Aurora 4x
New Players => The Academy => Topic started by: Garfunkel on April 11, 2013, 03:39:23 PM
-
I remember there being a thread about this, so I searched for it and found an old one, discussing 5.60, where it was concluded that it was more beneficial to concentrate all your deep space tracking stations on a single body, instead of having several smaller listening posts across a system. But, that was due to a bug that Steve later said, in another thread, to have been fixed for 6.00
So, has anyone done the math and do DSTS strength now grow linearly, so that there's a game mechanic reason for me plod down listening posts all over the system and not just because of RP?
-
Coverage area should still grow as the square of tracking stations on one rock. Ideally, you'd want stations next to your JPs, but without turning of orbits, that's not feasible.
-
As I've posted (and Steve has confirmed), that isn't true. The range of the DSTS on a body is given by:
Detection range = DSTS Tech * Number of DSTS * Target Signature.
In 5.6, this is the actual detection code running, but the code used to display passive sensor range rings on bodies uses the old exponential-based routine. This means a mismatch between where detection actually happens and where the range rings say it should happen (typically an undershoot up to some number N of DSTS on a body, and then a rapidly growing overshoot).
In 6.0+, both actual detection range and displayed detection range should be using the proper linear formula, not the square and not the exp().
-
Additional data to consider.
That is the formula for passive detection. Both Thermal and EM use it which is why DSTS uses it. DSTS is just a combined Thermal/EM sensor installation.
-
Coverage area should still grow as the square of tracking stations on one rock. Ideally, you'd want stations next to your JPs, but without turning of orbits, that's not feasible.
Asteroids. Their orbital motion is off by default.
-
Yeah, but that's a processing issue. I consider taking advantage of it cheating.
-
As I've posted (and Steve has confirmed), that isn't true. The range of the DSTS on a body is given by:
Detection range = DSTS Tech * Number of DSTS * Target Signature.
Is that in km? kkm? mkm?
-
Yeah, but that's a processing issue. I consider taking advantage of it cheating.
On the other hand. . . jump points are found by surveying gravitational anomalies. Shouldn't they be in movement as well, since the movement of planets in the system alters the gradient of the gravitational field?
-
Technically it's still better to have all your dsts on one body, since even with linear you get better coverage area by having all your eggs in one basket.
But for roleplay/redundancy purposes i usually have perhaps 1/3 of my dsts on smaller more strategically located rocks.
-
I usually limit myself to maximum five tracking stations on any one place for just this reason.
In my opinion all sensors in the game should have a diminishing range due to strength. It does not have to be 100% realistic, just to curb the use of one super strong sensor in once place. There are the same problems with sensors on ships.
-
Suppose you have the Sol system and you want to make sure that if a ship above fighter size comes into the system without your invitation, you will notice, how much DSTS strength do you need?
-
Hmm, in one game I'm playing earth has 15 dsts with strength of 4500, which can detect a strength 100 thermal contact (one of my fighters which goes 10,000 km/s) at a range of 450 million kilometers, also none of my fighters have any em emissions.
Now, if you needed to detect such a contact as far out as Neptune you would need 4.5 billion kilometers range, which would require a strength 4.5 million dsts, which with my technology would need 15,000 dsts.
You'll need 2,250,000 Duranium and Uridium to build them, but on the bright side they require no population to operate.
-
So, by analogy, a strength 1000 thermal contact would require merely 1500 DSTS at that range?
-
I seem to have badly screwed up that calculation.
Edit: I think you would need only 150 dsts to detect the fighter at neptune, and the 15 I already have should be able to detect a 1000 strength contact at neptune.
-
That's great! Thanks!
-
Coverage area should still grow as the square of tracking stations on one rock. Ideally, you'd want stations next to your JPs, but without turning of orbits, that's not feasible.
The range of the DSTS on a body is given by:
Detection range = DSTS Tech * Number of DSTS * Target Signature.
Your both right. If the range is growing linear, then the covered area is growing by the square :)
-
The fact that the area grows as the square of the number of stations is why it makes more sense to keep them in one place.
If I assume I have N stations then I have an area coverage that is given by: N^2*(DSTS_strength)^2*Pi()
If I assume I have x locations each with N/x stations then I have an area coverage given by: x*(N/x)^2*(DSTS_strength)^2*Pi() = (N^2/x)*(DSTS_strength)^2*Pi()
The problem is that the area covered by the (x+1)th DSTS is considerably greater than by the xth and so I can't see how a dispersed system can win.
I think for it to make sense you would have to make it so you also used the seperation of the systems as part of the formula.
-
Yes, Separated only makes sense for systems where you have valuable things very far from each other and want both well covered/protected.
For example a system with multiple stars say 5 billion of km apart (or more) and colonies on bodies around two or more of them.
-
The same problem exist on ship based sensor systems, both active and passive.
The only sensor system where I would think a linear approach in sensible are fire-controls because they only concern a single object already illuminated by another active sensor system.
The current mechanic clearly favour one single large sensor system, over many spread over a larger area which would be more realistic and fun as well I think. :)
It might be a problem for the AI though so we have to bare that in mind as well.