Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 187564 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline froggiest1982

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • f
  • Posts: 51
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2115 on: January 12, 2019, 12:52:06 AM »
Quote from: Garfunkel link=topic=8497. msg112074#msg112074 date=1547257402
Are you playing with real stars on? You won't find nebulae if you do.  Nor black holes.

I am, so that would explain it.  Thanks for the info, I didn't realize real stars precluded nebulae and black holes.  A shame, as they would both add intriguing obstacles for strategic considerations.

They do.

Whereas -- in my opinion -- real stars adds nothing, save confusion as one tries to remember whether that was Wolf 352 or Wolf 359, Gliese 114 or Gliese 141.  It appears that everyone renames discovered/settled systems by naming theme anyway.

I agree, I personally have a preferred star system naming method, where the not important systems are named based on the number of jumps from Sol and where I set it on the map (or closest Developed System later on). So I have Sol then Nsol101, Ssol101 etc.. in this way when I have to set up routes I just need to remember the 3 or 4 critical Systems and work my way back to Zero.
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1872
  • Thanked: 84 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2116 on: January 12, 2019, 01:08:13 AM »
I prefer to keep the real stars name, real star names hold sentimental value to me, even if its 'just another wolf system" . Of course the inhabited planets do get to be named by the colonists after a time.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline Kurt

  • Global Moderator
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
  • Thanked: 351 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2117 on: January 12, 2019, 08:07:01 AM »
I prefer to keep the real stars name, real star names hold sentimental value to me, even if its 'just another wolf system" . Of course the inhabited planets do get to be named by the colonists after a time.

I do too, for the same reason.  In my current campaign I screwed up during the setup phase and deselected "Real Stars".  By the time I realized that it was too late to fix it, so I've run with what I picked.  The "San Francisco" system doesn't have the same ring as the Arcturus system, though. 

Kurt
 

Offline Jovus

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • J
  • Posts: 128
  • Thanked: 31 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2118 on: January 12, 2019, 10:29:42 AM »
To that end, I wish there were an option like 'restrictive real stars' so that you would get 'classic' real stars - like those visible in antiquity, or in the very first sets of star catalogues' instead of, for example, WISE 1043-089 or whatever. There should be more than enough of these 'classic' real stars for your typical game of Aurora.
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1105
  • Thanked: 103 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2119 on: January 12, 2019, 11:08:50 AM »
To that end, I wish there were an option like 'restrictive real stars' so that you would get 'classic' real stars - like those visible in antiquity, or in the very first sets of star catalogues' instead of, for example, WISE 1043-089 or whatever. There should be more than enough of these 'classic' real stars for your typical game of Aurora.

Which would be 'Real Stars' off and then 'Classic Stars' for the system naming theme.*


*I don't think there is a 'Classic Stars' system naming theme in base Aurora, but at least one person has created one for their game.
 
The following users thanked this post: Jovus

Offline Tree

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 106
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2120 on: January 12, 2019, 11:49:18 AM »
Can you still build components bigger than 500 tons on the ground? The lore says ships bigger than that can't handle the aetheric currents, so how does a sub-500 tons shuttle handle taking a 2500 tons engine from my factories to the orbital yard?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7631
  • Thanked: 3427 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2121 on: January 12, 2019, 12:30:54 PM »
Can you still build components bigger than 500 tons on the ground? The lore says ships bigger than that can't handle the aetheric currents, so how does a sub-500 tons shuttle handle taking a 2500 tons engine from my factories to the orbital yard?

Maybe the engine itself is assembled in orbit.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1178
  • Thanked: 115 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2122 on: January 12, 2019, 03:23:28 PM »
Perhaps you have multiple shuttles working together to lift heavy cargo to orbit.

Only your imagination (or the self-imposed rules of your story) are the limit here.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Captain
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 406
  • Thanked: 33 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2123 on: January 12, 2019, 05:16:48 PM »
Can you still build components bigger than 500 tons on the ground? The lore says ships bigger than that can't handle the aetheric currents, so how does a sub-500 tons shuttle handle taking a 2500 tons engine from my factories to the orbital yard?

There's plenty of preparatory work that can be done on the ground. Having that 2500 ton engine built in the shipyard means that the shipyard has to haul up all the materials, smelt and shape them and then fit them together. If you have your construction factories do the work most of the components will be prefabricated on the ground and shipped to the shipyard, where the only thing the shipyard will need to do is put them together in the mountings.

Or, you know, it's not an actual 2500 ton engine but a 2500 ton engine array made up of multiple 500 ton or less engines that can be hauled up, making use of part commonality and carefully calibrated exploitation of Aetheric physics to gain that wonderful fuel efficiency boost. Unfortunately, while it means that they're also rather resistant to damage as a side effect, if one of the engines goes, the rest of them also get destroyed in sympathetic detonations and other stresses that they're unable to cope with as a result of the compromises that were struck for that efficiency boost.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 992
  • Thanked: 74 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2124 on: January 12, 2019, 05:20:40 PM »
Can you still build components bigger than 500 tons on the ground? The lore says ships bigger than that can't handle the aetheric currents, so how does a sub-500 tons shuttle handle taking a 2500 tons engine from my factories to the orbital yard?

Maybe the engine itself is assembled in orbit.

I agree...

If we look at modern techniques at building large structures it makes sense that you build things modular and assemble them at the final destination. You do this with most structures and large vehicles/vessels today. I don't see why they would not do that in the future as well.

Modular construction is very effective and also good for upgrading, replacement, maintenance and repair etc...

I also think it is quite likely you have some sort of space lift capacity where you use a combination of anti-gravity and typical space lift technologies to get most stuff into orbit.

There can also be a combination of anti-gravity devices and strong tractor beams on the orbital space stations to act as space lifts or some such.

But I still think you bring up large pieces such as engines and other components broken down into modules.
 

Offline drejr

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • d
  • Posts: 62
  • Thanked: 10 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2125 on: January 13, 2019, 01:02:40 AM »
Linguist (of sorts) here: The -ium suffix in an element name would replace the -us declension. For example, it's uranium, not uranusium. Frigium and aestium would sound more natural.

This is true. Also aestas usually refers to intense heat, either fire itself or boiling.

Maybe Greek would be more elegant: thermogen and cyrogen gasses.
 

Offline Desdinova

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • D
  • Posts: 53
  • Thanked: 42 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2126 on: January 13, 2019, 03:28:00 AM »
Linguist (of sorts) here: The -ium suffix in an element name would replace the -us declension. For example, it's uranium, not uranusium. Frigium and aestium would sound more natural.

This is true. Also aestas usually refers to intense heat, either fire itself or boiling.

Maybe Greek would be more elegant: thermogen and cyrogen gasses.

I like thermogen/cryogen gas. If you want to stick to Latin roots, maybe use calor (warmth)? Calorium.
 

Offline Lornalt

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • L
  • Posts: 4
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2127 on: January 15, 2019, 09:28:35 AM »
Quote from: Jorgen_CAB link=topic=8497. msg112093#msg112093 date=1547335240
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=8497. msg112089#msg112089 date=1547317854
Quote from: Tree link=topic=8497. msg112088#msg112088 date=1547315358
Can you still build components bigger than 500 tons on the ground? The lore says ships bigger than that can't handle the aetheric currents, so how does a sub-500 tons shuttle handle taking a 2500 tons engine from my factories to the orbital yard?

Maybe the engine itself is assembled in orbit.

I agree. . .

If we look at modern techniques at building large structures it makes sense that you build things modular and assemble them at the final destination.  You do this with most structures and large vehicles/vessels today.  I don't see why they would not do that in the future as well.

Modular construction is very effective and also good for upgrading, replacement, maintenance and repair etc. . .

I also think it is quite likely you have some sort of space lift capacity where you use a combination of anti-gravity and typical space lift technologies to get most stuff into orbit.

There can also be a combination of anti-gravity devices and strong tractor beams on the orbital space stations to act as space lifts or some such.

But I still think you bring up large pieces such as engines and other components broken down into modules.

Hi There First post after lurking forever.

One thing I have to say about this is the point that manufacturing in space is going to be cheaper in space.  (500 tons in space is 500 tons you don't have to carry on earth damnit)

Simply sending the raw material up to space and building whatever up there (what do you mean I can throw this piece of metal across the room?) would be cost savings in itself.

While building in the module would make sense on earth (See Airbus 380) "now" it wouldn't make sense in space if you have all the facilities in space (see "what do you mean I can throw this block of engines over the other side of the earth")

Yup. . .  said my piece and just wanna say super excited for C#
 
The following users thanked this post: dag0net

Offline Hazard

  • Captain
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 406
  • Thanked: 33 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2128 on: January 15, 2019, 10:36:22 AM »
While true currently, TN economies will have both vastly more capable lift and vastly cheaper per weight lift than modern day Earth.

TransNewtonian physics are just crazy like that. I mean, you actually have to work to create a ship slower than 100 km/s in space, even with the lowest tech TN engine. Modern day physics can't get that fast because it's an insane speed, we simply lack the engines at this time to make that viable.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 992
  • Thanked: 74 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2129 on: January 15, 2019, 05:44:20 PM »
Quote from: Jorgen_CAB link=topic=8497. msg112093#msg112093 date=1547335240
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=8497. msg112089#msg112089 date=1547317854
Quote from: Tree link=topic=8497. msg112088#msg112088 date=1547315358
Can you still build components bigger than 500 tons on the ground? The lore says ships bigger than that can't handle the aetheric currents, so how does a sub-500 tons shuttle handle taking a 2500 tons engine from my factories to the orbital yard?

Maybe the engine itself is assembled in orbit.

I agree. . .

If we look at modern techniques at building large structures it makes sense that you build things modular and assemble them at the final destination.  You do this with most structures and large vehicles/vessels today.  I don't see why they would not do that in the future as well.

Modular construction is very effective and also good for upgrading, replacement, maintenance and repair etc. . .

I also think it is quite likely you have some sort of space lift capacity where you use a combination of anti-gravity and typical space lift technologies to get most stuff into orbit.

There can also be a combination of anti-gravity devices and strong tractor beams on the orbital space stations to act as space lifts or some such.

But I still think you bring up large pieces such as engines and other components broken down into modules.

Hi There First post after lurking forever.

One thing I have to say about this is the point that manufacturing in space is going to be cheaper in space.  (500 tons in space is 500 tons you don't have to carry on earth damnit)

Simply sending the raw material up to space and building whatever up there (what do you mean I can throw this piece of metal across the room?) would be cost savings in itself.

While building in the module would make sense on earth (See Airbus 380) "now" it wouldn't make sense in space if you have all the facilities in space (see "what do you mean I can throw this block of engines over the other side of the earth")

Yup. . .  said my piece and just wanna say super excited for C#


I agree with Hazard.

While true with modern day knowledge of physics since the energy it takes to launch something from earth into orbit is very expensive. But if the cost from hauling the thing from the surface to space is a minor one this is a moot point, we are after all talking about anti-gravity, tractor beams, space lift and the use of a "magical" trans Newtonian element to break the natural laws of physics. I would imagine the cost of lifting things up into space are roughly the same as transporting something in a shipping container and we do that for very little cost all around the Earth today.
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55