Post reply

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:
What color is the sky?:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: October 16, 2018, 06:49:07 PM »

Shouldn't this thread be closed, since C# Aurora Suggestions thread exists? Or is it still useful to Steve as a sort of filing cabinet of dreams and hopes? :D

It should probably be closed in favour of the C# suggestion thread, although I will still work my way through it when I have the time.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: October 16, 2018, 06:48:09 PM »

Shouldn't this thread be closed, since C# Aurora Suggestions thread exists? Or is it still useful to Steve as a sort of filing cabinet of dreams and hopes? :D
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: October 15, 2018, 06:49:38 PM »

I suggest rethinking tracking speed to account not for the target's velocity, but instead its radial velocity.  A target moving directly towards or away from you has much lower radial velocity than one moving tangentially to you.  If you've ever gone skeet shooting, or defended against air attack in Silent Hunter 3, you'll surely have noticed it's much easier to aim at and hit targets moving directly towards or away from you.  It is also occasionally easier to aim at a target that is farther away than one that is closer, because farther targets will have a lower radial velocity.  A turret may be fast enough to track a target out near max range, but not fast enough to track it at close range.

This I think would provide a welcome buff to FAC's and fighters.  It would mean that turreted beam weapons would have optimal range bands, instead of always being more accurate as distance decreases.  This would mean fighters may be able to get in under the minimum effective range of the main guns, while remaining out of range of defensive armament.

This would be an interesting addition to the game if easily implemented.

In spirit of this I also think that size should matter in ship to ship combat as well. It should be progressively harder to shoot at a small as oppose to a large target. Big targets should have the armor and shield advantages to take hits from big weapons, small targets should avoid them through size and speed.
Posted by: Barkhorn
« on: October 15, 2018, 06:39:05 PM »

I suggest rethinking tracking speed to account not for the target's velocity, but instead its radial velocity.  A target moving directly towards or away from you has much lower radial velocity than one moving tangentially to you.  If you've ever gone skeet shooting, or defended against air attack in Silent Hunter 3, you'll surely have noticed it's much easier to aim at and hit targets moving directly towards or away from you.  It is also occasionally easier to aim at a target that is farther away than one that is closer, because farther targets will have a lower radial velocity.  A turret may be fast enough to track a target out near max range, but not fast enough to track it at close range.

This I think would provide a welcome buff to FAC's and fighters.  It would mean that turreted beam weapons would have optimal range bands, instead of always being more accurate as distance decreases.  This would mean fighters may be able to get in under the minimum effective range of the main guns, while remaining out of range of defensive armament.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: September 23, 2018, 04:23:37 PM »

In the System Information screen, Jupiter is listed as having the same magnetic field strength as Earth.  According to Wikipedia, this should be around 20 times that of Earth.  (Unless I misinterpreted "magnetic field" and it's measuring something different instead. )

(Also, Saturn should be somewhat less than Earth, but the two are listed as having the same magnetic field.  They're close enough that it's tricky, since magnetic field strength varies over the surface of Earth, but Saturn's average is less than the typical minimum for Earth, so it should be something from 0. 32 to 0. 84. )

Thanks for mentioning. I will update them. At the moment, magnetic field isn't used for any in-game function so the discrepancy hasn't affected anything.
Posted by: jwoodward48
« on: September 23, 2018, 02:21:37 PM »

In the System Information screen, Jupiter is listed as having the same magnetic field strength as Earth.  According to Wikipedia, this should be around 20 times that of Earth.  (Unless I misinterpreted "magnetic field" and it's measuring something different instead. )

(Also, Saturn should be somewhat less than Earth, but the two are listed as having the same magnetic field.  They're close enough that it's tricky, since magnetic field strength varies over the surface of Earth, but Saturn's average is less than the typical minimum for Earth, so it should be something from 0. 32 to 0. 84. )
Posted by: Titanian
« on: July 26, 2018, 06:21:40 AM »

And fire control tracking speed really need a nonlinear scaling factor. Otherwise x4 is always the right choice for turreted pd. All the other settings exept x1.25 get used only very rarely by me, as x1.25 is usefull for railgun pd as it futureproofs the firecontrols for when the next level of fire control speed instantly upgrades all non-turreted weapons. All the other settings I don't really use, as my bfc tracking tech is usually higher than my ship speeds anyway.

Finer granularity would be nice for several settings, especially capacitor recharge. Then one could finally produce 10cm laser with 1.5 recharge rate instead of 2, and so on. Would be especially useful for particle beams with all their odd power requirements.
Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: July 25, 2018, 11:13:18 PM »

Having more scalable beam fire controls sounds really fun to me.  Then you can have a long range laser battleship that has some gigantic super expensive fire control, just so it can fight off a 100 tonne harassment fighter from a much more advanced faction.  That sort of hilarity.
Posted by: SpikeTheHobbitMage
« on: July 24, 2018, 09:53:50 PM »

As instructed:


One of the main issues I've been finding with beam ships is that continuously scaling costs for more advanced beam fire controls as tech advances. With that in mind, I'd like to propose that its costs only scale with the multipliers applied to it, the tech advances being "free" bonuses.

In further thoughts: What I'd envision to make beam FCs better: Higher base cost to compensate a bit the non-escalating costs. "Sliding" values for range and speed instead of fixed multipliers, allowing for more precise fine control of the values, with a minimum and maximum value. Said value might just be the present 25% and 4x, or it could be set by tech, starting closer to 1 and increasing back to the present possible values (or other values, although that might present some issues with absolute max range due to light speed).
We directly key in tracking speed when designing turrets, so having the same option for FC makes sense.  Selecting tonnage as well and getting a range might be advantageous.
Posted by: Felius
« on: July 23, 2018, 08:38:09 AM »

As instructed:


One of the main issues I've been finding with beam ships is that continuously scaling costs for more advanced beam fire controls as tech advances. With that in mind, I'd like to propose that its costs only scale with the multipliers applied to it, the tech advances being "free" bonuses.

In further thoughts: What I'd envision to make beam FCs better: Higher base cost to compensate a bit the non-escalating costs. "Sliding" values for range and speed instead of fixed multipliers, allowing for more precise fine control of the values, with a minimum and maximum value. Said value might just be the present 25% and 4x, or it could be set by tech, starting closer to 1 and increasing back to the present possible values (or other values, although that might present some issues with absolute max range due to light speed).
Posted by: Rayuke
« on: July 17, 2018, 09:35:29 PM »

Quote from: tobijon link=topic=8107. msg107632#msg107632 date=1522781756
Quote from: Rayuke link=topic=8107.  msg106917#msg106917 date=1519854934
tachyon technologies, between both a displacement drive (or "wink" drive) also a tachyon gun that "teleports bombs into or around other ships" source is from the Odyssey One Book series

how would tachyons help teleport something? they are just particles moving faster than light
its easier to understand in the book but basically they convert the bomb into tachyons, as barkhorn said its almost exactly like mesons work, i also thank the other techs from the books would work awesomely hear armor that reflects lasers to 99% of there energy or armor that absorbs light 99% that its basically cloaked but is absolutely susceptible to laser fire, antimatter blasts, much like missiles but made for close combat (not exactly a good idea for this game) and power plants that are black holes that consume refuse and random matter for fuel but are detectable by gravametric censers but effect the accary of the tachyons (mesons) and last but not least tachyon censers that take a "snapshot" of the local space
Posted by: Kurt
« on: July 04, 2018, 12:43:19 PM »

Genius!

"Are they dead?"
"Yes"
"Are you dead?"
"No."
"Success!"

Ha!

Kurt!!!  Welcome back!!!!!

John

Glad to be back!
Posted by: sloanjh
« on: May 04, 2018, 07:05:03 AM »

Genius!

"Are they dead?"
"Yes"
"Are you dead?"
"No."
"Success!"

Ha!

Kurt!!!  Welcome back!!!!!

John
Posted by: Kurt
« on: May 03, 2018, 11:30:28 AM »

That is a bug in VB6. The random POWs you find are from old games. They aren't being deleted correctly.

Genius!

"Are they dead?"
"Yes"
"Are you dead?"
"No."
"Success!"

Ha!
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: May 03, 2018, 07:55:35 AM »

Make default orders check whether the ship in question can complete it before executing it. For example, I have a Survey Group with a Jump Tender and multiple Survey Ships. I set Grav Survey as its default order and order the TG to split into individual ships after jumping through an unknown JP. Afterwards, I have to remember to clear default orders for the CJ as otherwise it will fruitlessly try to survey the JP locations.
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54