Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - seronis

Pages: [1]
C# Aurora / Re: Aurora C# Screenshots
« on: June 20, 2016, 05:29:26 AM »
Does this mean that it would be possible to have deep space colonies, or orbital construction?

Ultimately yes. They probably won't be in the first release but I trying to make sure they aren't difficult to add later.
The following users thanked this post: seronis

C# Aurora / Re: Aurora C# Screenshots
« on: June 06, 2016, 09:58:13 AM »
No screenshot but worth an update. I've now run a successful construction phase for industry, including producing installations, ordnance and fighters. This includes all factors affecting production, such as manufacturing efficiency (workers vs factories), economic modifiers such as wealth, availability of minerals and fuel, political status and unrest, radiation, etc.. It also includes assignment of fighters to fleets and carriers, allocation of ordnance, use of wealth, etc.. Also added is everything required to create new ships, including setting up all the ship values, determining fleet speeds, setting up NPR default orders, providing crew and calculating grade, etc, which will make things a lot faster once I get to shipyard production.

Next I'm going to add PDC and Orbital habitat construction then move on to mining and shipyards. More screenshots after that.
The following users thanked this post: seronis

Aurora Suggestions / Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« on: May 24, 2016, 05:27:47 PM »
Doesn't the inverse square law only apply to the diminishing effects of gravity over range, with the radius in question being said range?
Volume and mass are almost directly linearly correlated (granted, given the same density). With mass being directly tied to gravitational pull on a linear basis...So I think in this case you might just be using the wrong maths. Surface area of the planet would be a lot better value to terraform by. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, though.
I'm not using the wrong math, but we're into some moderately esoteric physics, so I'm going to have to show it to explain.  If I'm misunderstanding you, then I'm preemptively sorry.
The shell theorem states that a spherically symmetric body will behave as if it is a point mass concentrated at its geometrical center, and that it doesn't matter if it is solid or hollow.  So we can calculate the gravitational force on someone standing on the surface of the Earth using the mass and radius of the Earth, just as we do to work out the pull on the moon.  It also states that anything inside a spherically symmetrical shell will not be affected by that shell's gravity at all.  The parts closer to you are counterbalanced by the parts farther away.  This means that someone digging down into a spherical planet will see exactly what someone would see if they were peeling away the planet instead. 
(The second part isn't particularly relevant, but it is interesting, so I'm not going to take it out.)
Now for the math:
1. The planet's mass is equal to rho*4/3*pi*r^3, and we'll assume that rho (density) is constant.  The acceleration due to gravity on a planet's surface gPlanet (assuming that the second object is small relative to the first one) is G*mplanet/r^2.  If we substitute in the equation for the planet's mass we get G*rho*4/3*pi*r^3/r^2, which simplifies to G*rho*4/3*pi*r.
2. The pressure on a planet's surface P is (slightly simplified) equal to (MassAtm/4*pi*r^2)*gPlanet.  If this doesn't make sense, consider conservation of momentum.  The pressure on the piece of air just above the ground must be equal to the force of gravity on the column of air above that piece.  Otherwise, the air would be accelerating upwards or downwards.  Either would be bad if sustained. 
3. Let's assume that each terraforming platform produces so many tons of atmosphere each year, dMassAtm.  Using this we can work out:
dP = (dMassAtm*gPlanet)/(4*pi*r^2) = (dMassAtm*G*rho*4/3*pi*r)/(4*pi*r^2).
Cancelling terms, we get:
dP = (dMassAtm*G*rho)/(3*r)
In other words, the change in pressure is proportional to density (smaller planet for a given mass means less surface area to spread the weight out across and higher gravity) and inversely proportional to radius (bigger planet means that you have to pump out more mass).  In aurora terms, we'd spec the terraforming machines on Earth, and then multiply the rate by the relative density and by the inverse of the relative radius.
Make sense?
The following users thanked this post: seronis

Game/Book Reviews / Re: Stellaris coming soon
« on: May 16, 2016, 04:01:03 PM »
Well your fleet cap is dependent more on the number of spacestations you have and your population then on the techs.   They add a total of 30% of my 350 or so.

The UNE just had its first war....  24 years of brutal attrition warfare.  But the aliens submitted to vassalization.  What is interesting is when they were winning they would not accept a white peace...but somehow got offended when I kept turning down their offers once I got the war back in my direction.  They have hyperlanes which meant fast fleet movement, which caught me off guard.  Then they out teched me seriously...and so it was due to the sacrifice of several science ships I got some of their tech advantage via reverse engineering.  I was using serious numbers of bases....Sol and Sirus are still plastered in bases.  I lost several fortresses but the minefields cut him down...and just kept using my economic advantage to hammer out fleet after fleet.

Eventually had to emergency FTL out my surviving BBs in the last battle but by now I had taken over his home world and 3 others.  My fleets were rebuilding and more to the point he could not keep killing my space stations and eventually the next time I went in with a 10K fleet he surrendered just before my troops started dropping.

One defence base stood off a missile fleet for months as its fighters and point defence kept killing everything they fired at it...and its return fire slowly but surely ate through the enemy force.   I managed to force engagement in my favour a few times as well.  But it was just a long brutal grinding match.

The war was over getting Terraforming liquid.  In the end vassalizing the race didn't get me it directly but it allowed me access into a spiral arm area where some was.  So now my terraforming efforts are going full bore.

I don't want to think about the cost of that war.  I had 25K in minerals at the start of it and that got used up quickly.  Probably 30K in fleet strength were lost on both sides if not more.

Just so you know...Corvettes can kill BBs and heavy ships as the heavy ships usually don't mount that many weapons that can shoot back at them.  You need Small weapons from what I understand.  The enemy force at the end was like 1 BB, 1 DD, and 50 CTs.  I killed the heavy stuff and then I lost my CT/DD screen and should have pulled out as he still had 40-ish CTs.  Had to emergency FTL away but 4 BBs survived that and well that was the last major fleet engagement he had at that point 26 CTs.  That and the two other ones before it had broken his back basically.

Currently my "standard fleet" is:  2 BBs, 1 BB(CV), 4 CAs, 10 DDs, and 30 CTs.  Mix of weapons:  missiles, torpedoes, Kinetics, lasers (Mining drone or Xray) and fighter/bombers plus point defence.  I recommend not using missiles on your space stations.  Point defence can blunt their firepower too easily...either lasers or projectiles I'd say.
The following users thanked this post: seronis

Aurora Bugs / Re: Official v7.10 Bugs Reporting Thread
« on: May 15, 2016, 04:40:15 PM »
no,  it's part of Steves evil plan to conquer Europe...
The following users thanked this post: seronis

Gallery / Re: The ROR Empire
« on: May 12, 2016, 11:32:32 AM »
If i understand it correctly, you mean something like this. I place some WP on the map, and drew some to small circles :p
I actually just meant a few 10k km out, because thermals on buoys are really weak. If you spread them out so far, there will be chance that small ships pass your information net, making this a bad first warning wall again.

Since fighters or facs rarely use jump, you could take the other smallest unit of enemies, science vessels, and compare their thermal to the thermal sensor of the buoy to get a maximum deployment distance.
For example, if you normally see science ships with thermal 120 at least, and your buoy has thermal sensor strength 1, then your maximum would be 120k km distance.

(Formula is: maximum-detection-distance = TH-Sensor x Thermal-Smallest-Target {k km} )
The following users thanked this post: seronis

The Academy / Re: Fuel Harvesting on Sorium Gas Giant
« on: May 07, 2016, 03:39:17 PM »
What Athom says is an efficient way to deal with the whole harvest busyness, and also why you'd want gas giants with moons, so you can do the operation on a single engine.

However, if I read right, you wanted fleets to directly take away from the tanker, which is also possible after you made that "tanker" tick in the design window. You will get the "refuel from target fleet" option when you have other fleets clicking for interactions with your harvester fleet.
You can even save the whole fly-in + refuel + back and deposit at colony orders, which I like to do after I get a couple mining sites, since it makes this a simple two click routine.
The following users thanked this post: seronis

C# Aurora / Re: Aurora C# Screenshots
« on: May 01, 2016, 04:42:42 PM »
Scrollable windows would do the job and not require things like the reduced height windows,  I would imagine that to be less troublesome in C#
The following users thanked this post: seronis

hxxp: ynea. futureware. at/cgi-bin/infinite_screen. pl
You can use this, and keep the windows at their normal height.  (A few buttons are missing in reduced height. )
The following users thanked this post: seronis

C# Aurora / Re: Aurora C# Screenshots
« on: April 18, 2016, 06:03:52 PM »
Just fired up a new computer. Main display is 3440 x 1440 and secondary is 2560 x 1440. This is not going to help the quest for laptop play :)

Just remember most common Laptop resolution now is 1366x768
The following users thanked this post: seronis

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: April 06, 2016, 02:22:59 AM »
I'd be for avoiding needless complication - what you see is what you need to see, without new values that are almost the same as exisiting ones (size vs. effective size for jump purposes).
"There's a slight tolerance for your convenience . If you try to cut corners betting on this, don't complain if it doesn't work".
The following users thanked this post: seronis

Pages: [1]