Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 120 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:

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: Yesterday at 03:11:19 PM »

Will mass driver packets be routed through available LPs in huge systems, instead of taking the multi-year 0.2ly route?

They won't use LG points. Long distances will require ships.
Posted by: Hazard
« on: Yesterday at 07:39:39 AM »

Accelerator packages will take the long route. Yes, that takes a long time.
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: Yesterday at 04:08:10 AM »

Will mass driver packets be routed through available LPs in huge systems, instead of taking the multi-year 0.2ly route?

I hope not, and given that they are not ships and have no engines I don't see how they could take advantage of LaGrange jumping anyway.
Posted by: Ranged66
« on: Yesterday at 03:40:18 AM »

Will mass driver packets be routed through available LPs in huge systems, instead of taking the multi-year 0.2ly route?
Posted by: Tikigod
« on: February 15, 2020, 08:44:44 PM »

Will this version support 1366x768 screen resolutions?
This is the biggest problem I have at the moment.
I wish I could play on my notebook.

It depends heavily on the specifics of the device but if you have a dedicated GPU in your notebook take a look into DSR/VSR to simulate a higher resolution and then have it downsampled to whatever your display resolution is. (DSR for Nvidia GPUs, VSR for AMD GPUs)

However even if you have a dedicated GPU there's a good chance you have a Intel CPU with a iGPU and it will be the CPU (and as such the Intel iGPU) that's connected directly to the display rather than the dedicated GPU so DSR/VSR won't be a option, in which case it may be worth looking into 3rd party downsampling software solutions, there's a few out there.

I believe if you have a AMD CPU regardless to if you have a dedicated GPU or are using a iGPU on board the CPU chip then VSR should be available to you. So it's only if you're using a Intel CPU that you would run into issues and need to find 3rd party software work arounds as I don't believe Intel have yet to bother offering the functionality (And show no interest in ever doing so)


Most applications have zero issues with downsampling higher resolutions... Nvidias solution is a bit more temperamental than AMDs when using it outside of fullscreen applications from my experience switching between the two at various points, as Nvidia don't officially recommend DSR be used for desktop/windowed use.

How Aurora would react to having 'fake resolutions' fed to it that are actually downsampled to native resolution would certainly be something interesting for Steve to look into before C# releases if he hasn't already though.... as in terms of what the software thinks, it will think you're using whatever resolution you have DSR/VSR/Misc set to, as even the OS thinks you're running at say 1440p when actually it's 1440p downsampled to 720p or similar.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: February 15, 2020, 06:03:34 AM »

Will this version support 1366x768 screen resolutions?
This is the biggest problem I have at the moment.
I wish I could play on my notebook.

At launch it will require 1440 x 900. I may have a look at smaller windows at some point, but probably not quickly. Because of the amount of information that is displayed, Aurora isn't well suited to smaller windows.  In fact, if anything I am heading the other way For example, the ship class window has a Wide Mode option, which changes it to 1850 x 900 and allows you to see more information. I play on two monitors with 3440 x 1440 and 2760  x 1440.

On option might be a cheap, external monitor for the notebook.
Posted by: linkg
« on: February 14, 2020, 04:36:40 PM »

Will this version support 1366x768 screen resolutions?
This is the biggest problem I have at the moment.
I wish I could play on my notebook.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: February 11, 2020, 10:32:06 AM »

The last time I cruised a fleet to (0,0) -- i.e. the heart of a star -- nothing happened.  Will flying into the corona (or even the heart) of a star have any effect on ships in C# Aurora?  Is it something that's been shuffled into "interesting space terrain" and left for 2.0?

For the moment, no impact. Same with planets and other bodies. The assumption is that ships fly above or below them. Having tactical terrain would complicate combat and the AI would need to add checks to every planned course. I'm not convinced the game play would benefit from the extra micromanagement and slightly lower performance.
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: February 11, 2020, 07:10:13 AM »

The last time I cruised a fleet to (0,0) -- i.e. the heart of a star -- nothing happened.  Will flying into the corona (or even the heart) of a star have any effect on ships in C# Aurora?  Is it something that's been shuffled into "interesting space terrain" and left for 2.0?
Posted by: papent
« on: February 06, 2020, 09:12:43 PM »

He was requesting to do that to all weapons ineligible for turrets
Posted by: rcj33
« on: February 06, 2020, 04:56:50 PM »

Quote
Along similar lines of thought what I would love to see is a "Weapon battery" component you can design ( for all weapons including missile launchers ), which works alot like a turret but without having any ability to speed up targeting.

Basically by grouping X weapons together permanently already in ship design you trade away flexibility ( since all must be connected to a single fire-control ) and redundancy ( since they are destroyed as a single unit ), to gain survivability ( they can be armored ) and efficiency ( savings with less size and crew needed due to weapon proximity ).
IIRC this is already a “feature” for all turret-able weapon types. Just set the tracking speed of your desired battery to 0 km/s. You can even use any multiple of two and/or three weapons, since any researched turret-able weapon with 0% turret gear is eligible to be turreted!
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: February 06, 2020, 12:55:18 PM »

I would think so because this is what Steve wrote about Flag Bridge in here: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg101818#msg101818

Quote
A fleet that includes a ship with a flag bridge can assign a 'fleet commander' senior to the commander of the ship...

And so, putting it together with your quote, it would seem that you can have a full Admiral as Fleet commander, and then have that fleet assigned to an admin command commanded by a Commodore, as long as that ship commander is at least 2 ranks above racial minimum AND at least 1 rank below Commodore.

Only reason to do that is if you have an Admiral with really good Reaction Bonus but really crappy all other fields, making them best suited for combat command.
Posted by: Akhillis
« on: February 05, 2020, 07:51:26 PM »

Quoting from this post http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg103849#msg103849

Quote
..any Admin Command with fleets directly attached requires a higher rank than the highest-ranked ship captain in those fleets.

Does this mean a fleet with a (full) Admiral acting as Fleet Commander from a flagship can be attached to a Commodore-level Admin Command?
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: February 05, 2020, 04:32:11 AM »

Yes, I still plan to come up with some form of spinal railgun, although maybe not for initial release.

Spinal railguns would be awesome to see one day!  ;D

If you could turret railguns, then missiles would be obsolete :)

I have considered adding a 'Twin Spinal' tech in the Spinal & Advanced Spinal tech line.

Along similar lines of thought what I would love to see is a "Weapon battery" component you can design ( for all weapons including missile launchers ), which works alot like a turret but without having any ability to speed up targeting.

Basically by grouping X weapons together permanently already in ship design you trade away flexibility ( since all must be connected to a single fire-control ) and redundancy ( since they are destroyed as a single unit ), to gain survivability ( they can be armored ) and efficiency ( savings with less size and crew needed due to weapon proximity ).
Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: February 04, 2020, 11:53:13 PM »

I'll be honest my main basis for griping about the single-beam limit for spinals is the fact that I tend to imagine spinal weapons as things that go on really big ships, not something reserved for tiny ones (such as fighters).

I do however fully grasp the arguments against doing that for railguns since they apparantly already cannot be turreted.
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 55