Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 18 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: Agoelia
« on: November 13, 2018, 04:40:36 PM »

I know you can use smaller time increments (I do that too), but new players or ingenous ones or ones that simply don't pay attention to these details might never know about it.  I feel like the game should address the problem, not the players.  At least make it suggest to the player it might be inefficient, if it's not solvable. 

About the second, yes I meant something like that.  The game shouldn't stop, I don't even know why it was made to stop in the first place.  And yes, there will be a slow down in time increments while NPR do stuff, but it is a lot less noticeable than completely stopping everything.  It might even be humanly unnoticeable with the speed of C#.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: November 13, 2018, 03:50:08 PM »

You can use 5-day or 1-day increments instead of 30-day increments. Since C# will run so much faster than VB, you're not losing out on playing time.

As for the second, you can never be sure if the increment slow down is because of missiles or something else. Yes, if you know there are no NPRs or spoilers active anywhere else than the new system you're exploring, then it's a bit of a giveaway, but only in that situation. And there isn't a way to "fix" it as otherwise, you run into a situation where the AI cannot shoot at you at all. Or do you mean that despite slowing down the time increments, the game should keep going without pausing until the player has a sensor contact or the missiles impact?
Posted by: Agoelia
« on: November 13, 2018, 03:32:02 PM »

Will Task Groups wait till the end of the cycle to check new orders?
Let me explain: If you set a ship to ''survey the next five system bodies" and then skip 30 days, the ship will execute the order and then idle for some time, sometimes for the large part of the month.  This of course only happens if the ship performes all 5 of the surveys inside the 30 days period, but the loss of time is extreme when, for instance, surveying an asteroid belt (asteroid are really fast to survey and kinda close to each other). 

Second question: When an NPR ships shoots missiles at you, it stops the game.  Now besides being annoying since you may want to skip an hour but the game stops after two minutes, most of all it gives away that the enemy is shooting missiles at you, way before your sensor actually pick it up.  I guess it's the same problems with NPRvsNPR conflicts stopping continuosly the game.  Will this be fixed?
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: November 09, 2018, 01:56:33 PM »

Agreed! That would also allow the creation of complex looping orders.

This would be extremely useful in especially multi-faction games where you control several sides. The more you can automate individual sides ship movement the easier it will be to manage such campaigns.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: November 09, 2018, 12:15:42 PM »

Agreed! That would also allow the creation of complex looping orders.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: November 09, 2018, 07:53:02 AM »

Having a dedicated RnR order would be useful for that as well. Basically wait until the timer is run down to 0.

That would be really good in addition to being able to give a specific amount of time.
Posted by: Whitecold
« on: November 09, 2018, 06:08:02 AM »

One question that I have for the C# Aurora.

In the old version you can set an "Order Delay", but the problem is that this delay between orders don't persist and are not shown in the order list. Will this be changed in any way?

In order to set up patrol routes with ships that have relatively low deployment times it would be very helpful if these order delays gets added to the list of orders and are repeated when you cycle an order.

This would be a huge quality of life for patrol or repeating orders where you want the crew to get some RnR between patrols. As it is it is just too much micro.
Having a dedicated RnR order would be useful for that as well. Basically wait until the timer is run down to 0.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: November 09, 2018, 06:00:53 AM »

One question that I have for the C# Aurora.

In the old version you can set an "Order Delay", but the problem is that this delay between orders don't persist and are not shown in the order list. Will this be changed in any way?

In order to set up patrol routes with ships that have relatively low deployment times it would be very helpful if these order delays gets added to the list of orders and are repeated when you cycle an order.

This would be a huge quality of life for patrol or repeating orders where you want the crew to get some RnR between patrols. As it is it is just too much micro.
Posted by: Rabid_Cog
« on: November 06, 2018, 12:44:09 PM »

I vote for more features and less database conversions.

Aurora does not autoupdate, so I am cool with it this way  ;D
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: November 05, 2018, 11:29:19 AM »

How compatible will the databases be when you update the C# versions? Any plans to make them more compatible than in the past?

That issue won't really change.

it isn't a question of language or database type, but an issue caused by a mismatch between the database structure and what the program expects to see. I could spend time writing a conversion program for each release, but my time is probably better spent adding feature (more interesting too!)
Posted by: TMaekler
« on: November 05, 2018, 09:42:53 AM »

How compatible will the databases be when you update the C# versions? Any plans to make them more compatible than in the past?
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: October 24, 2018, 08:06:53 AM »

The munition management would be quite simple with just drawing from the planetary stockpile. I guess the trouble would be more with missiles not fitting as integral weapon systems, you need few dedicated large sensors, and you want many launchers per FC.
At least orbital missile bases can now be covered by planetary PD

That reasoning leads to something interesting. I just realized that orbital missile bases should require proper ammo storage and shuttle bays now to handle the logistics of firing loads of missiles, and can't just instant transfer them from the planet anymore. That's going to change design strategy quite a bit, and make it more feasible to saturate even orbital AMM defenses if they don't have oversized logistics or deep enough magazines.

Perhaps proper missile logistics here is an advantage that adds interesting trade offs making it worth keeping them away from ground forces?
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: October 24, 2018, 07:17:31 AM »

Not sure if I missed this information or if this has been considered but will there be a finer granulation of fighter engines now that the fuel economy are somewhat different from before. There will be a huge difference between a size 1 and size 2 engine now.

If it wouldn't be too much a trouble to make it like 1 and 0.1 increments to 2, 0.2 increments to 3 and 0.25 increments to 4 and 0.5 increments to 5 or some such.

Fighter engines start at 0.1 HS now.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg109885#msg109885

Ah... thanks... I think I missed that little tidbit of information. Great!!
Posted by: Whitecold
« on: October 24, 2018, 05:44:12 AM »

No, I have nothing planned on those lines. I want to avoid tracking any type of munitions or ordnance for ground units and keep them relatively simple (in management terms).

Wouldn't it be possible to have them fire munitions straight from the planetary stockpile to get around this if you wanted?
The munition management would be quite simple with just drawing from the planetary stockpile. I guess the trouble would be more with missiles not fitting as integral weapon systems, you need few dedicated large sensors, and you want many launchers per FC.
At least orbital missile bases can now be covered by planetary PD
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: October 24, 2018, 05:16:21 AM »

Not sure if I missed this information or if this has been considered but will there be a finer granulation of fighter engines now that the fuel economy are somewhat different from before. There will be a huge difference between a size 1 and size 2 engine now.

If it wouldn't be too much a trouble to make it like 1 and 0.1 increments to 2, 0.2 increments to 3 and 0.25 increments to 4 and 0.5 increments to 5 or some such.

Fighter engines start at 0.1 HS now.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg109885#msg109885
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