Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
C# Aurora / Re: Decoys
« Last post by Rich.h on Today at 05:03:07 PM »
Just as a quick and dirty method for this. Could you implement a robotic ship component, this would function by simply applying either a reduction to the number of crew required, or function by generating crew amounts based on it's size as per fuel tanks etc (though it would then only offer numbers in stepped increments). This part allows to you have a functioning "drone" ship to use. Secondly have a tech line of components that generate both TH & EM, allow the tech line to do similar to engines do, but working by generating larger amounts of TH/EM per HS as the tech advances.

Put together you get yourself a small drone vessel you can launch to flare up like a big target, then control it with standard movement orders. Obviously these ideas are open to abuse but then there are easier ways to "cheat" if someone really wants to.
2
C# Aurora / Re: Decoys
« Last post by Father Tim on Today at 04:58:40 PM »
Quote from: Alucard on Today at 04:17:44 PM
Could we get decoys for missiles, that would generate heat/EM to confuse enemy sensors? Would this be too hard to code? Event if in flight missiles do not ever retarget, it would be nice to be able to confuse new missiles and generally enemy groups.

How would this be different from missiles with no warheads?  Or do you mean missiles that put out enough EM or Thermal radiation to appear to be ships?  (In which case, there would need to be a way to specify exactly the output desired, or one risks having to choose between signature 268 and signature 262 decoys, when one fields signature 264 ships.)
3
C# Aurora / Re: No Thermal when Stationary
« Last post by Alucard on Today at 04:30:41 PM »
Quote from: gbpfan12 on Today at 03:17:08 PM
Number 2
Fits with real thermodynamics better.
I kind of disagree. I just can't see the few degrees kelvin being detectable from thousands of kilometers. It also punishes large ships for no particular reason, as having one big ship or 10 small ones should be simillar for detection, when the heat is spread out (larger hull), not concentrated around engines...
4
C# Aurora / Re: Decoys
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Today at 04:25:04 PM »
Quote from: Alucard on Today at 04:17:44 PM
Could we get decoys for missiles, that would generate heat/EM to confuse enemy sensors? Would this be too hard to code? Event if in flight missiles do not ever retarget, it would be nice to be able to confuse new missiles and generally enemy groups.

I've been planning something on these lines for years :)

I will get around to it at some point.
5
C# Aurora / Re: No Thermal when Stationary
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Today at 04:24:24 PM »
Quote from: froggiest1982 on Today at 04:01:41 PM
Quote from: jonw on Today at 03:36:25 PM
No 2, it means a thermal sensor will always be able to detect SOMETHING, you're not totally blind - but also seems largely consistent with actual physics

Also, good shout - this has always bothered me!

This is a tough one. As I agree with the quote I also understand the mechanism Steve is trying to implement. Question: wouldn't be then better have a way to switch off the ship? This could have a button same to the active sensor. To get on again you could suffer a jump shock alike penalty which depends on training crew etc. This should impact only thermal and EM as I don't like mothballing features to be back again.

You can already 'switch off' the ship by using the 'Picket 1 km/s' order. This is to avoid having to do that every time you end your orders.
6
C# Aurora / Re: No Thermal when Stationary
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Today at 04:23:09 PM »
Quote from: Alucard on Today at 04:03:00 PM
I also vote for #1. I don't think the passive heat helps in any way. If anything, it would be more interesting if the change was not instant but it cooled gradually. That would presumably be a lot harder to code.

Then again, something like:
current_temp += (calc_temp() - current_temp) / 100.0;

This would make a residual heat be present until it disappears with rounding errors and would prevent just stoping to disapper suddenly and shake heat-seeking missiles...

Yes, I considered residual heat but decided it would be a pain to code :) and only make a difference on very rare occasions.
7
C# Aurora / Re: No Thermal when Stationary
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Today at 04:22:00 PM »
Quote from: Father Tim on Today at 03:29:08 PM
I'm assuming Option 2 also includes the "otherwise, the signature is (current speed / max speed) * max thermal signature" part?  That we're only debating how to handle non-moving ships?

I would prefer the second.  I would also prefer that unloading/refueling/etc. ships also have a reduced thermal signature, since due to my reliance on cycling orders my freighters & colony ships will always have a 'Move to (at max speed)' order queued.

Yes, that is for non-moving, although I would code it so that very slow-moving ships would not drop below their 'base thermal signature'.
8
C# Aurora / Re: No Thermal when Stationary
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Today at 04:20:56 PM »
Quote from: Tree on Today at 03:52:46 PM
I'm all for 2.
Doesn't sound like those ships would be all that much easier to detect than the occasional DSTS or other small base, that's fine.

But oh wait, does this mean orbital platforms will have a heat signature too now? That's even better.

Yes re orbital platforms.
9
C# Aurora / Decoys
« Last post by Alucard on Today at 04:17:44 PM »
Could we get decoys for missiles, that would generate heat/EM to confuse enemy sensors? Would this be too hard to code? Event if in flight missiles do not ever retarget, it would be nice to be able to confuse new missiles and generally enemy groups.
10
C# Aurora / How are Active Sensor EM emmisions calculated?
« Last post by Alucard on Today at 04:15:33 PM »
I can't really find how AS EM emmisions are calculated in C#. Seems it is based on strength and resolution. The emmisions seemd too low to me in 4x at high tech levels (should never be able to outrange a passive EM senser with an active one at the same tech level, which I think I was able to...). However, I just don't want to propose changes without understanding how it works now in the first place.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10