instead of building a functional way for combat ships to destroy gates, Steve removed the components thus negating the argument that physical components could be destroyed. 

Something else too consider.  There is no limit to hull mass that can transit a jumppoint at any one time.  This lends itself to the concept of stabilized wormhole better than a physical construct.

Yes most of this is just my opinion.  It is based on something of the order of 15 years of interacting with Steve rules interpretation and programming support of same.  I'm not perfect in my interpretation as Steve has pointed out over the years. 

Your mileage may very.
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: March 12, 2013, 06:33:17 AM »

Quote from: Charlie Beeler on March 11, 2013, 03:05:52 PM
Perhaps Steve opinion will help...
And in another place he wrote that one of the main uses for sorium is jump gate construction...

We are just trying to suggest that it might be smart to redo and implement space stations and jumpgates properly, given how central they are to almost all sci fi lore in games, books and movies. It's not easy to find a single story without either stations or physical jumpgates in Space.

Aurora for me is about generating and experiencing a sci fi story, and without space stations it's a bit of an immersion breaker for me.
Posted by: ollobrains
« on: March 11, 2013, 11:37:43 PM »

and if u turn on the option to have jump gates automatic at each jump point ( think ancients or a naturally occouring wormhole) that fixes that to
Posted by: TheDeadlyShoe
« on: March 11, 2013, 09:10:48 PM »

O come on guys don't nitpick.

You can build all the space stations you want, they just have to follow the same rules as ships.

The only thing limiting space stations right now is maintenance rules. 


ps. Just because populations are organized by body doesn't mean the facilities are on the ground.  :]
Posted by: Thundercraft
« on: March 11, 2013, 05:59:00 PM »

Building a gate around a jump point immediately brings to mind the jump gates in Babylon 5.  And the jump gates in the Egosoft games - X: Beyond the Frontier, X2: The Return, and X3: Reunion.  Heck, just about every sci-fi mention of jump gates I can think of refer to physical gates in which a jump point can be used.  You could almost consider the Wing Commander series an exception… except they always refer to them as "jump points", never as "jump gates".   

I'm also reminded of the star gates in SG:Atlantis and SGU.  But they don't call them "jump gates".   

Quote from: Charlie Beeler link=topic=1784.  msg61205#msg61205 date=1363032352
Perhaps Steve opinion will help…

This is what he said,
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=3630. msg35388#msg35388 date=1306663339
…the stablised jump point, rather than an actual physical jump gate, is how I tend to view it as well.  Maybe I should make that canon.  I'll give it some thought.

Notice the "tend(s) to view" and the part about still deciding whether or not to make this canon?

Also, there's more than one way to interpret that statement.  It sounds like he either a) envisions them as a stable jump point with no physical component whatsoever -or- that b) he thinks of the jump point first and foremost when thinking of jump gates (allow jump gates to have some physical component).   

Quote from: alex brunius link=topic=1784.  msg61204#msg61204 date=1363031158
Which sounds more like technobabble excuses then how we would want the game to work imho.  A Construction Ship building a "gate" at least gives me an impression that some physical construction is ongoing.   

I'd agree that it does sound like trying to excuse things away.  And "building" a gate does imply that something physical is constructed.  Though, it really is Steve's game, so the way "we would want" many not have much weight.  That said, it's usually impossible please everyone, so why not make more stuff like this an option that players can turn on or off? (I'm reminded of games like Dwarf Fortress with "init" text files which allows tremendous customization to suit all sorts of player preferences…)

Quote from: Rogtuok link=topic=1784. msg61180#msg61180 date=1362985596
A orbital station could have a module named orbital docking or something that whoud enable you to add som special mods like dry dock orbital factories and other things.  Could make it something like building a PDC that you need prebuild the parts planet side until you got it up and running and from ther it needs minerals to add to the station.

Considering how sophisticated a simulator Aurora is, I'm surprised that this isn't already implemented.  It's a much more realistic approach.  It shouldn't even matter if players want to do something weird, like try to combine a shipyard with the capabilities of a Deep Space Tracking Station by combining the relevant modules.  (I'm reminded of the Xpace game, where one could build whatever type of station one would want merely by designing it with certain modules. )

Space stations are the heart and soul of space exploration.  Imagine in the real world trying to colonize mars or explore/exploit the asteroids or other solar bodies without a space station.  But even in fiction they are important.   
One can envision other uses for them besides shipyards, tracking stations, and refueling, too.  Weapons platforms would be cool.  Even something like financial/commercial stations or luxury stations that increase wealth would be nice.   
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: March 11, 2013, 03:05:52 PM »

Perhaps Steve opinion will help...

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,3630.msg35388.html#msg35388
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: March 11, 2013, 02:45:58 PM »

Which sounds more like technobabble exuses then how we would want the game to work imho. A Construction Ship building a "gate" at least gives me an impression that some physical construction is ongoing.
Posted by: TheDeadlyShoe
« on: March 11, 2013, 02:04:43 PM »

Currently Jumpgates are envisioned as stabilized wormhole entrances.  They don't have material components per se.