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: Jorgen_CAB
« on: September 23, 2013, 07:41:07 AM »

The same problem exist on ship based sensor systems, both active and passive.

The only sensor system where I would think a linear approach in sensible are fire-controls because they only concern a single object already illuminated by another active sensor system.

The current mechanic clearly favour one single large sensor system, over many spread over a larger area which would be more realistic and fun as well I think.  :)
It might be a problem for the AI though so we have to bare that in mind as well.
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: September 23, 2013, 07:24:17 AM »

Yes, Separated only makes sense for systems where you have valuable things very far from each other and want both well covered/protected.

For example a system with multiple stars say 5 billion of km apart (or more) and colonies on bodies around two or more of them.
Posted by: Paul M
« on: September 23, 2013, 07:11:15 AM »

The fact that the area grows as the square of the number of stations is why it makes more sense to keep them in one place.

If I assume I have N stations then I have an area coverage that is given by: N^2*(DSTS_strength)^2*Pi()

If I assume I have x locations each with N/x stations then I have an area coverage given by: x*(N/x)^2*(DSTS_strength)^2*Pi() = (N^2/x)*(DSTS_strength)^2*Pi()

The problem is that the area covered by the (x+1)th DSTS  is considerably greater than by the xth and so I can't see how a dispersed system can win.

I think for it to make sense you would have to make it so you also used the seperation of the systems as part of the formula.
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: September 23, 2013, 05:57:19 AM »

Quote from: Nightstar on April 11, 2013, 03:50:12 PM
Coverage area should still grow as the square of tracking stations on one rock. Ideally, you'd want stations next to your JPs, but without turning of orbits, that's not feasible.
Quote from: Bgreman on April 15, 2013, 12:03:58 PM
The range of the DSTS on a body is given by:

Detection range = DSTS Tech * Number of DSTS * Target Signature.
Your both right. If the range is growing linear, then the covered area is growing by the square :)
Posted by: AbuDhabi
« on: September 22, 2013, 01:31:47 PM »

That's great! Thanks!
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: September 22, 2013, 01:05:48 AM »

I seem to have badly screwed up that calculation.
Edit: I think you would need only 150 dsts to detect the fighter at neptune, and the 15 I already have should be able to detect a 1000 strength contact at neptune.
Posted by: AbuDhabi
« on: September 21, 2013, 10:40:39 AM »

So, by analogy, a strength 1000 thermal contact would require merely 1500 DSTS at that range?
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: September 21, 2013, 07:48:32 AM »

Hmm, in one game I'm playing earth has 15 dsts with strength of 4500, which can detect a strength 100 thermal contact (one of my fighters which goes 10,000 km/s) at a range of 450 million kilometers, also none of my fighters have any em emissions.
Now, if you needed to detect such a contact as far out as Neptune you would need 4.5 billion kilometers range, which would require a strength 4.5 million dsts, which with my technology would need 15,000 dsts.
You'll need 2,250,000 Duranium and Uridium to build them, but on the bright side they require no population to operate.
Posted by: AbuDhabi
« on: September 20, 2013, 05:01:21 PM »

Suppose you have the Sol system and you want to make sure that if a ship above fighter size comes into the system without your invitation, you will notice, how much DSTS strength do you need?
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: September 20, 2013, 01:36:17 PM »

I usually limit myself to maximum five tracking stations on any one place for just this reason.

In my opinion all sensors in the game should have a diminishing range due to strength. It does not have to be 100% realistic, just to curb the use of one super strong sensor in once place. There are the same problems with sensors on ships.
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: September 20, 2013, 01:26:20 AM »

Technically it's still better to have all your dsts on one body, since even with linear you get better coverage area by having all your eggs in one basket.
But for roleplay/redundancy purposes i usually have perhaps 1/3 of my dsts on smaller more strategically located rocks.
Posted by: gharad
« on: September 19, 2013, 06:41:41 PM »

Quote from: Nightstar link=topic=6081. msg62458#msg62458 date=1366049076
Yeah, but that's a processing issue.  I consider taking advantage of it cheating.

On the other hand. . . jump points are found by surveying gravitational anomalies.  Shouldn't they be in movement as well, since the movement of planets in the system alters the gradient of the gravitational field?
Posted by: AbuDhabi
« on: September 19, 2013, 12:04:14 PM »

Quote from: Bgreman link=topic=6081. msg62454#msg62454 date=1366045438
As I've posted (and Steve has confirmed), that isn't true.   The range of the DSTS on a body is given by:

Detection range = DSTS Tech * Number of DSTS * Target Signature.

Is that in km? kkm? mkm?
Posted by: Nightstar
« on: April 15, 2013, 01:04:36 PM »

Yeah, but that's a processing issue. I consider taking advantage of it cheating.
Posted by: Erik L
« on: April 15, 2013, 12:54:11 PM »

Quote from: Nightstar on April 11, 2013, 03:50:12 PM
Coverage area should still grow as the square of tracking stations on one rock. Ideally, you'd want stations next to your JPs, but without turning of orbits, that's not feasible.

Asteroids. Their orbital motion is off by default.