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: Haji
« on: August 17, 2014, 06:45:13 PM »

Quote from: Vandermeer on August 17, 2014, 12:45:29 PM
So habitats really just improve upon the agri/social/labor ratio, and thus have lesser effect if that ratio is already naturally good in some place, like zero or even already <2 colonies.

They don't really "improve" said ratio. They are pretty much earlier, more expensive, but also more versatile equivalent of underground infrastructure. Their main purpose is to allow the player to colonize planets which either have wrong gravity or such large colony cost to make industry impossible.

To be more exact, the percentage of people working in social services is the same in orbital habitats as is everywhere else (the percentage growths with population, capping at seventy five percent) while agriculture and life support are entirely omitted. In theory that means much more workers on planets with colony cost above 2.0 (as you need 15% of your population in agriculture and it increases with colony cost) but they are so expensive that they are rarely used and when planetary population is low (less than 25 million) you have such a large percentage of people in manufacturing (only 40% is working in services) that there is little difference between habitats or infrastructure.
Posted by: Vandermeer
« on: August 17, 2014, 12:45:29 PM »

Quote from: JacenHan on August 17, 2014, 10:26:48 AM
Orbital habitats cannot carry passengers, [...]
I knew that they formally didn't carry such, but I was under the impression that they still provided their capacity automatically as if they were constantly inhabited.

Quote from: Haji on August 17, 2014, 10:38:45 AM
Orbital habitats do not carry colonists by themselves so adding/removing habitats will not change the population of a planet. Should you remove habitats the people that were previously living there will simply be dumped on a planet. If the planet is like Venus and it does not have enough infrastructure the people will die. Quickly. If the planet is colony cost 0 nothing will happen.
One of the interesting things about orbital habitats is that they do not require any people working in agriculture and life support, which means that higher percentage of people can be working in manufacturing (player controlled installations). If you look at your population breakdown you'll see that the amount of people working in agriculture is 4.9% - which means some people are living in the habitats, as normally planet with colony cost 0 requires 5% of the population working in agriculture.
Well spotted, now I see that too. There is a miniscule shift of just a couple thousand people that equal 0.07% here - not what you would expect to happen with 10m habitat, but something at least. Now I feel like with a backwards Deja Vu, like I recognized that already sometime ago and just forgot about it.

So habitats really just improve upon the agri/social/labor ratio, and thus have lesser effect if that ratio is already naturally good in some place, like zero or even already <2 colonies.

Quote
To be honest it's kinda difficult for me to tell what did you expect from the habitats by installing them on a planet with colony cost 0, so I'm not sure if the above will help or not.
I expected 10m free fulltime mobile workers.^^ It would have been quite useful to just have a work platform with 10m guaranteed labor to be shipped wherever needed.
Strange that nobody bumped me on this yet, since I have posted 3 designs already with 5-20m habitats where I also described that planning.(..like running 400 fighter factories with 20m habitat alone..) Well, that was a misconception, but luckily I also ship around many more real colonists parallel, so nothing is lost.
Posted by: Haji
« on: August 17, 2014, 10:38:45 AM »

Orbital habitats do not carry colonists by themselves so adding/removing habitats will not change the population of a planet. Should you remove habitats the people that were previously living there will simply be dumped on a planet. If the planet is like Venus and it does not have enough infrastructure the people will die. Quickly. If the planet is colony cost 0 nothing will happen.
One of the interesting things about orbital habitats is that they do not require any people working in agriculture and life support, which means that higher percentage of people can be working in manufacturing (player controlled installations). If you look at your population breakdown you'll see that the amount of people working in agriculture is 4.9% - which means some people are living in the habitats, as normally planet with colony cost 0 requires 5% of the population working in agriculture.
To be honest it's kinda difficult for me to tell what did you expect from the habitats by installing them on a planet with colony cost 0, so I'm not sure if the above will help or not.
Posted by: JacenHan
« on: August 17, 2014, 10:26:48 AM »

Orbital habitats cannot carry passengers, and (I think) only work when the planet requires infrastructure and no infrastructure is available.
Posted by: Vandermeer
« on: August 17, 2014, 09:15:28 AM »

Quote from: Brian on August 16, 2014, 09:15:47 PM
[...] I only use them on planets like Venus, or if I need to establish a base in a system with no planets/moons with an acceptable gravity. 
That means they do not fill up, as there would be no way to fill them from a planet without passable gravity. So they do come fully inhabited, but are suddenly empty when arriving at real colonies. :(
Posted by: Brian Neumann
« on: August 16, 2014, 09:15:47 PM »

It did work for me using 6.43 on Mars with no terraforming (this was just a quick test not a game in progress).  The orbital habitats are just a means to get a colony cost 0 for a population.  I only use them on planets like Venus, or if I need to establish a base in a system with no planets/moons with an acceptable gravity. 

Brian
Posted by: Vandermeer
« on: August 16, 2014, 07:43:24 PM »

Ah, as written above, I feared that this is the problem. Kind of doesn't make sense though that those habitats are considered empty, but suddenly have 10m inhabitants when I would drag them to the next close moon. ...Or do they actually fill up? I can't remember anymore.
So habitats are just a tool to aid in development phase, or the object of choice in the super rare cases of a demand to populate a nearly un-terraformable planet like Venus. That explains why they worked earlier for me, since I have stopped using infrastructure shipping method after 6.3, and only ever populate places now when they are completely terraformed.
Posted by: papent
« on: August 16, 2014, 07:24:03 PM »

in my experience if the planet is habitable (no infrastructure required) no one will live on a orb/hab. that might be causing your current issue
Posted by: Vandermeer
« on: August 16, 2014, 07:03:26 PM »

I can indeed confirm that removing and re-adding the habitats does not impact the numbers at all. Here a screenshot: (I've played the game for a couple years longer, so the numbers changed a bit)


It is quickly calculated that the worker demand is 526m, while slightly more than 110 are available without the extra 10 from the habitats. We therefore land at -415 here, as the habitats don't count. I calculated that 21,00% is the accurate percentage reflecting 110.47/526.
In the earlier stage from a couple hours ago I had exactly 100m demand, and then a growing work force of 60-90m in place, so the percentage was exactly that number of population - e.g. 63,68% if there were 63,68m workers. This is why it jumped into my eye that habitats didn't seem to make a difference. Are you sure it works for you? 6.43?
Posted by: Brian Neumann
« on: August 16, 2014, 05:06:05 PM »

Quote from: Vandermeer on August 16, 2014, 01:20:26 PM
New question: Could it be that Orbital Habitats are now dysfunctional with 6.4? I remembered them doing something in 6.3, but I have no confirmation for the current version.
The reason I am asking is because I observed that on a planet with exactly 100m worker demand, and 63m manufacture workers available, the 'manufacturing efficiency modifier' is still at 63%, even so there is also 10m capacity in habitats in orbit. So if that is no display error, they basically do nothing.
..I already confirmed that orbital habitats do literally nothing when it comes to running shipyards on otherwise empty worlds, but maybe this problem reaches farther? Or is it just that you cannot combine both, people and habitats, but work force can only come from one direction?
The orbital habitats are places where people live without having to deal with the habability cost of a planet.  If you remove the habitats does the percentage of workers change.  If so then the habitats are working.  I just did a quick test in 6.43 and adding the orbital habitats did make a difference.  One thing you might want to check is the number of colonists on the habitats vs the colony as a whole.  The colony lists inhabitants by the millions so 2.0 is 2 million people.  The orbital habitats list inhabitants on the ship without changing to millions so 10000 is actually only .01 million.

brian
Posted by: Vandermeer
« on: August 16, 2014, 01:20:26 PM »

New question: Could it be that Orbital Habitats are now dysfunctional with 6.4? I remembered them doing something in 6.3, but I have no confirmation for the current version.
The reason I am asking is because I observed that on a planet with exactly 100m worker demand, and 63m manufacture workers available, the 'manufacturing efficiency modifier' is still at 63%, even so there is also 10m capacity in habitats in orbit. So if that is no display error, they basically do nothing.
..I already confirmed that orbital habitats do literally nothing when it comes to running shipyards on otherwise empty worlds, but maybe this problem reaches farther? Or is it just that you cannot combine both, people and habitats, but work force can only come from one direction?
Posted by: Griswel
« on: August 06, 2014, 06:46:05 PM »

Quote from: GreatTuna on August 06, 2014, 12:29:21 PM
Yes. No ship should be overloaded. If it does, it's most likely a bug.
I'd also check whether missiles are actually assigned to launchers. This could be an issue.

I fixed the loadout in the Class Design, and when I reloaded from colliers, the individual ships were fixed and now have 3 missiles and three Box Launchers attached to one FC.  Unfortunately my enemy stopped sending stuff out to get me, and I'm not in position to attack the home planet just yet.  I should know soon, but I'm assuming it's fixed.

Thanks
Posted by: GreatTuna
« on: August 06, 2014, 12:29:21 PM »

Quote from: Griswel on August 06, 2014, 12:01:31 PM
The overloading could cause problems, makes sense, but how would I fix it?  Empty the fighters and manually reload?
Yes. No ship should be overloaded. If it does, it's most likely a bug.
I'd also check whether missiles are actually assigned to launchers. This could be an issue.


Posted by: Griswel
« on: August 06, 2014, 12:01:31 PM »

Quote from: GreatTuna on August 06, 2014, 10:08:36 AM
Double-check everything.
Maybe you put one missile instead of three in your fighters.
Maybe you linked only one launcher to fire control.
Maybe fighters launched full salvo, but you mistook it for one missile.
There's not enough info to be sure where is the problem.

Thanks.  I used Auto FC and it linked all three to the one FC.  The listings have been seven or ten missiles when the 10x fighters ought to fire thirty.  A look at the individuals shows them with ordnance still onboard.  One possible issue is that the fighters have been fitted with 200% Ammo, and after firing list 166% and space used 35/21.

The overloading could cause problems, makes sense, but how would I fix it?  Empty the fighters and manually reload?  I might need to do something similar as I need my Mk1s against larger ships.
Posted by: GreatTuna
« on: August 06, 2014, 10:08:36 AM »

Quote from: Griswel on August 06, 2014, 09:39:44 AM
Did I need three fire controls?

No, one FC should be enough.

Quote from: Griswel on August 06, 2014, 09:39:44 AM
Are fighters limited to one Box Launcher, or only one can fire?

No, fighters are not limited.

As for problem...
Double-check everything.
Maybe you put one missile instead of three in your fighters.
Maybe you linked only one launcher to fire control.
Maybe fighters launched full salvo, but you mistook it for one missile.
There's not enough info to be sure where is the problem.