Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 01, 2007, 08:07:32 AM
A Mass Driver costs 300 BP to build, using 100 tons each of Duranium, Neutronium and Boronide, and is the same size as a factory or mine. You can move them around with freighters so Load and Unload Mass Driver orders have been added. One Mass Driver can launch 5000 tons of minerals per year and catch any amount of minerals per year.
If you have a planet with at least one mass driver then a list of possible destinations will be shown on the Mining tab of the population window. Destinations include any of your populations with at least one mass driver and any detected alien populations regardless of whether they have a mass driver. Each 5-day increment, a mineral packet will be assembled and dispatched toward its destination. The packet is assembled by calculating the amount of minerals that can be sent. This is based on the number of mass drivers * 5000 tons * (Increment Length/Year). A roughly equal amount of each available mineral will be sent. This is done by the program checking each mineral type in turn and adding up to 10 tons to the packet. This process loops until either all available minerals have been added or the packet reaches its maximum size. The speed of a packet of maximum size is 1000 km/s. Smaller packets than the maximum possible will travel more quickly. Half size would be double speed, quarter size would be 4x speed, etc.
When a packet arrives at its destination, the program checks for a mass driver to catch the packet. If one exists then the minerals are added to the population's stockpiles. If no mass driver exists, a planetary bombardment attack is carried out using one tenth of the mineral packet size. So a 300 ton packet hitting a planet would be the same as a missile with a strength-30 warhead.
Attacking planets with mass drivers is therefore possible but easily defended. A single mass driver will defend against all mass driver 'attacks'. However, if you can catch an opponent unawares it could be useful. Any such attack will be rapidly countered so the initial strike would have to be as large as possible. I should also note here that packet sizes are designed for 5-day increments. You could create larger packet sizes by using a 30-day increment, which would create a more devastating attack. That was not my intention so it is up to individual players to decide if they want to take advantage of that exploit to launch an attack. Although perhaps it could be argued that leaving the mass drivers idle for thirty days before they launch that packet just builds up their energy reserves for a huge launch :)
EDIT: I forgot to mention that mineral packets are invisible to passive sensors because they have no power signature but can be picked up on active sensors as if they were a ship of same tonnage. For example, an 800 ton packet would be detected by active sensors as if it was an 800 ton (size 16) ship but would be completely invisible to all passive sensors.
Steve
Post by: jmelzer on August 01, 2007, 08:58:17 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
You can now build Mass Drivers on planets that will send mineral packets to other populations in the same system. ...
One Mass Driver can launch 5000 tons of minerals per year and catch any amount of minerals per year.
...
Each 5-day increment, a mineral packet will be assembled and dispatched toward its destination. The packet is assembled by calculating the amount of minerals that can be sent. This is based on the number of mass drivers * 5000 tons * (Increment Length/Year). A roughly equal amount of each available mineral will be sent. This is done by the program checking each mineral type in turn and adding up to 10 tons to the packet. This process loops until either all available minerals have been added or the packet reaches its maximum size.
...
Steve
Should we be able to specify which minerals to send? (just put a list of tick-boxes, so you can ticky off the ones you're interested in sending).
e.g. a system with 2 populated worlds, one produces lots of neutronium, one lots of duranium. Would be nice to allow trade this way.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 01, 2007, 09:13:58 AM
Quote from: "jmelzer"
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"You can now build Mass Drivers on planets that will send mineral packets to other populations in the same system. ...
One Mass Driver can launch 5000 tons of minerals per year and catch any amount of minerals per year.
...
Each 5-day increment, a mineral packet will be assembled and dispatched toward its destination. The packet is assembled by calculating the amount of minerals that can be sent. This is based on the number of mass drivers * 5000 tons * (Increment Length/Year). A roughly equal amount of each available mineral will be sent. This is done by the program checking each mineral type in turn and adding up to 10 tons to the packet. This process loops until either all available minerals have been added or the packet reaches its maximum size.
...
Steve
Should we be able to specify which minerals to send? (just put a list of tick-boxes, so you can ticky off the ones you're interested in sending).
e.g. a system with 2 populated worlds, one produces lots of neutronium, one lots of duranium. Would be nice to allow trade this way.
You can't do this at the moment but it would be a useful option
Steve
Post by: Brian Neumann on August 01, 2007, 12:03:18 PM
Brian
Post by: Erik L on August 01, 2007, 12:57:08 PM
Post by: Kurt on August 01, 2007, 03:01:47 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Do the different minerals have differing "explosive potential"? Being used for fuel, I'd expect Sorium to be more volatile than duranium for example.
:D :twisted:
Kurt
Post by: Michael Sandy on August 01, 2007, 04:48:37 PM
You could theoretically build one of these on a mobile platform, positioned near a jump point.
You could then have a small cargo ship shuttle the minerals through the warp point and basically have an automated mineral extraction system.
Of course, a scout ship with decent active sensors would be able to follow the mineral stream to find warp points.
And a pirate ship with a mobile resource catcher and active sensors could intercept the mineral stream.
Post by: Father Tim on August 01, 2007, 07:15:54 PM
Quote from: "Brian"
How about an automated mass driver. It would cost twice as much to build and work the same. I would put on a moon without a population. Then I can move just the minerals I want to launch to the moon and let the program do the rest automatically.
Brian
This *is* an automated mass driver. It would be 95% useless if it weren't, as the stated purpose is to collect a system's worth of minerals at a central point, rather than sending a fleet of freighters to visit every piddly asteroid.
Post by: Brian Neumann on August 01, 2007, 07:38:37 PM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
Quote from: "Brian"How about an automated mass driver. It would cost twice as much to build and work the same. I would put on a moon without a population. Then I can move just the minerals I want to launch to the moon and let the program do the rest automatically.
Brian
This *is* an automated mass driver. It would be 95% useless if it weren't, as the stated purpose is to collect a system's worth of minerals at a central point, rather than sending a fleet of freighters to visit every piddly asteroid.
My mistake, I thought they required population.
Brian
Post by: Centerfed on August 01, 2007, 08:10:44 PM
Also, when it comes to using it as an (innefficient) bombardment system, I'd want to load it with some good old common iron ore and not some very rare trans-newtonian stuff. That's like making cannonballs out of gold instead of lead.
Maybe an option to load 'junk' ore onto a packet when it comes to aiming at an enemy colony?
HD
Post by: ShadoCat on August 02, 2007, 12:04:48 AM
Quote
Maybe an option to load 'junk' ore onto a packet when it comes to aiming at an enemy colony?
That would make this a bit too cheesy. Let it be expensive.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 03, 2007, 06:23:32 AM
Quote from: "Brian"
How about an automated mass driver. It would cost twice as much to build and work the same. I would put on a moon without a population. Then I can move just the minerals I want to launch to the moon and let the program do the rest automatically.
The Mass Drivers are automated. No pop is required as their main use will be on mining colonies.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 03, 2007, 06:26:23 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Do the different minerals have differing "explosive potential"? Being used for fuel, I'd expect Sorium to be more volatile than duranium for example.
In their unrefined state, all the minerals are equally 'explosive'. One of the reasons for this is that someone is sure to suggest using mass drivers to send huge anti-matter bombs at the enemy pops so I wanted to add a proviso that anything remotely volatile would explode when the mass drivers tried to accelerate it
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 03, 2007, 06:28:57 AM
Quote from: "Centerfed"
I didn't think you could use these things 'hypothetically in the real world' if the body you are launching packets from had an atmosphere...
Also, when it comes to using it as an (innefficient) bombardment system, I'd want to load it with some good old common iron ore and not some very rare trans-newtonian stuff. That's like making cannonballs out of gold instead of lead.
Maybe an option to load 'junk' ore onto a packet when it comes to aiming at an enemy colony?
I am assuming that the mass driver is partly an orbital flinger/catcher system and partly a ground station with ground-to-orbit shuttles.
TNEs are much heavier than normal ores so they have much more impact
Steve
Post by: Centerfed on August 04, 2007, 03:40:28 AM
Quote
Steve Walmsley wrote:
TNEs are much heavier than normal ores so they have much more impact
...on your economy
Will mass drivers be on the list of items that can be added to colonies by SM mode?
HD
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 04, 2007, 03:54:12 PM
Quote from: "Centerfed"
QuoteSteve Walmsley wrote:...on your economy
TNEs are much heavier than normal ores so they have much more impact
Will mass drivers be on the list of items that can be added to colonies by SM mode?
They are on the SM Mods window.
Steve
Post by: Pete_Keller on September 04, 2007, 05:37:01 PM
Pete
(Running 2.0)
Post by: Kurt on September 05, 2007, 09:38:25 AM
Quote from: "Pete_Keller"
OK, I'll bite, where do I find them to build?
Pete
(Running 2.0)
I think they are in 2.1
Kurt
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 06, 2007, 07:23:55 AM
Quote from: "Pete_Keller"
OK, I'll bite, where do I find them to build?
Pete
(Running 2.0)
They are in the unreleased v2.1
Steve
Post by: Pete_Keller on September 06, 2007, 07:58:48 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "Pete_Keller"OK, I'll bite, where do I find them to build?They are in the unreleased v2.1
Pete
(Running 2.0)
Steve
Tease
Pete
Post by: sloanjh on November 04, 2007, 03:28:31 PM
Could "we" maybe add another column for "mass driver +/-" that would tell how much of the change is due to mass driver packets?
I also am not seeing a speed/eta for my mineral packet on the system window.
Thanks,
John
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 08, 2007, 08:13:00 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Um - is there any way to tell how much of what is in the mineral packets in transit? I'm trying to figure out my home system's duranium burn rate and I don't have a good handle on how much my asteroid mine is making every update since it's immediately being loaded onto a mass driver and fired off to Terra. This causes the "Recent Stockpile +/-" field to show up as "0.0".
Could "we" maybe add another column for "mass driver +/-" that would tell how much of the change is due to mass driver packets?
I also am not seeing a speed/eta for my mineral packet on the system window.
I've added speed, time and distance for mineral packets. I have also added an option to show the content of each packet, rounded down to the nearest integer for each mineral type for space reasons
The extra column is a little more tricky. The existing stockpile +/- is zeroed before mineral production in the 5-day increment so you can see the change. If I zero mass driver +/- at the same point, you would lose any packet arrivals during the movement phase of the 5-day increment. I can't reset it before movement though because I never know until after movement if this is going to be a 5-day increment or a standard increment (because of movement sub-pulses). I think the only way to do it is to keep a temp table of packet arrivals during each movement phase and then add that to the new overall packet changes table if it turns out to be a 5-day increment. Any packet arrivals in-between 5-day increments will change the +/- situation as they arrive.
Steve
Post by: sloanjh on November 08, 2007, 09:03:33 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
I think the only way to do it is to keep a temp table of packet arrivals during each movement phase and then add that to the new overall packet changes table if it turns out to be a 5-day increment. Any packet arrivals in-between 5-day increments will change the +/- situation as they arrive.
That was along the lines of what I was thinking of. Note that I've found a workaround - when a packet arrives the +/- is set to the "correct" value. Between that and the ability to see what's in a packet, I think this request has dropped to low(er) priority.
Thanks,
John
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 08, 2007, 09:22:51 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"I think the only way to do it is to keep a temp table of packet arrivals during each movement phase and then add that to the new overall packet changes table if it turns out to be a 5-day increment. Any packet arrivals in-between 5-day increments will change the +/- situation as they arrive.That was along the lines of what I was thinking of. Note that I've found a workaround - when a packet arrives the +/- is set to the "correct" value. Between that and the ability to see what's in a packet, I think this request has dropped to low(er) priority.
I have done it anyway
There is now a mass driver +/- column on the mineral tab that includes any packet arrivals during the movement phase of the 5-day increment. I setup the temporary table as above and it seems to work OK. From the user perspective, it resets at the start of each 5-day increment, although it is a little more complicated behind the scenes. It is useful to know what minerals are flying around in packets.
Steve
Post by: Kurt on March 22, 2008, 07:34:34 AM
In the original message of this thread you stated that the permissable targets for a mass driver are other of your populations in the same system with mass drivers, and any detected alien populations whether they have mass drivers or not.
Has this changed at some point? In the Twin Moons game both races have detected at least one alien population, but neither can target anything but their own populations with their mass drivers.
Kurt
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 23, 2008, 11:09:05 AM
Quote from: "Kurt"
Steve-
In the original message of this thread you stated that the permissable targets for a mass driver are other of your populations in the same system with mass drivers, and any detected alien populations whether they have mass drivers or not.
Has this changed at some point? In the Twin Moons game both races have detected at least one alien population, but neither can target anything but their own populations with their mass drivers.
It looks like it has changed, although I don't remember changing it. There was probably a good reason at the time but I don't remember that either
. Senility is obviously creeping in.Steve
Post by: Kurt on March 23, 2008, 11:25:40 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "Kurt"Steve-It looks like it has changed, although I don't remember changing it. There was probably a good reason at the time but I don't remember that either
In the original message of this thread you stated that the permissable targets for a mass driver are other of your populations in the same system with mass drivers, and any detected alien populations whether they have mass drivers or not.
Has this changed at some point? In the Twin Moons game both races have detected at least one alien population, but neither can target anything but their own populations with their mass drivers.
Steve
I didn't remember any change being mentioned, but I sometimes miss things, especially when I'm running a campaign and not paying attention to the latest version. Happened with SA all the time.
That is just as well. In the Twin Moons campaign, I was going to have the Colonists use their mass drivers to systematically wipe Strug colonies out throughout the system. This might lead to a situation where everyone needs to keep building mass drivers to make sure that no one else has more than they do. The more I thought about it, the more untenable this situation seemed. Both sides might be able to protect their home worlds, but it seemed unlikely that either would be able to build any colonies, as they wouldn't be able to divert enough mass drivers to protect the colony without weakening their homeworld defenses.
Of course, this problem is limited to situations where two sides have major worlds in the same system.
Thanks
Kurt
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 23, 2008, 11:36:43 AM
Quote from: "Kurt"
I didn't remember any change being mentioned, but I sometimes miss things, especially when I'm running a campaign and not paying attention to the latest version. Happened with SA all the time.
That is just as well. In the Twin Moons campaign, I was going to have the Colonists use their mass drivers to systematically wipe Strug colonies out throughout the system. This might lead to a situation where everyone needs to keep building mass drivers to make sure that no one else has more than they do. The more I thought about it, the more untenable this situation seemed. Both sides might be able to protect their home worlds, but it seemed unlikely that either would be able to build any colonies, as they wouldn't be able to divert enough mass drivers to protect the colony without weakening their homeworld defenses.
Of course, this problem is limited to situations where two sides have major worlds in the same system.
That wouldn't be a problem. Although you may need a lot of mass drivers to send minerals, one mass driver at the target will catch an unlimited amount of minerals, so one mass driver will protect a colony against any size of mineral packet.
Steve
Post by: ShadoCat on March 23, 2008, 12:05:42 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Of course, this problem is limited to situations where two sides have major worlds in the same system.That wouldn't be a problem. Although you may need a lot of mass drivers to send minerals, one mass driver at the target will catch an unlimited amount of minerals, so one mass driver will protect a colony against any size of mineral packet.
Steve[/quote]
That changed? I thought that a mass driver could only catch 5 packets at a time.
Post by: Kurt on March 23, 2008, 01:16:00 PM
Quote from: "ShadoCat"
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"Of course, this problem is limited to situations where two sides have major worlds in the same system.That wouldn't be a problem. Although you may need a lot of mass drivers to send minerals, one mass driver at the target will catch an unlimited amount of minerals, so one mass driver will protect a colony against any size of mineral packet.
Steve
That changed? I thought that a mass driver could only catch 5 packets at a time.[/quote]
Do'oh! It's right there in the first post in this thread, in the second paragraph! And all this time I thought that MD's could only catch the same amount that they could send out! Oops!
Kurt
Post by: Starkiller on April 02, 2008, 08:45:42 PM
each on Mercury, Venus, and Mars. Since that was 9 Mass Drivers, I
decided to play it safe and place 9 Mass Drivers on Earth to 'catch'
the packets.
Eric
Post by: sloanjh on May 24, 2009, 08:42:10 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "jmelzer"You can't do this at the moment but it would be a useful optionQuote from: "Steve Walmsley"You can now build Mass Drivers on planets that will send mineral packets to other populations in the same system. ...
One Mass Driver can launch 5000 tons of minerals per year and catch any amount of minerals per year.
...
Each 5-day increment, a mineral packet will be assembled and dispatched toward its destination. The packet is assembled by calculating the amount of minerals that can be sent. This is based on the number of mass drivers * 5000 tons * (Increment Length/Year). A roughly equal amount of each available mineral will be sent. This is done by the program checking each mineral type in turn and adding up to 10 tons to the packet. This process loops until either all available minerals have been added or the packet reaches its maximum size.
...
Steve
Should we be able to specify which minerals to send? (just put a list of tick-boxes, so you can ticky off the ones you're interested in sending).
e.g. a system with 2 populated worlds, one produces lots of neutronium, one lots of duranium. Would be nice to allow trade this way.
Steve
Did this (selecting which minerals will be sent by a mass driver) ever get coded up? I can't find it anywhere.
I'm in a situation where I've got a freighter perpetually parked at Mars accumulating Sorium for shipment to Earth. I need to do this because Mars is both a manufacturing and mining center - I need the other minerals for production on Mars, but the sorium needs to go to Earth since that's where the fuel factories are. I'm beginning to hit the same problem with Venus - I'd like to put maintenance facilities there, but then I'd have to shut down the mass driver so that the (small amounts of) maintenance minerals don't get shipped off to Earth.
John
Post by: schroeam on May 25, 2009, 10:08:06 AM
Adam.
Post by: Hawkeye on May 25, 2009, 01:57:16 PM
Would also be usefull if I want to assemble some prefabed PDCs or build a few facilities while still shooting the minerals not needed for those tasks to earth.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 27, 2009, 11:51:18 AM
Steve
Post by: sloanjh on May 27, 2009, 07:47:40 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
I have added these suggestions to my 'to do' list so they might make it into v4.1 but there is still a lot to do on the rewrite.
I'd be happy if they're on the 4.2 to do list - I'm getting anxious to see 4.1
John