Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Questions  (Read 16541 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2726
  • Thanked: 64 times
C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« on: May 28, 2018, 10:55:35 AM »
Let's use this thread to ask simple questions about C# Aurora, so that:

1)  Important posts from Steve (like the recent progress update) don't get aged away so quickly by many tiny threads
2)  People can catch up in a single thread with the questions they missed - less clicking.
3)  The same question doesn't keep getting asked (in a new thread - see #1) over and over; people can review the thread before asking their own question.
4)  Steve can filter his attention by having all the questions in one place.  Note that he won't and shouldn't answer all of them - time he spends answering questions takes away from time coding :)

Please put still put suggestions in the suggestions thread; this is for questions that aren't suggestions.

Thanks!
John
« Last Edit: May 28, 2018, 10:57:29 AM by sloanjh »
 

Offline Odin

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • O
  • Posts: 33
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #1 on: May 28, 2018, 12:25:51 PM »
Will the game use more than one core?

How about GUI consistency?
Some numbers use a thousand separator, others not.
Part of the game use HS, other parts tons, distance is measured in "millions of km". Why not use the SI and its prefixes or even the scientific notation?

There will be the possibility to multiselection? In the current state i have to use an input recorder to do certain repetitive task, like converting 150 ground units in cadre, or adding slipways to multiple shipyard.
The atrocious GUI for the naval organization will be fixed?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7189
  • Thanked: 2231 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #2 on: May 28, 2018, 12:36:09 PM »
Will the game use more than one core?

How about GUI consistency?
Some numbers use a thousand separator, others not.
Part of the game use HS, other parts tons, distance is measured in "millions of km". Why not use the SI and its prefixes or even the scientific notation?

There will be the possibility to multiselection? In the current state i have to use an input recorder to do certain repetitive task, like converting 150 ground units in cadre, or adding slipways to multiple shipyard.
The atrocious GUI for the naval organization will be fixed?

At the moment, it doesn't use multiple cores. Much of Aurora is sequential, rather than concurrent, so the opportunity to take advantage of multiple cores or multi-threading is limited. However, if I find performance is a problem, I will spend some time on this area.

You can see the new GUI on the many screenshots available:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8455.0

Currently C# does use tons in some places and HS in others. I am leaning more towards displaying tons, but there would be a lot to change and the game itself is mainly based on HS.

Multi-selection will be possible in some circumstances. The naval organisation function in VB6 has been integrated into the new fleet window. See the changes list for details:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.0

In fact, I would recommend everyone to check the changes list and the screenshots, as they will answer many questions.
 
The following users thanked this post: waresky, Demonides, JacenHan, Odin

Offline MadHatter

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • M
  • Posts: 3
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2018, 01:33:35 PM »
Will C# Aurora have hyperdrive and laser warheads return? What will be the mechanics for each?
 
The following users thanked this post: papent

Offline Jovus

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • J
  • Posts: 87
  • Thanked: 13 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2018, 06:33:10 PM »
Will C# Aurora have hyperdrive and laser warheads return? What will be the mechanics for each?

Just FYI, but laser warheads currently work.

Or, well, they function.

What they do; laser warheads do not change the damage profile (penetration still goes by the square root of damage). Plus, usually, laser warheads will lower your damage, since damage is controlled by number of laser emitters, which is related to warhead msp by a simple formula I don't remember at the moment that usually ends up giving less damage output.

However, the one big advantage of laser warheads is their standoff range. Laser warheads detonate and apply damage from a distance away from the enemy ship dependent on your laser tech.

That said, I'm all for a C# redefinition that allows laser warheads to use the laser profile.
 
The following users thanked this post: MadHatter

Offline El Pip

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • E
  • Posts: 59
  • Thanked: 9 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2018, 06:05:05 AM »
Will C# Aurora have hyperdrive and laser warheads return? What will be the mechanics for each?

Just FYI, but laser warheads currently work.

Or, well, they function.

What they do; laser warheads do not change the damage profile (penetration still goes by the square root of damage). Plus, usually, laser warheads will lower your damage, since damage is controlled by number of laser emitters, which is related to warhead msp by a simple formula I don't remember at the moment that usually ends up giving less damage output.

However, the one big advantage of laser warheads is their standoff range. Laser warheads detonate and apply damage from a distance away from the enemy ship dependent on your laser tech.

That said, I'm all for a C# redefinition that allows laser warheads to use the laser profile.
I had laser warheads down as working like this;

Missile Warhead in MSP = No. Laser Heads

Each Laser head has strength = laser head tech level (so 2 for Soft Xray, higher later)

The Stand-off feature is either buggy or just doesn't work in the last version of VB Aurora.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7189
  • Thanked: 2231 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #6 on: May 31, 2018, 06:35:30 AM »
Will C# Aurora have hyperdrive and laser warheads return? What will be the mechanics for each?

Probably not hyper drive, but probably laser warheads, although not initially.

I will look at some other options but for travel to distant systems. I have been considering the option of player-created Lagrange points using jump gate construction ships - the task would be more difficult (longer) the greater the difference in mass of the target system body and the mass required for a natural Lagrange point. Changing jump gates to jump point stabilization would work well with this concept, because you would also stabilize potential Lagrange points that are below the normal threshold.

Using this methodology, it would become worth mounting long-term expeditions to distant stars.
 
The following users thanked this post: Zincat, papent, DIT_grue, MadHatter

Offline Zincat

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Z
  • Posts: 285
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #7 on: May 31, 2018, 06:54:41 AM »
Will C# Aurora have hyperdrive and laser warheads return? What will be the mechanics for each?

Probably not hyper drive, but probably laser warheads, although not initially.

I will look at some other options but for travel to distant systems. I have been considering the option of player-created Lagrange points using jump gate construction ships - the task would be more difficult (longer) the greater the difference in mass of the target system body and the mass required for a natural Lagrange point. Changing jump gates to jump point stabilization would work well with this concept, because you would also stabilize potential Lagrange points that are below the normal threshold.

Using this methodology, it would become worth mounting long-term expeditions to distant stars.

Player-created lagrange points sound great. It's so irritating when you have a system with a very distant star and multiple colonizable planets there. Who cares if the investment is large, the point is that it can be done. And so you're not stuck with a completely useless star system.

My personal opinion is that said artificial lagrange points should probably be built very close to the stars to be connected.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7189
  • Thanked: 2231 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #8 on: May 31, 2018, 09:44:24 AM »
Will C# Aurora have hyperdrive and laser warheads return? What will be the mechanics for each?

Probably not hyper drive, but probably laser warheads, although not initially.

I will look at some other options but for travel to distant systems. I have been considering the option of player-created Lagrange points using jump gate construction ships - the task would be more difficult (longer) the greater the difference in mass of the target system body and the mass required for a natural Lagrange point. Changing jump gates to jump point stabilization would work well with this concept, because you would also stabilize potential Lagrange points that are below the normal threshold.

Using this methodology, it would become worth mounting long-term expeditions to distant stars.

Player-created lagrange points sound great. It's so irritating when you have a system with a very distant star and multiple colonizable planets there. Who cares if the investment is large, the point is that it can be done. And so you're not stuck with a completely useless star system.

My personal opinion is that said artificial lagrange points should probably be built very close to the stars to be connected.

They will be easiest near large mass planets (smaller gas giants below the current mass requirements). I'll make the requirements exponentially more difficult for lower mass planets, but not impossible.
 

Offline Zincat

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Z
  • Posts: 285
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #9 on: May 31, 2018, 01:18:37 PM »
They will be easiest near large mass planets (smaller gas giants below the current mass requirements). I'll make the requirements exponentially more difficult for lower mass planets, but not impossible.

I was talking more of the starting point, rather than the arriving one.

My scenario here is: star A is near the center of the system (and so near the jump points), and has no planets.
Star B is the very distant companions, and has planets

Since star A has no planets, I'd make the lagrange point start off near the star itself.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commander
  • *********
  • H
  • Posts: 335
  • Thanked: 26 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #10 on: May 31, 2018, 02:12:20 PM »
That's not how Lagrange points work Zincat. It'd be easier to resolve by just not allowing the primary of star systems with multiple stars to be generated without at least 1 medium to high mass planet in orbit, unless the other star also has no planets.

Not entirely realistic, but at least in that case you can be fairly certain you can create a bridge between far outliers.
 

Offline Person012345

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 464
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #11 on: May 31, 2018, 04:22:13 PM »
It doesn't have to be absolutely guaranteed. At least imo. It's fine if this just majorly reduces the number of systems where this is a problem, rather than eliminates them altogether. If there are no planets around the A star then you're out of luck.
 

Offline Zincat

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Z
  • Posts: 285
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #12 on: May 31, 2018, 04:45:29 PM »
That's not how Lagrange points work Zincat. It'd be easier to resolve by just not allowing the primary of star systems with multiple stars to be generated without at least 1 medium to high mass planet in orbit, unless the other star also has no planets.

Not entirely realistic, but at least in that case you can be fairly certain you can create a bridge between far outliers.

I understand how Lagrange points work. But Steve proposed this method as a substitute to hyperdrive. And with hyperdrive you could always reach the distant star.

Frankly, I see this more as a sort of "in system stable jump point". I don't care about the "lagrange point" part at all.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2018, 04:49:02 PM by Zincat »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7189
  • Thanked: 2231 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #13 on: May 31, 2018, 06:13:25 PM »
That's not how Lagrange points work Zincat. It'd be easier to resolve by just not allowing the primary of star systems with multiple stars to be generated without at least 1 medium to high mass planet in orbit, unless the other star also has no planets.

Not entirely realistic, but at least in that case you can be fairly certain you can create a bridge between far outliers.

I understand how Lagrange points work. But Steve proposed this method as a substitute to hyperdrive. And with hyperdrive you could always reach the distant star.

Frankly, I see this more as a sort of "in system stable jump point". I don't care about the "lagrange point" part at all.

It will be a Lagrange point and it will have to be in the normal position, so it can use the existing mechanics. I don't want to add an entirely new type of system object. I will make some adjustments in system generation to ensure no useless distant stars.
 

Offline swarm_sadist

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • s
  • Posts: 215
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #14 on: May 31, 2018, 10:47:15 PM »
That's not how Lagrange points work Zincat. It'd be easier to resolve by just not allowing the primary of star systems with multiple stars to be generated without at least 1 medium to high mass planet in orbit, unless the other star also has no planets.

Not entirely realistic, but at least in that case you can be fairly certain you can create a bridge between far outliers.
Except there is a Lagrange point, L1 between star A and B. This point will be closer to the star with less mass. Make it so an LP can be built on the Barycenter of the two stars (towards the more massive star) and you have a makeshift highway for two stars without planets, without needing to force the algorithim.
 
The following users thanked this post: DIT_grue

 

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