Posted by: bean
« on: March 22, 2016, 09:46:34 AM »Start from something like (1.1 * ( L - Lt ) - abs( L - Lt ) ), perhaps?That might work. You'd have to play with the weights, but it does give more or less the desired result.
Start from something like (1.1 * ( L - Lt ) - abs( L - Lt ) ), perhaps?That might work. You'd have to play with the weights, but it does give more or less the desired result.
Edit:
My second example doesn't make much sense, as there's no reason to want to penalize designs for being more fuel-efficient than the target. I can't think of a single function which does what I want there, which is to give small bonuses for exceeding the fuel economy target, but large penalties for being below it.
Can a cargo ship load more than one automated mine?
Ah, I see what you mean; it does indeed disable the lock button when I remove the engineering space. However in practice I always just go straight to the population window to retool to the class. Apparently it doesn't have the same restriction.That shouldn't be allowed.
BTW, I just used an IPython notebook to interactively optimize a missileSounds neat. I'll see what I can make of it. (I was the first to find the engine optimization stuff when 6.0 came out, but I'm an aerospace engineer, not a computer person. I usually use MATLAB.)
I checked. My copy won't let you lock the design without an engineering space on your freighter. It will throw an error in the lower right, instead of revoking commercial status.
I don't. Like you, I do fill those spaces with trim fuel. But it didn't seem worth worrying about, because it's a rounding error on the level of design the sheet is intended for.
But... But... how can you build ships with an exact size of 79.8? You've got to put that small tank in there to get all that free extra range!I don't. Like you, I do fill those spaces with trim fuel. But it didn't seem worth worrying about, because it's a rounding error on the level of design the sheet is intended for.
I'll check this when I get a chance. If it's true, then I'll file a bug report.
Fair enough. I usually don't go around hanging extra crew quarters on my commercial ships, so that wasn't a major design driver. This wasn't intended to be a comprehensive system for designing commercial ships, which is why I also left out things like small fuel tanks.
Quite possibly!I'll check this when I get a chance. If it's true, then I'll file a bug report.
Ah, I'd forgotten about that. Ships with more engines will lose a little bit of the penalty of the extra crew, because the BP will be lower than it should be.Fair enough. I usually don't go around hanging extra crew quarters on my commercial ships, so that wasn't a major design driver. This wasn't intended to be a comprehensive system for designing commercial ships, which is why I also left out things like small fuel tanks.
I think the best way to do it would be to have two fields for each size of crew quarters, one which is calculated from the crew requirements and another for extra berths. I just don't like overwriting a formula with a number; it's too easy to forget that you've done so.
And you're able to lock the design without one? That's a bug.
It was to make sure that the cost of the crew quarters got into the system. In some cases that was important.
It says that in the class designer, but leaving it out doesn't have any effect that I've noticed. For the purposes of optimization, then, I started leaving it out.And you're able to lock the design without one? That's a bug.