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 - Steve Walmsley

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes List
« on: Today at 01:50:46 PM »
Known Stars Changes

This is a placeholder for Known Stars changes as I make them

Added the following stars:

Renamed several stars:

The following users thanked this post: Tristitan, serger

Mechanics / Re: System Questions
« on: Yesterday at 01:47:46 PM »
I would think twin planets would be possible in-game, but one will still be designated a moon.  They also won't orbit their common center of mass, one will orbit the other.  Aurora doesn't do Newtonian gravity at all.

That's correct.

The following users thanked this post: Tor Cha

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: Yesterday at 01:46:10 PM »
You can't use turrets for ground unit beams?

On the subject of ground unit beams, could a ground unit with that kind of weapon shoot at targets on another colony, (assuming they're in range) or just stuff in space?

Two ground units on different system bodies will be able to shoot at one another (when I write that code).

For now, ground weapons will be non-turreted. I might look at that in the future.
The following users thanked this post: Conscript Gary, serger

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: Yesterday at 06:09:15 AM »
Hi @Steve Walmsley, sorry I do live in New Zealand so I have a different season calendar! My spring starts end of September...

Ah! Very good point. I would be disappointed if I wasn't well into a test campaign by your spring :)
The following users thanked this post: froggiest1982

C# Aurora / Re: Suggestion for officer changes
« on: Yesterday at 05:23:22 AM »
Personally I don't see why there should be any arbitrary level of promotion ratio, people should simply be promoted as positions are available to be filled.

There could be a 10% extra promoted for each rank of which could be assigned to administrative positions which could be a bit more fluent in what rank is needed such as flag bridge officers or junior officers on ships.

This way if you need 50 captains you would have 55 promoted, the five extra could take positions as flag officers. Flag staff officers could probably be of more than one rank type. Flag staff positions would not really unlock promotion opportunities but meant as use for that extra officer you get from each rank below the first.

Or something like this... I don't like to get an arbitrary number of each officer rank.

I've been giving this some thought and the above is currently where I am heading. A naval organization is going to promote people to fill the required roles, rather than create roles based on the available people in each rank. Not sure on the mechanics yet, but I will sort this out before I start a test campaign.
The following users thanked this post: Bremen, QuakeIV, JacenHan, TMaekler, dukea42, Shiwanabe, serger, Titanian

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: March 18, 2018, 01:17:59 PM »
I've moved on to coding missile combat. In this example, the French missile cruiser Clemenceau is launching against a US destroyer. The launch summary includes the range and the estimated chance to hit (although that can change while the missiles are in-flight).

The destroyer does not have any active sensors that can detect the missiles. However, there are four deep space tracking stations on the planet. With the new passive sensor model, they can detect the French missiles from launch.

First salvo arrives, scoring eight hits, two of which penetrate the armour. I've added the number of penetrating hits to the defender summary. BTW not sure if I mentioned this anywhere but in C# Aurora, you can have multiple windows open of each type. So in this case I have two event windows open - one for France and one for the United States - and both will update together. You could have two Class Design windows open to compare designs, etc..

Four more salvos arrive.

The sixth salvo is sufficient to destroy the ship.

I'll show some point defence examples when I finish the code in that area.
The following users thanked this post: froggiest1982, Shiwanabe, serger, Tuna-Fish, DEEPenergy

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes List
« on: March 17, 2018, 02:35:07 PM »
Point Defence

In C# Aurora, fire controls set to 'Final Defensive Fire' or 'Final Defensive Fire (Self Only)' will fire on hostile missiles, regardless of whether the fire control is set to 'Open Fire'. Fire controls set to Area Mode or for AMMs will only fire defensively when that fire control is set to 'Open Fire'.

When a missile reaches its target, a target ship will use its CIWS first. If that is insufficient, it will use any weapons linked to fire controls set to 'Final Defensive Fire' or 'Final Defensive Fire (Self Only)'. If that is still insufficient, ships or the same race or an allied race with fire controls set to 'Final Defensive Fire' will be checked in increasing order of distance from the target ship.

A target population will use any ground units with CIWS to shoot at incoming missiles. If that is insufficient, the same process as for ships will take place, checking same race or allied ships within point defence range of the planet.
The following users thanked this post: waresky, Britich, QuakeIV, DIT_grue, Tristitan, Rye123, lordcirth

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes List
« on: March 14, 2018, 08:22:52 AM »
Combat Reports

In VB6, understanding the combat events can be difficult given the sheer amount of information. Therefore, C# Aurora uses a condensed system where you no longer see each individual weapon firing, or the damage from individual hits. Instead weapon fire and any resulting damage are shown in a summary format. The side being attacked will also receive some information about the firing ship, using the Alien Ship Name if available.

Here is the summary when a Japanese destroyer opens fire on a Martian Patrol Ship. The different in hull designation in the two reports is because Mars classes the Monoceros as a patrol ship, while Japanese Intelligence classes it as a destroyer.

Subsequent damage reports in the next two five-second increments as the Japanese ship continues firing with 10cm railguns. The 15cm railguns are recharging.

The ship is finally destroyed by the next volley.

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: March 13, 2018, 05:45:32 PM »
@ components view:

while I like the new screenshot a lot, some QoL pointers I am missing:

1) it is really hard to read lines and rows without some "focus line" - would it be possible to get something like a background-color every 4-5 lines for easier reading?

2) for same or related components (Crew Quarters, Weapons etc) it would be easier to have them in a "block" instead of mixed up in the lines - guess it is "first added, first shown"? it would be much easier to have all a logical order of the components were you can see with "one look" which components are there

3) what I am missing (but its really just a minor point) is a "total TN-Mineral cost" .. I would add a line between Gallicite and Wealth with the total mineral costs

1) If you click on a line, the whole line is highlighted.

2) Display order is based on the Sort options at the bottom.

3) Good idea. I'll add that.
The following users thanked this post: DIT_grue

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes List
« on: March 13, 2018, 02:39:46 PM »
Ship Class Components View

The components view has been expanded considerably for C# Aurora.

The tab still has the functionality from VB6, showing the component breakdown by Amount, Size, Cost, Crew and HTK. To that has been added ordnance loadout, fuel and maintenance supplies, plus a breakdown of minerals and wealth. The mineral and wealth breakdown takes into account the mineral requirement and/or cost for the full loadout of fuel, maintenance and ordnance, so you can see the full cost of the design

Two new columns have been added which replace the damage allocation chart from VB6. Instead, this is the percentage chance that a component of the specified type will be selected for internal damage. E-DAC is for weapons that only target electronics.

The following users thanked this post: Tristitan, Rye123, lordcirth

C# Aurora / Re: Magazine Explosions
« on: March 13, 2018, 07:11:31 AM »
All changes from VB6 to C#, with the exception of maintenance changes favour smaller vessels.

Based on that statement, I wondered if I had unconsciously favoured smaller ships so I ran through the changes list: The following favour larger ships:

Command & Control:
Power Plants:
Maintenance Changes:

You could also argue the New Sensor Model makes small ships harder to employ as they can be detected more easily by smaller sensors.

The missile changes favour larger missiles and launchers, although you could mount those on smaller ships.

I didn't really find anything that favoured smaller ships (my intention with C# is the opposite).
The following users thanked this post: Graham

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: March 12, 2018, 11:34:52 AM »
I don't mind as long as whatever option chose for auto-fire is really, really obvious. Trying to get defensive fire to work is already very challenging for new players (and I suspect many less new players as well). And I think its somewhat counter-intuitive that setting a fire-control to "area defensive fire" won't necessarily result in it firing.

Maybe the new interface could make some use of colour to help this? Maybe green for fire controls that have everything turned on so that they will autofire? Red for "offline" controls with no target/cease fire orders.

I could also use colour coding for weapons being correctly assigned to fire controls, something that is easy to miss with big ships.

C# Fire controls currently are green when off and orange when active.
The following users thanked this post: TCD

C# Aurora / Re: Magazine Explosions
« on: March 12, 2018, 11:32:59 AM »
Really interesting responses.

I was assuming that I should err on the side of caution when assigning magazine damage to missiles and the most effective way to do that is assume empty is hit first.

I am quite happy to go for a proportional damage option, although that means a higher promotion of catastrophic magazine hits. If we go down that route:

1) For magazines, that means a magazine hit would destroy a proportion of missiles equal to the proportion of remaining magazine capacity being hit (assuming ejection fails)
2) For box launchers, the chance of destroying a missile would be equal to the (number of launchers with missiles / total missiles).

Is that a preferred option?
The following users thanked this post: serger

C# Aurora / Re: Magazine Explosions
« on: March 12, 2018, 06:00:20 AM »
How does this work with box launchers? If you have fired off a couple, or just left a couple empty, no detonation? How about mixed box launchers and magazines?

The damage allocation assumes that empty box launchers are hit first.

All possible magazine capacity, including box launchers and normal launchers, is added together. Only missiles that exceed that combined capacity can explode.
The following users thanked this post: Erik Luken

C# Aurora / Re: Magazine Explosions
« on: March 12, 2018, 05:58:07 AM »
Please add some sort of capability to create separate magazines. If the fore magazine blows, there is no guarantee the aft one will (unless there is too much damage).

All the magazines are treated separately. If you have five magazines and one is hit, only that magazine explodes. Even then, it will only explode if there are more missiles than the other four magazines can hold and the explosion will only be for those missiles that don't fit on the other magazines.
The following users thanked this post: Erik Luken

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28