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: August 11, 2013, 07:21:34 AM »

Quote from: Zatsuza on March 18, 2013, 07:22:45 AM
I can agree with having strong sensory installations on a major planet or colony, but I think DSTS should be... exactly that. Deep space tracking stations. I want my listening posts on the moons of saturn to pick up stuff coming in from deep space. (of course mostly for RP reasons only, and in other very spread out systems listening posts on asteroids or comets in the interstellar gulf could still give you an acceptable early warning system.)
Suggestion for future versions of Aurora:

Reduce detection efficiency on DSTS based on disturbance from same body thermal/EM emissions and atmosphere. Just like on earth astronomers have a very hard time detecting stars.
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: August 08, 2013, 07:45:21 AM »

I found these bugs a month ago but didn't have a forum account here to report them, I'll go have a look at what i posted.
"« on: June 16, 2013, 10:47:04 pm »
I've discovered an interesting Sensor or display bug, In my newly started game I have decided to set up Small tracking station/missile bases around Uranus's orbital path.  They will need Sensors with around 3 Billion Kilometers each to provide adequate coverage, at start I'll just use Deep space tracking stations as they provide good passive detection range, and are upgradable linearly.
I've selected asteroids Asbolus, Crantor and Chariklo which have close to 120 degree seperation around the path and similar orbital peroids, of 63, 77 and 85 years, though eventually after a few decades there will be gaps in coverage, I could easily move the facilities to new nearby asteroids.  Each will need 12 deep space tracking stations to provide the coverage I'll need, I should note that merely putting those 36 Tracking stations on Earth would provide double coverage, out to 9 billion Kilometers.  Anyway, Using the passive sensor tab on the System Map to check the tracking coverage has shown a few anomalies, Firstly theres an unknown passive sensor radius extending out to 700 billion kilometers for a strength 100 contact (?) and secondly if i put one of the tracking stations around a Uranian moon, no tracking radius shows up on the map at all.
. . .
Just a few things causing a little confusion to me, I'm considering setting up a small scenario with an player controlled race to test if a base at a Uranian moon would still produce detection, but for now i'll use Chariklo as it's position is currently a little better than Uranus.  "
So, that 700 billion kilometer sensor would be the 26 dsts on earth, meanwhile the 12 tracking stations i had on asteroids had basically the correct range so i didn't notice a problem.
Which tracks perfectly with the chart posted by bgreman. 
TLDR/ I can confirm exactly what bgreman said, also tracking stations on moons don't seem to show a range ring on F3
Posted by: andrea69
« on: August 08, 2013, 07:08:21 AM »

Ok, I think there is still something wrong on the coverage shown in the F3 window.
I'm playing 6.21 now, and I have 5 colonies in the Alpha Centauri system, each one with 2 DSTS (strenght 600).
Three of the colonies are on planets, other two are on moons.
Enabling the "Show passive sensor ranges" checkbox in F3 window, and setting a signature strength of 1000, around the planets with colonies I can see a blue circle around 600 million km, but around the moons there is nothing, no circle at all.
Posted by: Zatsuza
« on: March 18, 2013, 07:22:45 AM »

I can agree with having strong sensory installations on a major planet or colony, but I think DSTS should be... exactly that. Deep space tracking stations. I want my listening posts on the moons of saturn to pick up stuff coming in from deep space. (of course mostly for RP reasons only, and in other very spread out systems listening posts on asteroids or comets in the interstellar gulf could still give you an acceptable early warning system.)
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: March 18, 2013, 05:31:40 AM »

I was fairly sure I had already fixed this so I checked the code and confirmed it. It must have happened after v5.60

Steve
Posted by: Bgreman
« on: March 15, 2013, 05:38:32 PM »

Quote from: Steve Walmsley on July 29, 2012, 03:53:39 PM
Could you check the version number for your game (look on the Game window)? The game used to work as described above but I changed it a couple of years ago so that the planetary sensor strength increases linearly. To make absolutely sure, you could check the sensor strength for the population on the top right of the summary tab on the F2 window. It should be equal to number of deep space tracking stations x planetary sensor strength tech.

Steve

Steve, I think I might have some insight into this, in case it's still a problem.  While you may have changed the actual detection routines (and thus, in game terms, ships will be detected at the proper distances), it would seem the display of the sensor range rings still uses the old calculation.

I am still using 5.6, so perhaps it has been fixed since, but I made a test with a single DSTS up to 30 DSTS, with Planetary Sensor Strength 250.


(Click for larger)

Edit: I just ran some more tests that convince me the detection routine itself is working properly (detection range = planetary_sensor_strength * num_DSTS * 1000 * target_thermal_signature).  I took a hostile TG, figured out how far it was from the location of the DSTS, and then adjusted its speed until it disappeared / reappeared on sensors, which happened at the range given by the above formula.  It looks like only the display of the range rings is wrong.  Which is annoying, but less annoying than if the detection routine was bugged.
Posted by: andrea69
« on: September 02, 2012, 03:57:52 PM »

Quote from: Steve Walmsley on July 29, 2012, 03:53:39 PM
Could you check the version number for your game (look on the Game window)? The game used to work as described above but I changed it a couple of years ago so that the planetary sensor strength increases linearly. To make absolutely sure, you could check the sensor strength for the population on the top right of the summary tab on the F2 window. It should be equal to number of deep space tracking stations x planetary sensor strength tech.

Steve

I'm playing with 5.60. And the sensor strenght indicated on the F2 window is correct, I mean it grows proportionally. But in the F3 window it does not.
Posted by: Person012345
« on: August 28, 2012, 07:34:29 PM »

x10, but under x1 it's at 98 (IE. the x10 is displaying strength 980).
Posted by: Bgreman
« on: August 28, 2012, 06:11:00 PM »

Which of the three multiplier radio buttons in the "passive sensors" block do you have ticked?
Posted by: Person012345
« on: August 22, 2012, 09:06:18 AM »

Hmm, a question on this - I have "strength 20,000" planetary sensors. 50 installations, I guess they are strength 400, either way the economy screen tells me they are strength 20,000. As I understand how passive mechanics should work, this should mean that I detect a strength 1000 object at 20,000,000,000 km right? Well, I find that when I "show passive sensor ranges", it shows that it will detect a strength 980 object at around 3 light years. Is this working as intended and I've misunderstood something?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: July 29, 2012, 03:53:39 PM »

Quote from: andrea69 on July 19, 2012, 04:26:37 PM
I've made some tests, and it looks like the coverage of tracking stations grows exponentially increasing the number of stations. With just a few stations on a body the coverage is ok, but putting 20 or 30 stations on the inner planet of a system gives you a coverage of the whole system (I made the test with strength 50 targets). Just to make an example, with 10 stations I had a coverage of 100m km, with 20 stations it grew to 1b km, with 30 10b km.
So it looks far more convenient to concentrate everything on one body, rather than distribute the stations across the system, as it should be, I think.


Could you check the version number for your game (look on the Game window)? The game used to work as described above but I changed it a couple of years ago so that the planetary sensor strength increases linearly. To make absolutely sure, you could check the sensor strength for the population on the top right of the summary tab on the F2 window. It should be equal to number of deep space tracking stations x planetary sensor strength tech.

Steve
Posted by: sloanjh
« on: July 23, 2012, 08:40:42 PM »

I have a vague memory from a year or so ago that a bug in DSTS was found.  I think the bug had something to do with the range growing faster than linearly with the number of stations, but I don't remember the details.  IIRC, it was found when somebody put a large number  (e.g. 100x) of DSTS on Earth and started getting overflows.  I don't remember if it was fixed.  You might try dumpster diving in The Academy and/or in Bugs....

John
Posted by: andrea69
« on: July 20, 2012, 05:43:52 PM »

Quote from: Sloshmonger on July 20, 2012, 11:35:17 AM
DSTS have a similar detection method to Thermal/EM sensors, where 1 installation with tech Planetary Sensor Strength 400 would detect a Strenght 100 thermal contact at 20M km, but 4 installations will detect at 80M km, and 20 installations at 400M km.

It is not working like that

Quote from: Sloshmonger on July 20, 2012, 11:35:17 AM
So the layout of your planet-based sensor network with 20 installations could be based off of one inner planet.  If, however, you have colonies at planets that can be up to 300M km apart, at times you may have only 100M km of overlap, so in some cases it'd be adventageous to split those DSTS up to give all installations adequate coverage.

I agree, it should be as you say, but it is never adventageous to split the sensors among different planets. If I put my 20 installations on one planet I can cover a radius of 1000m km, while if I split it on two planets, each one covers just 100m km.
Posted by: andrea69
« on: July 20, 2012, 04:21:12 PM »

Quote from: Bgreman on July 20, 2012, 03:10:42 PM
If this is how it is actually working for you, then it is a bug.  Doubling the number of sensors should just double the range.
Yes, it is working like that. If it is a bug, it makes sense  :)
Posted by: Bgreman
« on: July 20, 2012, 03:10:42 PM »

Quote from: andrea69 on July 19, 2012, 04:26:37 PM
I've made some tests, and it looks like the coverage of tracking stations grows exponentially increasing the number of stations. With just a few stations on a body the coverage is ok, but putting 20 or 30 stations on the inner planet of a system gives you a coverage of the whole system (I made the test with strength 50 targets). Just to make an example, with 10 stations I had a coverage of 100m km, with 20 stations it grew to 1b km, with 30 10b km.
So it looks far more convenient to concentrate everything on one body, rather than distribute the stations across the system, as it should be, I think.


If this is how it is actually working for you, then it is a bug.  Doubling the number of sensors should just double the range.