Posted by: Theodidactus
« on: October 20, 2014, 10:35:33 PM »hey man when the tiny navsat dish fails, my men can fix it.
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: October 20, 2014, 10:24:02 PM »Dat annual failure rate though.
Posted by: Theodidactus
« on: October 19, 2014, 09:13:46 PM »Four hanger modules have been constructed. Two are in place in groombridge.
Code: [Select]
Knossos Starbase: Hanger Module class Space Station 50000 tons 915 Crew 5651.0801 BP TCS 1000 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s Armour 5-120 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control 61 PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 316% IFR: 4.4% Maintenance Capacity 4309 MSP
Parasite Capacity 40000 tons Magazine 180 Flight Crew Berths 17
Fuel Capacity 200 000 Litres Range 0.0 billion km (0 days at full power)
House Norman Navsat Dish (1) Sensitivity 1.4 Detect Strength 1000: 1.4m km
This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes
Posted by: Vandermeer
« on: July 25, 2014, 10:06:40 AM »Do I read right that you want to destroy it in place and then send a new one? Or you don't worry about the life time of the station as a whole, because you don't intend to play this game so long anymore?
Otherwise, maintenance life does not mean anything when it comes to 5-day failure rate. Your ship could just be so big that it will fail every turn anyway, or maybe you just have so small components (!) that a break does not consume so much maintenance, and thus will work for long. IFR is the most critical part to look for, but even if you could keep it lower than 1% (which is impossible on larger ships), it does not matter if you intend to tractor a ship on the end of its life cycle, because then the IFR will likely be over 100% in any case, thus rendering it immobile.
An example: I am currently testing two identical hangar design which have 4% IFR after clock 0.35, and already the tractor link breaks around every 10 5-day increments per model, which makes it really bothersome to fly them around. Just think how those will work after clock 10+...
I think at some size over over 10k or so, the only feasible 'military tug' would be a hangar ship with great range and maintenance life.
..Except for deployment, because there is this free time span before any ship starts making problems. Yet permanent tug without pause, or 'rescue tug' operations become impossible quickly.
Otherwise, maintenance life does not mean anything when it comes to 5-day failure rate. Your ship could just be so big that it will fail every turn anyway, or maybe you just have so small components (!) that a break does not consume so much maintenance, and thus will work for long. IFR is the most critical part to look for, but even if you could keep it lower than 1% (which is impossible on larger ships), it does not matter if you intend to tractor a ship on the end of its life cycle, because then the IFR will likely be over 100% in any case, thus rendering it immobile.
An example: I am currently testing two identical hangar design which have 4% IFR after clock 0.35, and already the tractor link breaks around every 10 5-day increments per model, which makes it really bothersome to fly them around. Just think how those will work after clock 10+...
I think at some size over over 10k or so, the only feasible 'military tug' would be a hangar ship with great range and maintenance life.
..Except for deployment, because there is this free time span before any ship starts making problems. Yet permanent tug without pause, or 'rescue tug' operations become impossible quickly.
Posted by: Theodidactus
« on: July 25, 2014, 09:28:39 AM »I think with 50 years of maintenance life it's alright.
Posted by: Vandermeer
« on: July 25, 2014, 04:27:46 AM »I discovered another problem with this method, though you will be relatively save: Whenever there is a maintenance failure, it will break the tractor link to the civil tug, which probably happens all the time on designs that completely renounce on engineering space while using the 0 maintenance life method. I hoped it would not appear with 0 maintenance, but sadly it is.
Reestablishing the tractor is micromanagement and not too bothersome if it only happens randomly sometimes, but it could become so severe that you literally become immobile when it appears on every 5-day interval.
With your design you will occasionally see it happening depending on the travel time, but it is fine. I made it to around 20+ intervals of freedom from failures with a 'supposed-to-be' 119% failure on 5-day design. It might be a problem to get them back late though when their failure rate has become really high... .
Maybe you will truly need another 'tug-hangar' for their retrieval or repair on spot then.
Reestablishing the tractor is micromanagement and not too bothersome if it only happens randomly sometimes, but it could become so severe that you literally become immobile when it appears on every 5-day interval.
With your design you will occasionally see it happening depending on the travel time, but it is fine. I made it to around 20+ intervals of freedom from failures with a 'supposed-to-be' 119% failure on 5-day design. It might be a problem to get them back late though when their failure rate has become really high... .
Maybe you will truly need another 'tug-hangar' for their retrieval or repair on spot then.
Posted by: Theodidactus
« on: July 22, 2014, 11:02:24 PM »March 4th, 2148: Starbase Knossos begins construction. Shipyards orbiting earth have been retooled to construct the hanger modules:
The new concordance treaty goes into effect on December 10th, 2150. The concordance has until then to develop a means of protecting the Groombridge star system.
Code: [Select]
Knossos Starbase: Hanger Module class Space Station 50 000 tons 915 Crew 5651.08 BP TCS 1000 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s Armour 5-120 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 61 PPV 0
Maint Life 50.77 Years MSP 4309 AFR 327% IFR 4.6% 1YR 3 5YR 49 Max Repair 12 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Flight Crew Berths 1
Hangar Deck Capacity 40000 tons Magazine 180
Fuel Capacity 200 000 Litres Range N/A
House Norman Navsat Dish (1) Sensitivity 1.4 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 1.4m km
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
The new concordance treaty goes into effect on December 10th, 2150. The concordance has until then to develop a means of protecting the Groombridge star system.
Posted by: Theodidactus
« on: July 20, 2014, 12:15:10 PM »Currently it's looking like I'm going to field 4 40,000 capacity hangers, 2 recreation modules luxury quarters, a fuel/magazine module, and a military module
I believe it's possible to get the hangers, military module, and fuel/magazine module to 20-30 years of operating capacity, at which time they can be switched out,with the old parts hauled away for scrap. Given that I was in 2140 in February and it's 2147 now, this should be a long enough maintenance life that it won't be such a bother, even if I start playing faster.
I believe it's possible to get the hangers, military module, and fuel/magazine module to 20-30 years of operating capacity, at which time they can be switched out,with the old parts hauled away for scrap. Given that I was in 2140 in February and it's 2147 now, this should be a long enough maintenance life that it won't be such a bother, even if I start playing faster.
Posted by: Vandermeer
« on: July 20, 2014, 11:21:47 AM »seems to me the fix is simply to add one tiny breakable component and a few engineering bays. My hangers will probably run a CIWS..But then its not truly infinite, and you will have to add engineering on top of the ciws.
There are a lot of problems with craft that should stay in space forever, but has maintenance life. The only options of limited lifetime without a maintenance base are:
1) Regular Overhaul - But this will eventually take maaanyyy years to do if the hangar was in space for decades. Trust me, I did this, and you are better of scrapping and rebuilding. If it doesn't stay so long however, it will be bothersome to manage by hand all the time.
2) Steady MSP supply - Can keep a cheap module up forever, and also still for cheap cost, but you will have to deal with permanent interrupting maintenance failure messages that destroy auto-turn.
3) Disassembling - After a certain longer life time you just take the thing apart, and maybe build a new one. That is what I currently do to evade the eternal overhaul. For ships that last 20+ years it is actually much cheaper than regular upkeep (which costs [shipcost]/20 per year), as you can also reuse some components. Feels however kind of immersion breaking and the cost in crew, TF-training and such might be a problem.
4) Overhauler Ship - New idea. You could have a huge hangar with reasonable (but not decades) maintenance life being towed around by civil engines(saves fuel and MSP). It could visit your station once in a while and "consume" the or one military component for some time until it looks shiny again. When the work is done it waddles back to the docks somewhere distant where it is cared for, so this would also evade extreme lifetime stress. Much easier to handle than option 1 as you do not have to assign tows individually for every module, then also don't have to check every module when it is finished individually, since all work is centralized in the maintenance ship.
If that is a good idea depends just on how far it really is to the next maintenance capable + fuel base colony. But then what you could also do is leave one such "maintenance hangar" there and build a second one at the distant base. When the old one starts to make too much errors, you fly the other in and the old back for repairs. ...Of course you could do that with all the systems of the station already, heyyy...
5) Second 'Ghost' station - Just build two stations, one real - one spare, and store the double in some big PDC hangar distant of (is always better than maintenance industry anyway). When a part becomes noisy, you exchange it for the doppelgänger (and no one will ever notice). -> Eternal overhaul avoided, and no problem doing it by hand, as in this case you can just save the commands for every module exchange, and the returning part will get ok by itself without you having to watch. It is weird, but has the least micromanagement burden of all + minimum maintenance cost (fewest amounts of MSP in the PDC hangar).
I did something similar with my fuel harvester bases in earlier games, except that I always just exchanged 2 "fuel pods" that the harvesters would fill up.
Posted by: Haji
« on: July 20, 2014, 10:37:43 AM »Minimum size (0.1) thermal/EM sensors produces the longest estimated maintenance life. Using CIWS instead results in the estimated life span being five times shorter.
Posted by: Theodidactus
« on: July 20, 2014, 10:13:55 AM »seems to me the fix is simply to add one tiny breakable component and a few engineering bays. My hangers will probably run a CIWS
Posted by: Vandermeer
« on: July 20, 2014, 09:34:20 AM »..., so maybe I will later post some laboratory evidence.Ok, I have now tested a ~12kt ammunition container until maintenance clock 3 and have to say that there is definitely some error spawn. Occasionally I got 6 consecutive windows of error 3021 (ApplyMaintenanceFailure) after an interval. Those are not breaking and can just be clicked away while the ship appears to function properly, but you will have to decide if you want to bear with that. I suppose it is also 6 errors per ship with those parameters, so if you do that a lot you might eventually get an interruption upon nearly every interval, or just increasingly more windows, which might become too much at some point.
I have not yet tested it with hangars, but I suppose it will be the same. It is probably just the maintenance function looking for a module to destroy and then not finding any. My guess it that there is some sort of check upon the 5-day interval failure rate, and if that turns out positive, the function selects a module at random. Steve might not have foreseen that you could get a military ship (so maintenance calculation is applied) without any breakable components, so the error is possible. Or he made the hangar and ammunition storage invincible later on and did not reckon with such followups.
Posted by: Haji
« on: July 19, 2014, 05:17:43 PM »When people put weapons on something they usually want them to be effective in a fight.
I was thinking about the hangar modules themselves.
Posted by: Wolfius
« on: July 18, 2014, 12:51:21 PM »Or you can just ignore it. Morale is important when fighting, but aside from that there's nothing stopping you with having a base 100 years past the intended deployment time. I'm pretty sure you could role-play a reason why it works, like having a colony ship periodically visit the complex to provide a crew rotation.
When people put weapons on something they usually want them to be effective in a fight.
Posted by: Theodidactus
« on: July 18, 2014, 12:25:25 PM »I plan to continue playing this game until at least september, that's probably 20 more years...but if I want to come back to it someday 
I'm hoping to become substantially busier with real life stuff soon. we'll see
I'm hoping to become substantially busier with real life stuff soon. we'll see
