Aurora 4x
VB6 Aurora => Aurora Suggestions => Topic started by: The Khan on October 10, 2010, 10:53:44 PM
-
Considering that the Transnewtonian minerals are very special stuff that enable ships to achieve jump and other physical superiorities. . . Why do I see transnewtonian minerals needed to build space academies and mundane civilian buildings? Shouldn't such buildings be built with general wealth or normal metals like steel and titanium?
-
I suppose the rationale is that TN minerals, in addition to being critical for spaceflight, are also extremely useful for just about everything else. The one that really confuses me, though, is conventional military. You'd think conventional military forces would use no TN minerals - by definition, even - but it takes duranium and neutronium to train them.
-
This is a pretty decent question.
And the answer is probably gameplay.
Conventional resources are abstracted away (Thats why planets without TN stuff lack use a little), so you have to need something to build them.
It doesn't necessarily make sense, though.
-
The short answer is that when Steve was creating Aurora the plan was that everything require TN minerals for simplicity of coding. At the time there was no conventional start, that came in a couple of years later.
-
Well, maybe at some point a "conventional metal" is implemented that is then needed for building up the economy further.^^
-
I don't disagree on this point. The hard part will be getting Steve willing to make the changes since it a core foundation of the code.
-
Well, the chances are that at some point, he will recode part of it on a newer base than VS 2k6.^^
-
Or just wealth.
-
Well, the chances are that at some point, he will recode part of it on a newer base than VS 2k6.^^
Actually it's in VB6 which is circa 1996/97. VS2010 is out now, and if he does change the base, it'd be a very very huge undertaking. Migrating from VB6 to VB.NET is not a simple task.
-
Yeh, that'll delay the development by a half year.
-
Well, the chances are that at some point, he will recode part of it on a newer base than VS 2k6.^^
Aurora is going to stay VB6. It would be just too much work to convert it and I would probably be better starting from scratch. There is a possibility I might write some add-ons at some point in a more modern language but I don't have any plans along those lines at the moment.
Steve
-
Yeh, that'll delay the development by a half year.
While I think that is a very optimistic number :), the time involved isn't the problem. The amount of work I do on Aurora is entirely based on my level of motivation and enthusiasm. That's why certain large-scale change get implemented fairly quickly and other minor annoying problems stick around for years. Rewriting the whole program in its current form simply wouldn't be much fun, which is why I know it won't happen.
Steve
-
Actually it's in VB6 which is circa 1996/97. VS2010 is out now, and if he does change the base, it'd be a very very huge undertaking. Migrating from VB6 to VB.NET is not a simple task.
Plus I have decided to learn C# 2010 instead of VB 2010, which makes it even worse :)
Steve
-
I that I'm straying even more off topic here... Why C# and not JAVA? I'm assuming that it's not cost since JAVA is open source. Base assumption is that it's more complementory to your system.
I know very little about JAVA and I have used Microsoft IDEs for the last 15 years or so. So even though C# is a new language for me the Visual C# development environment is still very similar to VB6.. I think the last non-MS IDE I used was Borland C++ back in the mid-1990s. I am one of those strange people who likes Microsoft :)
Steve
-
Your strange.
-
I know very little about JAVA and I have used Microsoft IDEs for the last 15 years or so. So even though C# is a new language for me the Visual C# development environment is still very similar to VB6.. I think the last non-MS IDE I used was Borland C++ back in the mid-1990s. I am one of those strange people who likes Microsoft :)
Steve
That's amusing - Hejlsberg (the lead C# designer) was a Borland guy.
I'm not a big Microsoft fan, but I think they've done a great service to the community with C# and its integrated IDE. I think it really is the next-generation language beyond C++; if you look at the design decisions they made, most of them solve fundamental deficiencies with C++. OTOH, the language seems to be going down a "kitchen sink" direction in recent versions, e.g. with LINQ and declarative programming extensions.
John
-
I see some1 asked why VB/C# not java - answer is simple: TIME. Java just have a hell lot of overcoding like f-load of never used things loaded with EACH class, and u can't write one from raw. Simple example - program that have to read an input and write is elsewhere during stress test (inputs are single letters, a hell lot of them in 0 time) and average time of job done with same tests:
assembler - 0.04 s
basic functional languages (like OZ/OCaml/SmallTalk/Haskel) - 0.12 to 0.26 s
c/c++ - 0.45 s
java - almost 4 minutes
and its not a joke
-
I know very little about JAVA and I have used Microsoft IDEs for the last 15 years or so. So even though C# is a new language for me the Visual C# development environment is still very similar to VB6.. I think the last non-MS IDE I used was Borland C++ back in the mid-1990s. I am one of those strange people who likes Microsoft :)
Steve
No, for the topic you're talking about (environment), Microsoft has manged to be fairly consistent over the years - it's actually a strong point of theirs (considering my views on MS, just typing that is like eating horse poo).
The reasons to dislike Microsoft start with their business practices and move rapidly to the crap they pull with their monopolistic products (windows), which is largely related to the first point, really.