Post by: Peewee on March 31, 2010, 05:58:18 AM
Code: [Select]
Lantern class Sensor Outpost 22200 tons 1883 Crew 158703 BP TCS 444 TH 2812 EM 0
6333 km/s Armour 5-70 Shields 0-0 Sensors 3750/3750/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 3942% IFR: 54.8% Maint Capacity 4468 MSP Max Repair 27000 MSP Est Time: 0 Years
Photonic Drive E0.05 (3) Power 937.5 Fuel Use 0.5% Signature 937.5 Armour 0 Exp 0%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres Range 810.8 billion km (1481 days at full power)
Active Search Sensor MR675-R1 (10%) (1) GPS 9000 Range 675.0m km Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor MR67500-R100 (10%) (1) GPS 900000 Range 67,500.0m km Resolution 100
Active Search Sensor MR13500-R20 (10%) (1) GPS 180000 Range 13,500.0m km Resolution 20
Active Search Sensor MR135000-R200 (10%) (1) GPS 1800000 Range 135,000.0m km Resolution 200
Active Search Sensor MR337500-R500 (10%) <M> (1) GPS 4500000 Range 337,500.0m km Resolution 500
Thermal Sensor TH50-3750 (10%) <M> (1) Sensitivity 3750 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 3750m km
EM Detection Sensor EM50-3750 (10%) <M> (1) Sensitivity 3750 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 3750m km
This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposesFlashlights, on the other hand, take only 0.20 years to build.
Code: [Select]
Flashlight class Sensor Outpost 1027050 tons 2903 Crew 164948 BP TCS 20541 TH 2812 EM 0
136 km/s Armour 5-906 Shields 0-0 Sensors 3750/3750/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 8438653% IFR: 117203.5% Maint Capacity 100 MSP Max Repair 27000 MSP Est Time: 0 Years
Cargo 1000000
Photonic Drive E0.05 (3) Power 937.5 Fuel Use 0.5% Signature 937.5 Armour 0 Exp 0%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres Range 17.4 billion km (1481 days at full power)
Active Search Sensor MR675-R1 (10%) (1) GPS 9000 Range 675.0m km Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor MR67500-R100 (10%) (1) GPS 900000 Range 67,500.0m km Resolution 100
Active Search Sensor MR13500-R20 (10%) (1) GPS 180000 Range 13,500.0m km Resolution 20
Active Search Sensor MR135000-R200 (10%) (1) GPS 1800000 Range 135,000.0m km Resolution 200
Active Search Sensor MR337500-R500 (10%) <M> (1) GPS 4500000 Range 337,500.0m km Resolution 500
Thermal Sensor TH50-3750 (10%) <M> (1) Sensitivity 3750 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 3750m km
EM Detection Sensor EM50-3750 (10%) <M> (1) Sensitivity 3750 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 3750m km
This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposesHow on earth does adding a million or so tons to the blueprints make the shipyard workers build (essentially the same ship) over 30 times faster?!
On a bit of a tangent, why are cargo bays always full? They ought to take up very little mass (as they are, well, empty spaces).
That would make ship speed vary on 'up' and 'down' trips, as well as making it more worthwhile to only partially load freighters.
Edit: By the way, Hi everyone! I'm Peewee. I come from the land of Bay12.
Post by: ZimRathbone on March 31, 2010, 07:22:25 AM
Quote from: "Peewee"
Lanterns take 7.31 years to build.Code: [Select]Lantern class Sensor Outpost 22200 tons 1883 Crew 158703 BP TCS 444 TH 2812 EM 0
6333 km/s Armour 5-70 Shields 0-0 Sensors 3750/3750/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 3942% IFR: 54.8% Maint Capacity 4468 MSP Max Repair 27000 MSP Est Time: 0 Years
Photonic Drive E0.05 (3) Power 937.5 Fuel Use 0.5% Signature 937.5 Armour 0 Exp 0%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres Range 810.8 billion km (1481 days at full power)
Active Search Sensor MR675-R1 (10%) (1) GPS 9000 Range 675.0m km Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor MR67500-R100 (10%) (1) GPS 900000 Range 67,500.0m km Resolution 100
Active Search Sensor MR13500-R20 (10%) (1) GPS 180000 Range 13,500.0m km Resolution 20
Active Search Sensor MR135000-R200 (10%) (1) GPS 1800000 Range 135,000.0m km Resolution 200
Active Search Sensor MR337500-R500 (10%) <M> (1) GPS 4500000 Range 337,500.0m km Resolution 500
Thermal Sensor TH50-3750 (10%) <M> (1) Sensitivity 3750 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 3750m km
EM Detection Sensor EM50-3750 (10%) <M> (1) Sensitivity 3750 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 3750m km
This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes
Flashlights, on the other hand, take only 0.20 years to build.Code: [Select]Flashlight class Sensor Outpost 1027050 tons 2903 Crew 164948 BP TCS 20541 TH 2812 EM 0
136 km/s Armour 5-906 Shields 0-0 Sensors 3750/3750/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 8438653% IFR: 117203.5% Maint Capacity 100 MSP Max Repair 27000 MSP Est Time: 0 Years
Cargo 1000000
Photonic Drive E0.05 (3) Power 937.5 Fuel Use 0.5% Signature 937.5 Armour 0 Exp 0%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres Range 17.4 billion km (1481 days at full power)
Active Search Sensor MR675-R1 (10%) (1) GPS 9000 Range 675.0m km Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor MR67500-R100 (10%) (1) GPS 900000 Range 67,500.0m km Resolution 100
Active Search Sensor MR13500-R20 (10%) (1) GPS 180000 Range 13,500.0m km Resolution 20
Active Search Sensor MR135000-R200 (10%) (1) GPS 1800000 Range 135,000.0m km Resolution 200
Active Search Sensor MR337500-R500 (10%) <M> (1) GPS 4500000 Range 337,500.0m km Resolution 500
Thermal Sensor TH50-3750 (10%) <M> (1) Sensitivity 3750 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 3750m km
EM Detection Sensor EM50-3750 (10%) <M> (1) Sensitivity 3750 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 3750m km
This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes
How on earth does adding a million or so tons to the blueprints make the shipyard workers build (essentially the same ship) over 30 times faster?!
On a bit of a tangent, why are cargo bays always full? They ought to take up very little mass (as they are, well, empty spaces).
That would make ship speed vary on 'up' and 'down' trips, as well as making it more worthwhile to only partially load freighters.
Edit: By the way, Hi everyone! I'm Peewee. I come from the land of Bay12.
Ceud mìle fàilte Peewee. (a hundred thousand welcomes!)
Regarding the Build Speed, this looks like a bug (I just confirmed the same effect when adding 200 cargo holds to an existing design (but not 100)) - report it in the bugs topic.
As to the ship speed, I believe that the appropiate technobable indicates that in the TransNewtonian mechanics, speed is inversely proportional to displacement (not mass as in conventional Newtonian mechanics), therefore obviating the need to constantly recalculate a vessels speed every time it changes cargo (or fires a missile!) which is why ships are built in terms of Hull Spaces
Post by: sloanjh on March 31, 2010, 07:31:21 AM
Thanks, and Have Fun!
John
Post by: Peewee on March 31, 2010, 07:40:05 AM
Post by: UnLimiTeD on March 31, 2010, 07:57:23 AM
Theres a discrepancy in maint capacity.
Still weird, seeing how the second one is rightfully more expensive.
What do you need that huge sensors for anyways?
Post by: Peewee on March 31, 2010, 08:37:58 AM
The second one IS (slightly) more expensive because of the cargo holds.
It also takes a LOT less time to build.
Why do I need big, shiny, expensive sensors?
For sensing things!
For a VERY early warning system!
For instant knowledge of EVERY wreck in a system!
Actually, it's mostly just so I don't have to put active sensors on any other ships in my 300-strong fleet. I tend to launch rather large missiles at anything that comes within about a billion kilometers of the lantern.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 31, 2010, 03:13:18 PM
Quote from: "Peewee"
How on earth does adding a million or so tons to the blueprints make the shipyard workers build (essentially the same ship) over 30 times faster?!The first ship is 22,000 tons so it can be built in a shipyard with a capacity of 22,000 tons. The second ship is over a million tons so it needs a shipyard fifty times larger and therefore has fifty times more workers, which means it can be built a lot faster.
Steve
Post by: Journier on March 31, 2010, 04:03:39 PM
I always think of the ships by density, a ship crammed with the highest cost sensors in the game and barely any hull surrounded them with bare crew quarters is incredibly costly to build.
a ship that is 50x larger with those same sensors but lots of cargo space isnt very dense and isnt very expensive per ton, hence a large shipyard will build that very quickly.
Post by: Father Tim on April 01, 2010, 12:52:50 AM
Quote from: "Peewee"
On a bit of a tangent, why are cargo bays always full?
They're not.
Quote from: "Peewee"
They ought to take up very little mass (as they are, well, empty spaces).
They do.
Quote from: "Peewee"
That would make ship speed vary on 'up' and 'down' trips.
That it would, which is why it doesn't work the way you're suggesting. A ship's max speed is a ship's max speed, and it doesn't change short of refit. Feel free to operate your freighters at a reduced speed whne they're loaded, to simulate the extra drag of the cargo.
Post by: James Patten on April 01, 2010, 06:09:29 AM
Post by: UnLimiTeD on April 01, 2010, 06:57:44 AM
Post by: sloanjh on April 01, 2010, 09:01:29 AM
Quote from: "UnLimiTeD"
Would it be possible to make "Cargo Claps" to strap that automine onto the ship?^^
Would it be possible? Yes.
Will Steve do it? Probably not. Three reasons:
1) If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and cargo isn't broken.
2) This would signficantly change game play balance, probably in a game-breaking way. By doing this, you'd essentially turn everything into a tug. This would also make micromanagement worse, since you'd have to tell the code how many automines to attach.
3) This would require significant change to the code, for questionable gain. Ships would no longer have a fixed size (for calculating max speed, jumping, active sensor cross section, etc.), so the code would need to be touched in a LOT of places.
Note that my intent here it to point out a general principle of Aurora's design - a lot of the things that make accomplishing tasks (like colonizing or cargo hauling) are there intentionally, to force you to make choices. So "enhancements" that take away these limitations are usually not going to make it into the game, even if they allow you to do something that would arguably be possible in the "real world".
John
John
Post by: Shadow on April 01, 2010, 09:51:37 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Hmm. Does that mean ships of a certain tonnage would also be built much faster in shipyards with larger capacities?Quote from: "Peewee"How on earth does adding a million or so tons to the blueprints make the shipyard workers build (essentially the same ship) over 30 times faster?!The first ship is 22,000 tons so it can be built in a shipyard with a capacity of 22,000 tons. The second ship is over a million tons so it needs a shipyard fifty times larger and therefore has fifty times more workers, which means it can be built a lot faster.
Steve
Post by: sloanjh on April 01, 2010, 10:16:56 AM
Quote from: "Shadow"
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"Hmm. Does that mean ships of a certain tonnage would also be built much faster in shipyards with larger capacities?Quote from: "Peewee"How on earth does adding a million or so tons to the blueprints make the shipyard workers build (essentially the same ship) over 30 times faster?!The first ship is 22,000 tons so it can be built in a shipyard with a capacity of 22,000 tons. The second ship is over a million tons so it needs a shipyard fifty times larger and therefore has fifty times more workers, which means it can be built a lot faster.
Steve
There is a thread somewhere* (probably in mechanics) where Steve introduces the mechanism that larger SY have higher build rates. Your best bet is probably to find and read this thread.
John
*unless it's gone to bit heaven because this was introduced so long ago (several years) that the post was lost during one of the infrequent data losses on the board.
Post by: praguepride on April 01, 2010, 11:55:54 AM
Post by: Peewee on April 01, 2010, 02:51:24 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "Peewee"How on earth does adding a million or so tons to the blueprints make the shipyard workers build (essentially the same ship) over 30 times faster?!The first ship is 22,000 tons so it can be built in a shipyard with a capacity of 22,000 tons. The second ship is over a million tons so it needs a shipyard fifty times larger and therefore has fifty times more workers, which means it can be built a lot faster.
Steve
I understand that perfectly.
This is what I don't understand:
(using version 5.02)
I made two identical shipyards (using SM). One is tooled for Flashlights, the other is tooled for Lanterns.
They each have one slipway, 1200000 capacity per slipway, and the displayed 'mod rate' is 724060.
I ordered each shipyard to build one ship. (17 August 2027, 03:02)
then advanced time by ten days.
The Flashlight is at 10.4% progress, but the Lantern is only at 0.3%. (27 August 2027, 03:02)
Estimated completion dates:
Flashlight: 4 Nov 2027 (ABR = 826360)
Lantern: 21 Sept 2034 (ABR = 22440)
If the explanation is larger shipyard == more workers == faster work, shouldn't they be built at the same rate?
-----
I made another shipyard (again, SM) with 23050 capacity, 1 slipway, tooled for Lanterns. (27 August 2027, 03:02)
This one displays a 'mod rate' of 16812.
I gave it an order to build another Lantern, then advanced time another 10 days.
huge shipyard lantern progress = 0.6% (ABR = 22440) (started 20 days ago)
built-to-fit-perfectly shipyard progress = 0.3% (ABR = 22440) (started 10 days ago)
..so both shipyards build at the same rate, despite the huge shipyard having 50x more workers.
The wiki says (v4.77):
Quote
The larger shipyard needed for the supertanker can work on many more things at once than the small shipyard needed for the fishing boat. However, the reason the change in construction rate is based on ship size and not shipyard size is that it would hardly be efficient to build fishing boats in the shipyard intended for the supertanker.Perhaps it wouldn't be as efficient, but the fishing boats would still be built faster... wouldn't they?
Should I not be able to make ships be built faster by making a larger factory?
EDIT: I forgot to mention that I've made slight modifications to each class. The ones I used for the above construction experiment were these.
Code: [Select]
Flashlight class Sensor Outpost 1027950 tons 3006 Crew 165191 BP TCS 20559 TH 2812 EM 0
136 km/s Armour 5-907 Shields 0-0 Sensors 3750/3750/0/0 Damage Control Rating 10 PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 845344% IFR: 11740.9% Maint Capacity 1004 MSP Max Repair 27000 MSP Est Time: 0 Years
Cargo 1000000
Photonic Drive E0.05 (3) Power 937.5 Fuel Use 0.5% Signature 937.5 Armour 0 Exp 0%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres Range 17.4 billion km (1481 days at full power)
CIWS-1000 (1x20) Range 1000 km TS: 100000 km/s ROF 5 Base 50% To Hit
Active Search Sensor MR675-R1 (10%) (1) GPS 9000 Range 675.0m km Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor MR67500-R100 (10%) (1) GPS 900000 Range 67,500.0m km Resolution 100
Active Search Sensor MR13500-R20 (10%) (1) GPS 180000 Range 13,500.0m km Resolution 20
Active Search Sensor MR135000-R200 (10%) (1) GPS 1800000 Range 135,000.0m km Resolution 200
Active Search Sensor MR337500-R500 (10%) <M> (1) GPS 4500000 Range 337,500.0m km Resolution 500
Thermal Sensor TH50-3750 (10%) <M> (1) Sensitivity 3750 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 3750m km
EM Detection Sensor EM50-3750 (10%) <M> (1) Sensitivity 3750 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 3750m km
This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes
Code: [Select]
Lantern class Sensor Outpost 23050 tons 1981 Crew 158940 BP TCS 461 TH 2812 EM 0
6099 km/s Armour 5-72 Shields 0-0 Sensors 3750/3750/0/0 Damage Control Rating 10 PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 425% IFR: 5.9% Maint Capacity 43097 MSP Max Repair 27000 MSP Est Time: 0.38 Years
Photonic Drive E0.05 (3) Power 937.5 Fuel Use 0.5% Signature 937.5 Armour 0 Exp 0%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres Range 780.8 billion km (1481 days at full power)
CIWS-1000 (1x20) Range 1000 km TS: 100000 km/s ROF 5 Base 50% To Hit
Active Search Sensor MR675-R1 (10%) (1) GPS 9000 Range 675.0m km Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor MR67500-R100 (10%) (1) GPS 900000 Range 67,500.0m km Resolution 100
Active Search Sensor MR13500-R20 (10%) (1) GPS 180000 Range 13,500.0m km Resolution 20
Active Search Sensor MR135000-R200 (10%) (1) GPS 1800000 Range 135,000.0m km Resolution 200
Active Search Sensor MR337500-R500 (10%) <M> (1) GPS 4500000 Range 337,500.0m km Resolution 500
Thermal Sensor TH50-3750 (10%) <M> (1) Sensitivity 3750 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 3750m km
EM Detection Sensor EM50-3750 (10%) <M> (1) Sensitivity 3750 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 3750m km
This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes
Post by: Peewee on April 01, 2010, 03:13:03 PM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
I meant that they always take up the same mass (5000 tons), whether they're loaded or not.Quote from: "Peewee"On a bit of a tangent, why are cargo bays always full?
They're not.Quote from: "Peewee"They ought to take up very little mass (as they are, well, empty spaces).
They do.
Do the tanks in a real-life oil tanker weigh the same full and empty?
Ideally, they ought to weigh maybe 50 tons, and allow you to load an additional 5000 tons of cargo.
I think cargo should have it's own mass (which it already does, currently), and affect the mass of the ship carrying it (which it does not, currently).
Quote from: "Father Tim"
[spoiler:11z5ibam]minor correction: max speed also changes if you use SM to unlock and change the class design, then look at the ship in the F6 menu. I found that out by accident.[/spoiler:11z5ibam]Quote from: "Peewee"That would make ship speed vary on 'up' and 'down' trips.
That it would, which is why it doesn't work the way you're suggesting. A ship's max speed is a ship's max speed, and it doesn't change short of refit. Feel free to operate your freighters at a reduced speed when they're loaded, to simulate the extra drag of the cargo.
I shouldn't need to simulate additional drag from loaded cargo... the game should do that for me (possibly as a checkbox option at the game details screen?).
I just think this is a glaring flaw in such a detailed game.
Post by: Andrew on April 01, 2010, 06:06:37 PM
Quote from: "Peewee"
(.As other people have suggested this assumes that mass is important. The displacement tons are used as an indicator of voulme/displacement not mass for the drive field to cover. Engines are clearly not Newtonian as there is no acceleration or momentum.
I think cargo should have it's own mass (which it already does, currently), and affect the mass of the ship carrying it (which it does not, currently).
Also if we where to impose this level of irritating micromanaging monitoring logically we should also allow for the mass differences caused by
1) the use of fuel
2) use of missiles
3) if a carrier has launched its fighters
4) armour damage....
items 1,2 and 3 can easilya ccount for more than 50% of a warship so they are as signifignat as cargo . More so as the speed of warships is usually more important than of freighters.
This would cause the game to slow to the speed of a one legged tortoise and Steve to go mad trying to implement it
Post by: Peewee on April 01, 2010, 07:06:41 PM
Quote from: "Andrew"
As other people have suggested this assumes that mass is important. The displacement tons are used as an indicator of voulme/displacement not mass for the drive field to cover. Engines are clearly not Newtonian as there is no acceleration or momentum.Ok. Let's say I buy that explanation. (Shouldn't 'tons' be replaced with 'kiloliters' or something, then?)
So... you're just saying that the volume/displacement of missiles, parasites/fighters, and cargo doesn't matter...?
It still doesn't make sense to me.
Quote from: "Andrew"
Also if we where to impose this level of irritating micromanaging monitoring logically we should also allow for the mass differences caused by
1) the use of fuel
2) use of missiles
3) if a carrier has launched its fighters
4) armour damage....
items 1,2 and 3 can easilya ccount for more than 50% of a warship so they are as signifignat as cargo . More so as the speed of warships is usually more important than of freighters.
This would cause the game to slow to the speed of a one legged tortoise and Steve to go mad trying to implement it
(I'm a CSCI major... I don't want you thinking I'm a clueless moron making impossible demands
)How would it slow the game down (Not to say that it isn't already at the speed of a one legged tortoise)? Or be particularly hard to implement?
Changing the mass of a ship should only require:
-one add/subtract operation on the ship size variable (1 arithmetic operator, 2 variable references, 1 variable value change)
-one call to the speed function ((engine output *1000)/total size) to set the new max size (1 method/function call, 2 arithmetic operators, 2 variable references, 1 variable value change)
-one comparison to check if speed <= max speed (1 comparison, 2 variable references)
-set speed to max speed (1 variable reference, 1 variable value change)
To implement, he'd just have to put something like "Ship.changeSize(integer)" at the end of every method that he'd want to change the ship size (loadCargo, unloadCargo, loadMissiles, fireMissiles, unloadMissiles, landParasites, launchParasites, etc.)
Post by: sloanjh on April 01, 2010, 07:44:31 PM
Quote from: "Peewee"
This discussion/decision was already played out on the board a year or two (or possibly more) ago. I might have even been the one to bring it up - I don't remember :-) ) was to go with tons as a measure of volume, because..... (segue to Andrew)Quote from: "Andrew"As other people have suggested this assumes that mass is important. The displacement tons are used as an indicator of voulme/displacement not mass for the drive field to cover. Engines are clearly not Newtonian as there is no acceleration or momentum.Ok. Let's say I buy that explanation. (Shouldn't 'tons' be replaced with 'kiloliters' or something, then?)
So... you're just saying that the volume/displacement of missiles, parasites/fighters, and cargo doesn't matter...?
It still doesn't make sense to me.
As for the "making sense" part, you might want to go read the Starfire books (Crusade, In Death Ground, The Shiva Option, etc.) by David Weber and Steve White. The drives are non-Newtonian (i.e. forget F=MA) and have a drive field that surrounds the hull, so it's the volume of the hull that controls how fast the ship can go, not the amount of mass inside the hull.
Quote
Ummmmm y'know......if you don't like the game you don't have to play it. And making any sort of demands, impossible or not, isn't necessarily the best way to win friends and influence people. Oh yeah, and a huge percentage of the people who play the game are software developers themselves of one sort or another.Quote from: "Andrew"Also if we where to impose this level of irritating micromanaging monitoring logically we should also allow for the mass differences caused by
1) the use of fuel
2) use of missiles
3) if a carrier has launched its fighters
4) armour damage....
items 1,2 and 3 can easilya ccount for more than 50% of a warship so they are as signifignat as cargo . More so as the speed of warships is usually more important than of freighters.
This would cause the game to slow to the speed of a one legged tortoise and Steve to go mad trying to implement it
(I'm a CSCI major... I don't want you thinking I'm a clueless moron making impossible demands
How would it slow the game down (Not to say that it isn't already at the speed of a one legged tortoise)?
Quote
Or be particularly hard to implement?
Changing the mass of a ship should only require:
-one add/subtract operation on the ship size variable (1 arithmetic operator, 2 variable references, 1 variable value change)
-one call to the speed function ((engine output *1000)/total size) to set the new max size (1 method/function call, 2 arithmetic operators, 2 variable references, 1 variable value change)
-one comparison to check if speed <= max speed (1 comparison, 2 variable references)
-set speed to max speed (1 variable reference, 1 variable value change)
To implement, he'd just have to put something like "Ship.changeSize(integer)" at the end of every method that he'd want to change the ship size (loadCargo, unloadCargo, loadMissiles, fireMissiles, unloadMissiles, landParasites, launchParasites, etc.)
"Only"?????? The odds of touching the code in all the right places and getting them all correct is very small. Don't forget that the code is written in VB6, is at least 10 years old, and is very database-manipulation centric (as opposed to heavily object-oriented with lots of polymorphism). This doesn't really matter though, since I don't see Steve wanting to make the change - as mentioned above, it was debated years ago, wouldn't add much to the game balance (and would probably hurt it) and would be complex to implement.
BTW, the right way to do what you suggested (assuming the code were in something like C# or C++) would be to have put a Size property on class Ship from day 1 of the code. Then you would only need to change a single method. (Of course you'd probably also need to launch a SizeChanged or MaxSpeedChanged event so that e.g. TG could check if they're exceeding the new maximum speed.) The fundamental design principle here is that complexity should be managed server-side (i.e. within the Ship object) rather than client-side (i.e. within each of the callers like loadCargo).
John
PS - to repeat myself, this is why new users are encouraged to post into The Academy, so that we don't fill up other boards like Mechanics (which is where Steve likes to announce new things he's implemented) with threads that rehash old decisions and explanations of how things work.
Post by: AtomikKrab on April 01, 2010, 07:48:50 PM
or in other words there is an upper limit to how many people can work on a ship. a shipyard might have 50 million workers, but if the ship is only a 5000 ton frigate maybe only 1 million can actually work on it
Post by: sloanjh on April 01, 2010, 08:01:30 PM
Quote from: "Peewee"
Perhaps it wouldn't be as efficient, but the fishing boats would still be built faster... wouldn't they?Possibly, but....
Quote
Should I not be able to make ships be built faster by making a larger factory?No, because this would potentially introduce a game-breaking exploit. Please go find the thread I mentioned above where the variable build rates were introduced and read it - it discusses Steve's concerns in depth. The short version (IIRC) is that Steve needed to make it so that building a 50kton or 100kton warship didn't take half a century, so he set things up so that big ships are built at a faster BP/day rate than small ships. If he tied the rate to the yard, then the exploit would be to build a really big yard and use it to build a bunch of small ships (which is what you seem to be complaining about not being able to do).
Something to keep in mind with Aurora is "suspension of disbelief". Sometimes game-balance decisions have to override "if I carried this to it's logical conclusions" reasoning. Steve tries very hard (and is very successful) at keeping this inconsistencies to a minimum*, but this can't be done everywhere. At that point you just have to suck it up and make up some technobabble.
John
*For example, go find the years of requests for fighter-mounted beam weapons. Steve resisted for years, because he couldn't figure out how to set things up so that they wouldn't break the game when players mounted a zillion of them on a warship, and he hated the fact that other games just arbitrarily said "welllll you just can't do that". We only got them (gauss cannon) when a mechanism was worked out so that they wouldn't break the game.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on April 01, 2010, 08:13:36 PM
Bigger ships are built faster than small ships.
Btw, peewee, is that speed consistent? I figured that the Cargoholds are really cheap, so if they would just be finished first, the speed should drop afterwards... though I guess that'll not be the case.
( Also, making that really big yard costs resources that could well be spent in adding more slipways to produce the small ships not faster, but 10 a time^^)
Post by: Father Tim on April 01, 2010, 09:11:57 PM
The tanks in an oil tanker don't weigh 50 tons, or 50,000 tons, or whatever. They displace an amount of water weighing 50 tons (empty) or 50,000 tons (full) or whatever, and the relation of cargo to displacement is expressed by bouyancy and load efficiency formulae.
A Cargo Hold doesn't weigh 5000 tons, it displaces 5000 tons of 'Alzarian Standard Atmosphere' at 'Standard Alzarian Temperature and Pressure'. The weight of any cargo placed in the hold is irrelevant, and given the ship is an air-tight sphere, the presence or absence of cargo does not in any way affect the tonnage of ASA is displaces.
Campaigning to add 'variable mass' and 'changing ship speeds based on current mass' is pretty much like campaigning to switch the UK to driving on the right: The decision was made a long time ago, for valid reasons, and changing it now would require a massive amount of work, cause innumerable crashes, and has been roundly refused by the people currently using the system. You may think it's a better way, and certainly there are others who agree with you, but ultimately it's Steve's decision and he has said many times he prefers the current version and he's not changing it.
Post by: sloanjh on April 01, 2010, 10:37:14 PM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
Campaigning to add 'variable mass' and 'changing ship speeds based on current mass' is pretty much like campaigning to switch the UK to driving on the right: The decision was made a long time ago, for valid reasons, and changing it now would require a massive amount of work, cause innumerable crashes, and has been roundly refused by the people currently using the system. You may think it's a better way, and certainly there are others who agree with you, but ultimately it's Steve's decision and he has said many times he prefers the current version and he's not changing it.
Well said.
John
Post by: Peewee on April 02, 2010, 12:02:53 AM
Quote from: "AtomikKrab"
peewee, as to the speed: too many cooks spoil the pot.I agree, but this still doesn't justify why adding more work to do means that it gets done faster.
or in other words there is an upper limit to how many people can work on a ship. a shipyard might have 50 million workers, but if the ship is only a 5000 ton frigate maybe only 1 million can actually work on it
Quote from: "UnLimiTeD"
Btw, peewee, is that speed consistent? I figured that the Cargoholds are really cheap, so if they would just be finished first, the speed should drop afterwards... though I guess that'll not be the case.Yes, it seems pretty consistent. I finished the flashlight in a couple months, and gave up on the lantern after ~4 years.
Quote from: "sloanjh"
And now the exploit is that constructing huge ships takes mere weeks.Quote from: "Peewee"Perhaps it wouldn't be as efficient, but the fishing boats would still be built faster... wouldn't they?Possibly, but....QuoteShould I not be able to make ships be built faster by making a larger factory?No, because this would potentially introduce a game-breaking exploit. Please go find the thread I mentioned above where the variable build rates were introduced and read it - it discusses Steve's concerns in depth. The short version (IIRC) is that Steve needed to make it so that building a 50kton or 100kton warship didn't take half a century, so he set things up so that big ships are built at a faster BP/day rate than small ships. If he tied the rate to the yard, then the exploit would be to build a really big yard and use it to build a bunch of small ships (which is what you seem to be complaining about not being able to do).
Is this the thread you were talking about? (http://aurora.pentarch.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1476&p=13017&hilit=+shipyard+build+rate#p13017)
I could build a death star in a matter of weeks, so long as I can strap enough cargo holds to it.
No, seriously. I could, and actually, I have.
Code: [Select]
Death Star class Orbital Weapon Platform 1020502800 tons 9565700 Crew 57755285.0006 BP TCS 20410056 TH 60000 EM 1800000
293 km/s Armour 100-90292 Shields 60000-300 Sensors 3750/3750/500/500 Damage Control Rating 50000 PPV 19200
Annual Failure Rate: 166627697% IFR: 2314273.6% Maint Capacity 6768596 MSP Max Repair 31500 MSP Est Time: 0 Years
Flag Bridge Hangar Deck Capacity 100000 tons Troop Capacity: 100 Battalions Magazine 67500 Cargo 50000000 Colonists 19000000 Passengers 25000 Cargo Handling Multiplier 200400 Tractor Beam
Jump Gate Construction Ship: 20 days
Fuel Harvester: 3000 modules producing 420000000 litres per annum
Terraformer: 35000 module(s) producing 280 atm per annum
Asteroid Miner: 100 module(s) producing 7000 tons per mineral per annum
Maintenance Modules: 1000 module(s) capable of supporting ships of 200000 tons
Salvager: 5000 module(s) capable of salvaging 12500000 tons per day
Photonic Drive E0.5 ARM-10 <H/S> (16000) Power 375 Fuel Use 5% Signature 3.75 Armour 10 Exp 1% Hyper Capable
Fuel Capacity 75,000,000 Litres Range 2.6 billion km (104 days at full power)
Omega R300/15 Shields <M> (4000) Total Fuel Cost 60,000 Litres per day
Quad 80cm C25 Far Gamma Ray Laser <M> Turret (50x4) Range 1,400,000km TS: 100000 km/s Power 672-100 RM 12 ROF 35 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168
Particle Torpedo-50 <M> (10) Range 1,200,000km TS: 25000 km/s Power 125-25 ROF 25 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
R1008/C25 Meson Cannon <M> (10) Range 1,400,000km TS: 25000 km/s Power 168-25 RM 1008 ROF 35 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quad Gauss Cannon R6-100 <M> Turret (20x40) Range 60,000km TS: 50000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 6 ROF 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
CIWS-1000 (100x20) Range 1000 km TS: 100000 km/s ROF 5 Base 50% To Hit
50cm Railgun V9/C20 <M> (10x4) Range 1,400,000km TS: 25000 km/s Power 60-20 RM 9 ROF 15 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 18
80cm C25 Plasma Carronade <M> (10) Range 1,400,000km TS: 25000 km/s Power 168-25 RM 1 ROF 35 168 84 56 42 33 28 24 21 18 16
PD Gauss Turret FC (10) Max Range: 175,000 km TS: 50000 km/s 94 89 83 77 71 66 60 54 49 43
Fire Control S16 700-100000 H10 <M> (100) Max Range: 1,400,000 km TS: 100000 km/s 99 99 98 97 96 96 95 94 94 93
Vacuum Energy Power Plant Technology PB-0.75 AR-10 (15) Total Power Output 13500 Armour 10 Exp 1%
Size 100 Missile Launcher (100) Missile Size 100 Rate of Fire 250
Missile Fire Control FC1012500-R500 (10%) <M> (20) Range 1,012,500.0m km Resolution 500
Missile Fire Control FC2025-R1 (10%) (20) Range 2,025.0m km Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor MR13500-R20 (10%) (3) GPS 180000 Range 13,500.0m km Resolution 20
Active Search Sensor MR675-R1 (10%) (3) GPS 9000 Range 675.0m km Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor MR337500-R500 (10%) <M> (3) GPS 4500000 Range 337,500.0m km Resolution 500
Thermal Sensor TH50-3750 (10%) <M> (3) Sensitivity 3750 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 3750m km
EM Detection Sensor EM50-3750 (10%) <M> (3) Sensitivity 3750 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 3750m km
Phased Gravitational Sensors (100) 500 Survey Points Per Hour
Phased Geological Sensors (100) 500 Survey Points Per Hour
ECCM-10 (50) ECM 100
This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposesThis only takes 0.07 years to build (~4 weeks).A month. To build a practically indestructible (and yes, I put up defenses on the exhaust ports) billion-ton ship.
HOW IS THIS BETTER OR MORE LOGICAL THAN QUICKLY BUILDING SMALL SHIPS?!
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 02, 2010, 12:29:11 AM
Quote from: "Peewee"
A month. To build a practically indestructible (and yes, I put up defenses on the exhaust ports) billion-ton ship.Because you would need a billion ton capacity military shipyard to build it. It would be faster to build a smaller version of the ship than wait a century or so to build the shipyard first. Within the other constraints imposed by the game, the current method creates the best compromise between gameplay and reality.
HOW IS THIS BETTER OR MORE LOGICAL THAN QUICKLY BUILDING SMALL SHIPS?!
Steve
Post by: Peewee on April 02, 2010, 12:32:08 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
This discussion/decision was already played out on the board a year or two (or possibly more) ago. I might have even been the one to bring it up - I don't remember :-) ) was to go with tons as a measure of volume, because..... (segue to Andrew)I couldn't find the thread you mentioned. (I did give up after about half an hour, but still)
As for the "making sense" part, you might want to go read the Starfire books (Crusade, In Death Ground, The Shiva Option, etc.) by David Weber and Steve White. The drives are non-Newtonian (i.e. forget F=MA) and have a drive field that surrounds the hull, so it's the volume of the hull that controls how fast the ship can go, not the amount of mass inside the hull.
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll add those to my reading list.
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Ummmmm y'know......if you don't like the game you don't have to play it. And making any sort of demands, impossible or not, isn't necessarily the best way to win friends and influence people. Oh yeah, and a huge percentage of the people who play the game are software developers themselves of one sort or another.I do like the game. I just thought I saw room for improvement.
I really didn't want to sound like I'm bragging about my major or anything; I'm just used to some other forums, where asking for new features starts flame wars.
Quote from: "sloanjh"
"Only"?????? The odds of touching the code in all the right places and getting them all correct is very small. Don't forget that the code is written in VB6, is at least 10 years old, and is very database-manipulation centric (as opposed to heavily object-oriented with lots of polymorphism). This doesn't really matter though, since I don't see Steve wanting to make the change - as mentioned above, it was debated years ago, wouldn't add much to the game balance (and would probably hurt it) and would be complex to implement.... Oh yeah.
Wait a minute. That... doesn't mean that all changes require reads and writes to the database, does it?
Quote from: "sloanjh"
BTW, the right way to do what you suggested (assuming the code were in something like C# or C++) would be to have put a Size property on class Ship from day 1 of the code. Then you would only need to change a single method. (Of course you'd probably also need to launch a SizeChanged or MaxSpeedChanged event so that e.g. TG could check if they're exceeding the new maximum speed.)Hehe, it's like you read my mind.
Post by: Peewee on April 02, 2010, 12:42:32 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Ok.Quote from: "Peewee"A month. To build a practically indestructible (and yes, I put up defenses on the exhaust ports) billion-ton ship.Because you would need a billion ton capacity military shipyard to build it. It would be faster to build a smaller version of the ship than wait a century or so to build the shipyard first. Within the other constraints imposed by the game, the current method creates the best compromise between gameplay and reality.
HOW IS THIS BETTER OR MORE LOGICAL THAN QUICKLY BUILDING SMALL SHIPS?!
Steve
My real question is this:
Why shouldn't a civilization be able to build a reasonable ship more quickly after investing in the same [spoiler:17k9ailn]friggin vogon constructor fleet[/spoiler:17k9ailn] billion-ton capacity shipyard?
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 02, 2010, 12:49:45 AM
Quote from: "Peewee"
My real question is this:As explained in the original thread, I decided that basing construction time on ship size rather than shipyard size would allow players to build large ships in a reasonable time while preventing someone using shipyards designed for supertankers to build fishing boats. This is for both gameplay and realism reasons. To support your argument, perhaps you can point me to a shipyard in the real world that uses the slipways intended for carriers to build huge amounts of patrol boats?
Why shouldn't a civilization be able to build a reasonable ship more quickly after investing in the same [spoiler:h5sitauk]friggin vogon constructor fleet[/spoiler:h5sitauk] billion-ton capacity shipyard?
Steve
Post by: Peewee on April 02, 2010, 01:31:15 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
As explained in the original thread, I decided that basing construction time on ship size rather than shipyard size would allow players to build large ships in a reasonable time while preventing someone using shipyards designed for supertankers to build fishing boats. This is for both gameplay and realism reasons. To support your argument, perhaps you can point me to a shipyard in the real world that uses the slipways intended for carriers to build huge amounts of patrol boats?But that's just my point.
Steve
I'm not designing them for building carriers. I'm designing them to mass-produce small ships.
As for an example... How about the Liberty ships made during WWII?
The US built a couple hundred shipyards, and could eventually build a ship in 10 days.
Quote from: "http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/liberty-ships-production.htm"
The successful application of mass production to the Liberty Ship building program meant that more ships could be constructed in a smaller amount of space and with unprecedented speed. Ten to twelve months were required in 1917-18 to build an oceangoing ship. Liberty ships, though a third larger, were built in 1943 in as little as 16 days in regular production in one of the most efficient yards.
By the fall of 1942, the production rate of the Liberty Ships had far exceeded the expectations of the Maritime Commission with an average construction period of 70 days. In September, Henry Kaiser’s Portland, Oregon yard set a record by completing the Joseph N. Teal in a mere 10 days. The Liberty ship ROBERT E. PEARY was built in a West Coast shipyard in the world's record time of one week flat. By 1944, the average time to build a ship was 42 days.
...
America's wartime shipbuilding capacity for oceangoing vessels was 2,000 or more annually, provided manpower and materials are available. Some yards building Liberty ships have delivered these 441-foot vessels in 16 days in regular production. The first Liberty ship required 244 days to build. By the end of 1945, the average building time for all Liberty shipyards was under 40 days.
Perhaps you'd prefer to use something other than capacity, but (in my own opinion) shipyards should be capable of improving their production rates.
Another example of mass production of smallish ships by large shipyards:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Arsenal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Arsenal) - supposedly capable of cranking out a ship every day
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 02, 2010, 01:35:43 AM
Quote from: "Peewee"
In that case, they wouldn't be able to build large ships. You can't have it both ways. Each shipyard has a number of slipways and the capacity of those slipways is the max size of the ships. A shipyard with one 50,000 capacity slipway is plainly designed to build large ships. A shipyard with fifty 1000 ton slipways is designed to produce a lot of small ships. Which one are we talking about? You can't have a slipway that is ideal for both building one large ship or lots of little ships, either in Aurora or in the real world.Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"As explained in the original thread, I decided that basing construction time on ship size rather than shipyard size would allow players to build large ships in a reasonable time while preventing someone using shipyards designed for supertankers to build fishing boats. This is for both gameplay and realism reasons. To support your argument, perhaps you can point me to a shipyard in the real world that uses the slipways intended for carriers to build huge amounts of patrol boats?But that's just my point.
I'm not designing them for building carriers. I'm designing them to mass-produce small ships.
Quote
Perhaps you'd prefer to use something other than capacity, but (in my own opinion) shipyards should be capable of improving their production rates.That would be the Shipbuilding Rate tech.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 02, 2010, 01:40:47 AM
Quote from: "Peewee"
More examples of mass production of smallish ships by large shipyards:I suggest you read the detail in the article. This Venetian Arsenal was a number of different shipyards clustered together. Not a single slipway that could build all ship sizes equally well. In Aurora, the equivalent of the Venetian Arsenal is all of the shipyard complexes of one planet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Arsenal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Arsenal) - supposedly capable of cranking out a ship every day
Steve
Post by: Peewee on April 02, 2010, 02:06:03 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
But you could convert one to the other in the real world. It would probably cost more than building a new one, or be terribly inefficient, but you could still do it.Quote from: "Peewee"In that case, they wouldn't be able to build large ships. You can't have it both ways. Each shipyard has a number of slipways and the capacity of those slipways is the max size of the ships. A shipyard with one 50,000 capacity slipway is plainly designed to build large ships. A shipyard with fifty 1000 ton slipways is designed to produce a lot of small ships. Which one are we talking about? You can't have a slipway that is ideal for both building one large ship or lots of little ships, either in Aurora or in the real world.Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"As explained in the original thread, I decided that basing construction time on ship size rather than shipyard size would allow players to build large ships in a reasonable time while preventing someone using shipyards designed for supertankers to build fishing boats. This is for both gameplay and realism reasons. To support your argument, perhaps you can point me to a shipyard in the real world that uses the slipways intended for carriers to build huge amounts of patrol boats?But that's just my point.
I'm not designing them for building carriers. I'm designing them to mass-produce small ships.
Isn't that what retooling is for? Optimizing a given shipyard for building a specific class of ship? If I had the space to build a billion ton ship, but needed to change things around to crank out small ships instead, I'd build small parts, then assemble those into components, then stick them on the ship. Most, if not all of those small parts/components could be made at the same time, because well, there's plenty of room to put in different workstations.
If I had a small slipway instead (the bare minimum space required to assemble a ship), I'd have to make each part and stick them on individually, and I wouldn't be able to re-tool it for a larger class without also expanding it first.
Quote
That would be the Shipbuilding Rate tech.But that's a one-off deal that didn't help the 7-year-ship problem much.
Perhaps if it were a repeating tech like 'expand civ econ'...
EDIT: I just noticed the rank picture - I object to displaying any flag but flag0316.jpg as a personal identifier.
Re-edit: I suppose I should mention that it's 3:00 AM here and neither of our arguments are making much sense to me anymore.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 02, 2010, 02:07:27 AM
Quote
But that's a one-off deal that didn't help the 7-year-ship problem much. Perhaps if it were a repeating tech like 'expand civ econ'...There are 12 levels to the tech, ranging from 400 BP per year to 8000 BP per year.
We are going to have to agree to disagree because I am obviously not going to change your mind and I have bugs to fix.
Steve
Post by: Bear on April 02, 2010, 07:43:16 PM
On that note, I think it would be neat if you could earmark a portion of your planetary construction capacity for "shipyard assist," and they will then set about producing the most expensive ship components for ships currently under construction.
Post by: Hawkeye on April 03, 2010, 01:45:33 AM
Quote from: "Bear"
Perhaps this is me being noobish and mistaken, but you could have those large sensors build by your planetary construction facilities and then the shipyards are merely installing the super expensive electronics onto what may otherwise be a typical ship. I think that's how it works now, or at least that seems like the way it logically should.
On that note, I think it would be neat if you could earmark a portion of your planetary construction capacity for "shipyard assist," and they will then set about producing the most expensive ship components for ships currently under construction.
In a way, you can allready.
On the economics screen, industry tab, you can select "ship components" and start prefabricating parts for your ships, that your shipyards will use when building ships (and thus speed up construction). I usually build enignes in large numbers because, for one, most ships use quite a few of them and two, tech advances not as fast as with other stuff, and I´d hate being stuck with a lot of outdated parts, that I can scrap for only 30% return
Post by: The Shadow on April 03, 2010, 08:23:02 AM
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
On the economics screen, industry tab, you can select "ship components" and start prefabricating parts for your ships, that your shipyards will use when building ships (and thus speed up construction). I usually build enignes in large numbers because, for one, most ships use quite a few of them and two, tech advances not as fast as with other stuff, and I´d hate being stuck with a lot of outdated parts, that I can scrap for only 30% return
I keep finding out new things about this game.
Do the shipyards automatically use the built parts, or do you have to tell them somehow?I've also noticed (having salvaged a number of wrecks) that I end up in the Class Design screen with parts with a (D) in front of them. Are these parts from the wrecks? If so, doesn't that mean that if I design a class with them, that I can only build so many ships of that class?
Post by: UnLimiTeD on April 03, 2010, 08:39:27 AM
Helps a lot when you really quickly need s certain ship, as devoting all your industrial capacity to building those parts can produce the ship in days.
I think the components need to be finished before the ship is laid down, though.
Post by: Hawkeye on April 03, 2010, 01:26:50 PM
Quote from: "The Shadow"
I've also noticed (having salvaged a number of wrecks) that I end up in the Class Design screen with parts with a (D) in front of them. Are these parts from the wrecks? If so, doesn't that mean that if I design a class with them, that I can only build so many ships of that class?
Correct on both
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 04, 2010, 01:57:47 AM
Quote from: "The Shadow"
They will use them automatically. This is a good way to reduce the build times of large, expensive ships. For example, if need terraformers quickly, build the terraforming modules using planetary industry so the shipyards don't have to build that portion of the ship.Quote from: "Hawkeye"On the economics screen, industry tab, you can select "ship components" and start prefabricating parts for your ships, that your shipyards will use when building ships (and thus speed up construction). I usually build engines in large numbers because, for one, most ships use quite a few of them and two, tech advances not as fast as with other stuff, and I´d hate being stuck with a lot of outdated parts, that I can scrap for only 30% returnI keep finding out new things about this game.
Quote
I've also noticed (having salvaged a number of wrecks) that I end up in the Class Design screen with parts with a (D) in front of them. Are these parts from the wrecks? If so, doesn't that mean that if I design a class with them, that I can only build so many ships of that class?(D) indicates a component that you have available but can't build yourself. This is usually from salvage, scrapping or ruins. You can design classes using this component but can only build ships of that design as long as you have the components in your stockpile. For example, if you found six advanced gravitational sensors, you could design ships using those components but once the six components had been used by your shipyards, you couldn't build any more ships of that design until you found more of the component. A big decision you may have to make when you find advanced components is whether to incorporate them in your ships or disaasmble them for potential tech knowledge.
If you find your list of components in class design is being cluttered by (D) components you can either hide them all using the 'Own Tech Only' checkbox or hide them individually by using the Obso Comp button (which sets a component as obsolete).
Steve
Post by: The Shadow on April 04, 2010, 03:35:24 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
(D) indicates a component that you have available but can't build yourself. This is usually from salvage, scrapping or ruins.
Huh. While I *have* seen things like that, I've also seen items marked with (D) that duplicate things I already have. (Sensors, mostly.)
Post by: Brian Neumann on April 04, 2010, 05:58:57 AM
Hope this helps
Brian
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 04, 2010, 06:51:40 AM
Quote from: "The Shadow"
It's because they are components designed by an alien empire that happen to have the same name or the same stats as one of your components. They are still identified separately in the database so they show up as different components. Perhaps what I need to do is check existing components for matches when you salvage alien components and convert them at that point.Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"(D) indicates a component that you have available but can't build yourself. This is usually from salvage, scrapping or ruins.Huh. While I *have* seen things like that, I've also seen items marked with (D) that duplicate things I already have. (Sensors, mostly.)
Steve
Post by: sloanjh on April 04, 2010, 01:10:06 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
They are still identified separately in the database so they show up as different components. Perhaps what I need to do is check existing components for matches when you salvage alien components and convert them at that point.
And/or change the display code to post-pend the empire name for any tech that doesn't belong to the displaying race. For example if I (the Terran Empire) salvaged a bunch of cryo modules from the Troglo Hierarchy, then they'd show up as
Cryo Module (Troglo Hierarchy)
or
Cryo Module (Troglo)
depending on if empire names are saved in one part (Troglo Hierarchy) or two parts (Troglo and Hiearchy).
John
Post by: Brian Neumann on April 05, 2010, 07:54:27 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
It's because they are components designed by an alien empire that happen to have the same name or the same stats as one of your components. They are still identified separately in the database so they show up as different components. Perhaps what I need to do is check existing components for matches when you salvage alien components and convert them at that point.You will also need to do a check when the player designs a new system. Especially with low tech starts I have found enough of a system, ie 20cm/c4 uv laser to be able to make my own that are an exact match. If I have any left over after the dissasembly process I can't use them and my own matching design without having two different designs. If instead you did this check to see if any salvaged components were an identical match to a new design when it is finished being prototyped then it would get around the problem.
Steve
Brian
Post by: Father Tim on April 05, 2010, 05:02:23 PM
Captured alien weapons, are, well, alien. They're made for an odd number of fingers, arms the length of an orangutan, and labelled entirely in black text, on a black background, that lights up a black light with a black message when you press the black button. Your empire's copies are modified so that your empire's inhabitants can use them.
If people want X and Y to be that same, they can use SM mode to delete the alien versions and replace them with an equal number of native components. If a lot of people want it, you can add a button to do it automatically. I, for one, like my historical oddities such as the Panzer I Breda, or the Marder - native chassis armed with captured guns.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on April 05, 2010, 06:41:41 PM
In reality, it was very cheap to put captured guns on stuff, back when doing things like the Hotchkiss or Hetzer, to talk about WW2 tanks.
In Aurora, you would have to make a new ship design just to use the same weapons, but from a different manufacturer.
While I agree that the status quo isn't that evil, it's not perfect either.
Wouldn't the easiest solution be to keep it as is, and once those parts run out, you get a free modification possibility to exchange it by what is still available (current parts?).
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 08, 2010, 09:21:23 AM
Steve
Post by: boggo2300 on April 08, 2010, 03:30:12 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Perhaps the best option would be a button on the actual stockpile section to consolidate identical tech system. That would then be optional for players who want to make use of it.
Steve
I'd suggest making it a SM button Steve, since it is a bit of a reality breaker
Matt