Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 303 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

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

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:
What is the answer to life, universe, and everything?:

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

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: April 17, 2019, 06:26:12 PM »

As a placeholder pending more work on the AI its completely fine.
Already the new AI now has to deal with a ton more stuff it was getting free passes on back with VB.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: April 17, 2019, 02:30:39 PM »

While I don't like when AI plays by different rules compared to a human, I can understand the need for that separation - JP assaults are difficult and dangerous enough as they are.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: April 17, 2019, 11:41:17 AM »

Regarding the recent change added for Jump Point Transit Shock, how will transits through stabilized wormholes be handled? Would they be considered a standard transit?

Yes, like a jump gate in VB6 Aurora.
Posted by: Darkminion
« on: April 17, 2019, 10:50:48 AM »

Regarding the recent change added for Jump Point Transit Shock, how will transits through stabilized wormholes be handled? Would they be considered a standard transit?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: April 15, 2019, 03:27:39 AM »

With the changes to thermal emissions, I assume the signature of a moving ship will have a minimum of its stationary signature? I. E. A large ship with small engines could not reduce its signature by travelling at speed 1 rather than remaining stationary?

Yes, that's correct.
Posted by: DIT_grue
« on: April 15, 2019, 02:21:23 AM »

With the changes to thermal emissions, I assume the signature of a moving ship will have a minimum of its stationary signature? I. E. A large ship with small engines could not reduce its signature by travelling at speed 1 rather than remaining stationary?

This has been raised several times, and it seems the only problem is that Steve doesn't remember to say so. For example:

I also have to ask... From your Changes post, it seems there is an exploit. Notably if the ship IS moving at very slow speed, the speed formula is used allowing to go below the minimal intended thermal signature. Is this just a bad wording in the post or is this also an error in the coding?

The minimum is the base signature, even when the ship is moving. It is coded that way but I didn't mention it in the post. I'll update it.
Posted by: TheRowan
« on: April 15, 2019, 02:06:40 AM »

With the changes to thermal emissions, I assume the signature of a moving ship will have a minimum of its stationary signature? I. E. A large ship with small engines could not reduce its signature by travelling at speed 1 rather than remaining stationary?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: April 11, 2019, 05:03:17 AM »

Is there a reason why missile detection is capped at 0.3 HS rather than being able to get down to 0.05?

To balance the range at which you can detect missiles with the rest of the sensor model. The other option would be a sub-resolution 1 sensor.
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: April 11, 2019, 04:56:18 AM »

Is there a reason why missile detection is capped at 0.3 HS rather than being able to get down to 0.05?
Posted by: Tree
« on: April 11, 2019, 04:26:16 AM »

Since we're onto thirds, do 33% reduced size launchers work properly in C# ? In VB6 with for example size 3 or 4 launchers, you end up with launchers that have a crew requirement of 0, even though the 25% version has a crew requirement of 1. Kinda annoying, 33% sounds perfect to me, but using them feels like cheating because of the reduced crew size.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: April 11, 2019, 03:25:24 AM »

Considering missiles can get down to .05 HS perhaps it would be fine if extraordinarily high tech cloaked ships could get down to a similar cross section?
Discussion over on discord seems to suggest these hyper stealth ships arent as bad as we originally thought because they still have significant thermal output.

Missiles can be 0.05 HS in size, but their cross-section for detection is a minimum of 0.3 HS (0.33 in C#).
Posted by: DIT_grue
« on: April 11, 2019, 02:45:26 AM »

Considering missiles can get down to .05 HS perhaps it would be fine if extraordinarily high tech cloaked ships could get down to a similar cross section?
Discussion over on discord seems to suggest these hyper stealth ships arent as bad as we originally thought because they still have significant thermal output.

If you can reduce a missile's cross-section that far, you've got a bug that's going to show up a lot more often than this one. Remember when the MCR and so on were added, so that any missile 6MSP or less was detected at the same range?
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: April 10, 2019, 07:09:58 PM »

Considering missiles can get down to .05 HS perhaps it would be fine if extraordinarily high tech cloaked ships could get down to a similar cross section?
Discussion over on discord seems to suggest these hyper stealth ships arent as bad as we originally thought because they still have significant thermal output.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: April 10, 2019, 05:56:20 PM »

Hope this is an okay place to put this. 
I posted a bug for VB Aurora that might impact some C# things.    There is possibly a rounding error for very low TCS on ships, making them completely undetectable on active sensors.   

hxxp: aurora2. pentarch. org/index. php?topic=8144. msg113736#msg113736

Thanks. I've added a check to the class design code to ensure a class cross-section is never below the minimum possible value of 0.33 HS.
Posted by: Xenotrenium
« on: April 10, 2019, 04:08:30 PM »

Hope this is an okay place to put this. 
I posted a bug for VB Aurora that might impact some C# things.    There is possibly a rounding error for very low TCS on ships, making them completely undetectable on active sensors.   

hxxp: aurora2. pentarch. org/index. php?topic=8144. msg113736#msg113736
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