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: JRHaggs
« on: August 14, 2015, 10:47:26 AM »

Quote from: Erik Luken link=topic=7647. msg80149#msg80149 date=1439566934
Some might be 4. xx too. 

For ship designs presented for non-critique purposes, look in the fiction forums.  Those ships are examples used in games rather than "What'd I do wrong???"

Aha.  Thanks.  Will do.
Posted by: Erik L
« on: August 14, 2015, 10:42:14 AM »

Quote from: JRHaggs on August 14, 2015, 10:06:50 AM
Those fleets are from 5. xx though right?

The fuel consumption changes that were implemented in 6. xx are actually the reason I necro'd this thread to begin with.  The pre-6. xx example fleets are relics of a former universe with different physics.

While it's true that the forums are full of ship designs, they are most often being presented for critique.  Mr.  Walmsley, vandermeer, GreatTuna, and you (and maybe others! take no offense!) all have deep understanding of the underlying game mechanics.  So example fleets produced by you guys is more useful as an actual reference for beginners than the example fleets posted by beginners in an effort to solicit criticism. 

Anyway, I'm sure you have nothing better to do than sprucing up the wiki, so get to it, would you? We're waiting. . . .

But really, thanks for your contributions to the wiki and general Aurora community.

Some might be 4.xx too.

For ship designs presented for non-critique purposes, look in the fiction forums. Those ships are examples used in games rather than "What'd I do wrong???"
Posted by: JRHaggs
« on: August 14, 2015, 10:06:50 AM »

Quote from: Erik Luken link=topic=7647. msg80125#msg80125 date=1439519199
I've got a couple fleets on the wiki.  Also the admin for both here and the wiki, since they are hosted on my domain :)

The wiki got a start maybe 3-4 years after the forums, so some people used it and updated, but it never really caught on.

Those fleets are from 5. xx though right?

The fuel consumption changes that were implemented in 6. xx are actually the reason I necro'd this thread to begin with.  The pre-6. xx example fleets are relics of a former universe with different physics.

While it's true that the forums are full of ship designs, they are most often being presented for critique.  Mr.  Walmsley, vandermeer, GreatTuna, and you (and maybe others! take no offense!) all have deep understanding of the underlying game mechanics.  So example fleets produced by you guys is more useful as an actual reference for beginners than the example fleets posted by beginners in an effort to solicit criticism. 

Anyway, I'm sure you have nothing better to do than sprucing up the wiki, so get to it, would you? We're waiting. . . .

But really, thanks for your contributions to the wiki and general Aurora community.
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: August 14, 2015, 06:23:02 AM »

Quote from: Erik Luken on August 13, 2015, 09:26:39 PM
The wiki got a start maybe 3-4 years after the forums, so some people used it and updated, but it never really caught on.

I really like the wiki, it's much more informative and faster to find out how the game mechanics works then trying to dig through or use the crude searches offered by the forums.
Posted by: Erik L
« on: August 13, 2015, 09:26:39 PM »

Quote from: JRHaggs on August 13, 2015, 04:42:38 PM
Yeah, word.  Everything in the thread is post-6. xx, so I thought it would be current-ish.

You have old fleet info on the wiki, right? Any reason the wiki doesn't get much love anymore? It seems like there is some pretty outdated information there.  I know the forum is more fruitful, but it's a less elegant presentation.  And searching is agonizing.  ha

I've got a couple fleets on the wiki. Also the admin for both here and the wiki, since they are hosted on my domain :)

The wiki got a start maybe 3-4 years after the forums, so some people used it and updated, but it never really caught on.
Posted by: Prince of Space
« on: August 13, 2015, 04:57:46 PM »

The forums lend themselves more toward discussion and community by their nature, just as the wiki lends itself toward being a reference. So when Steve posts release notes or chimes in with mechanics clarifications, they end up on the forums. And when people post their ship designs, they go on the forums. It takes effort to move all that over to the wiki. And the more out of date the wiki gets, the less rewarding it is to clean up a given article.

Most of the example ships you might want are either in the Beureau of Ship Design or in the fiction subforum.
Posted by: JRHaggs
« on: August 13, 2015, 04:42:38 PM »

Quote from: Erik Luken link=topic=7647. msg80119#msg80119 date=1439501037
No real rule, but just be aware that comments of older threads may be directed at older versions with changed functionality.

Yeah, word.  Everything in the thread is post-6. xx, so I thought it would be current-ish.

You have old fleet info on the wiki, right? Any reason the wiki doesn't get much love anymore? It seems like there is some pretty outdated information there.  I know the forum is more fruitful, but it's a less elegant presentation.  And searching is agonizing.  ha
Posted by: Erik L
« on: August 13, 2015, 04:23:57 PM »

Quote from: JRHaggs on August 13, 2015, 04:14:21 PM
Dunno what qualifies as a necro on this forum.  Sorry if I'm out of line.

No real rule, but just be aware that comments of older threads may be directed at older versions with changed functionality.
Posted by: JRHaggs
« on: August 13, 2015, 04:14:21 PM »

Dunno what qualifies as a necro on this forum.  Sorry if I'm out of line.

@GreatTuna - I'm getting a handful of undefined results from the calculator. 

If I use 20EP/HS, . 4 fuel eff.  mod. , gen.  ship size 2500, and engine+fuel size 910, I get "3920 with 1 14HS engine(s) of 0. 7 efficiency and 4. 1 HS of fuel. . . 

If I use 920 instead for engine+fuel size, I get "#VALUE!" as output.  If I then use 930, once again it outputs the same result as it did for 910. 

To be clear, that 910 and 930 would yield the same results doesn't worry me.  But I'm not sure why 920 yields an undefined result.

Further poking and prodding suggests there is a range, from 916 to 924, that produces that undefined result.

Anyway, I don't know if something is off, but I thought you might be interested in this anecdotal finding.
Posted by: Vandermeer
« on: January 08, 2015, 03:30:29 AM »

Wow, that really works and looks much more smoothly solved than what I did. I will have to analyze some situations and also your VBA functions a bit further to really understand what you did though, so that will take some time.
Posted by: GreatTuna
« on: January 07, 2015, 10:38:54 AM »

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2qnK3jQHeheNVBOYnJWenNlNkk/view?usp=sharing

It didn't work in Excel 2010 due to "FLOOR.MATH" function, which is available only from Excel 2013.
Fixed, also added an "minimal amount of engines" option.
Posted by: Vandermeer
« on: January 07, 2015, 08:43:26 AM »

Quote from: GreatTuna on January 07, 2015, 04:25:28 AM
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2qnK3jQHeheUXV1aUZFNHpoRU0/view?usp=sharing

Now with (crude) support of larger engines!
Does not work for me here with Excel 2010. It seems to convert functions to weird standards like _xln.FLOOR.[something], and cause errors with that.
Posted by: Zenrer
« on: January 07, 2015, 05:50:38 AM »

Quote from: GreatTuna link=topic=7647. msg77596#msg77596 date=1420626328
https://drive. google. com/file/d/0B2qnK3jQHeheUXV1aUZFNHpoRU0/view?usp=sharing

Now with (crude) support of larger engines!

Looks awesome! The only thing I'd suggest is adding the minimum engines option, and that would basically complete it!
Posted by: GreatTuna
« on: January 07, 2015, 04:25:28 AM »

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2qnK3jQHeheUXV1aUZFNHpoRU0/view?usp=sharing

Now with (crude) support of larger engines!
Posted by: Vandermeer
« on: January 07, 2015, 02:20:28 AM »

Sorry, the forum is bugging out again. The last line here:
"... let excel select the one that gives you the best range or speed, depending on the goals of the sheet."