Narrowband Active Sensors

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Do NPR's currently use anti-fighter sensors?  After thinking about it I can't remember ever seeing a NPR with more then two active sensors, one for anti-ship and one for point defense.  I ask because I want the change to sensors so I don't feel like I'm cheating just because I use fighters/facs, but if NPR's don't even use the sensors then it does nothing for me.

There is an NPR design with a sensor intended to detect fighters but I don't know if I added it before I released v5.14

Steve

[Yonder]

Looks like I'm a little late to this discussion and a decision has already been pretty much made, but I'll still throw another idea out.

What if you gave corvette and fighter engines a big boost to their thermal signatures? That way the passive sensors on the fleet would have a much easier time picking up fighters before they came in close. This way you'd know they were there, you'd know where they were, and could then react accordingly in your fleet positioning. However you wouldn't be able to actually target and kill them from those farther ranges without the more expensive purpose built craft.

[sloanjh]

2) The formula for active sensor range changes to use the square root of the resolution rather than the resolution itself. So it would be: Range = SQRT(Resolution) x Strength x EM Sensitivity/10 x 10,000 km

LOL - This is exactly the change I thought of proposing a few days back.  I was going through the "Dangerous Waters" manual, (Modern Naval Warfare simulator from a few years back, with detailed sonar models) and was reminded that narrowband vs. broadband typically refers to passive systems, and it struck me that the original proposal seemed a bit excessive on the techno-babble front.  In my opinion, the problem you were trying to fix is that it requires 10x detector size to detect a target that's 10x smaller; going from linear to sqrt drops this to a roughly 3x ratio.

I take it back - I think this isn't where the sqrt should go (I didn't read/think about it carefully enough).  I think instead, the formula should be

Code: [Select]

Range = Resolution*Strength*(EM/10)*10Kkm*min(1, (Size/Resolution)^(3/2)), where Size is the target size.  This compares to the current (new) formula of

Code: [Select]

Range = sqrt(Resolution)*Strength*EM*10Kkm*min(1, (Size/Resolution)^2)).  The original formula was:

Code: [Select]

Range = Resolution*Strength*(EM/10)*10Kkm*min(1, (Size/Resolution)^2)).The difference in Resolution scaling between these is that the Range in current formula grows more slowly with resolution, but keeps the size/resolution penalty the same (which results in a 3/2 exponent in the penalty) while the proposal flattens out the penalty for increasing resolution, resulting in a (1/2) exponent in the penalty - the original behavior was linear, i.e. an exponent of 1.  In other words, the new formula has made it more difficult (quadratic growth rather than linear) to make long-range sensors for detecting large ships, and  offsets/hides this by adding a factor of 10x to the range.  Arguably it makes things worse: consider a sensor with a resolution of 10 which detects size 10 targets at 10Mkm.  With the original formula, if I made the resolution 40 (4x), then the max range would go up by 4x, but the size-10 penalty would be (10/40)^2 = 1/16, for an overall drop in size-10 range of 1/4 to 2.5Mkm.  This is a linear penalty (1/Resolution) for a fixed-size sensor detecting a small target as the resolution increases.  With the new formula, resolution 40 would only have 2x the max range, but the size-10 penalty would remain at 1/16 - in this case the size-10 range would be 1/8 or 1.25Mkm.  This is a penalty of (1/Resolution)^(3/2), which is worse than the original formula.  With the proposed formula, the max range would be 4x as large (as with the original), but the size-10 penalty would be (10/40)^(3/2) = 1/8; the max range would be unchanged (from the original formula), while the drop in size-10 range would be 1/2 to 5Mkm.  This is a penalty of sqrt(1/Resolution), which is a flatter curve, which what I thought was intended.

Sporry I didn't realize this sooner....

John

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

My intention for the change was to increase the overall range of low resolution sensors and decrease the max range of very high resolution sensors (with resolution 100 remaining the same) while retaining the drop off for detecting objects smaller than your resolution. I wasn't trying to decrease the penalty for detecting small objects for higher resolution sensors, which I think is what your proposal would do if I understand the figures (which isn't necessarily a given . I was trying to allow the creation of sensors that could detect smaller objects at a greater range than the same size (and tech) sensor in the previous version while still requiring ship designers to think carefully about their sensor resolution. I think I have achieved that objective, or at least it feels like it within my own campaign.

Steve

[sloanjh]

My intention for the change was to increase the overall range of low resolution sensors and decrease the max range of very high resolution sensors (with resolution 100 remaining the same) while retaining the drop off for detecting objects smaller than your resolution. I wasn't trying to decrease the penalty for detecting small objects for higher resolution sensors, which I think is what your proposal would do if I understand the figures (which isn't necessarily a given . I was trying to allow the creation of sensors that could detect smaller objects at a greater range than the same size (and tech) sensor in the previous version while still requiring ship designers to think carefully about their sensor resolution. I think I have achieved that objective, or at least it feels like it within my own campaign.

Steve

Yep - you understood the figures correctly :-)  I hadn't realized that was your goal - what you describe is (almost) what the current formula does, as far as I can tell.  The "almost" is because the penalty, at fixed sensor size, for detecting small objects as the resolution increases has actually gotten worse - it used to be a linear penalty; now it's a sqrt worse (i.e. 3/2 exponent rather than 1 exponent).

If you wanted to go back to the original penalty (max range vs. resolution, for fixed target and sensor size, goes like 1/Resolution), then I think the thing to do is to keep the sqrt(Resolution) in the max range, but change the drop-off to a 3/2 power as well.  This formula would be:

Code: [Select]

Range = sqrt(Resolution)*Strength*EM*10Kkm*min(1, (Size/Resolution)^(3/2)).
This flattens the drop-off curve, but in such a way as to compensate for the overall reduced range for large targets.  With this formula, doubling the resolution cuts the range for small targets by a factor of 2, and increases the range for large targets by a factor of sqrt(2) - the current formula cuts the range for small targets by 2*sqrt(2) and increases the range for large targets by sqrt(2) (the same).  The original formula cut the small-target range by 2 and increased the large target range by 2 as well.

I would prefer the latest formula proposal, but at the end of the day it's your game (and work) so your decision :-)

Best,
John

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Yep - you understood the figures correctly :-)  I hadn't realized that was your goal - what you describe is (almost) what the current formula does, as far as I can tell.  The "almost" is because the penalty, at fixed sensor size, for detecting small objects as the resolution increases has actually gotten worse - it used to be a linear penalty; now it's a sqrt worse (i.e. 3/2 exponent rather than 1 exponent).

If you wanted to go back to the original penalty (max range vs. resolution, for fixed target and sensor size, goes like 1/Resolution), then I think the thing to do is to keep the sqrt(Resolution) in the max range, but change the drop-off to a 3/2 power as well.  This formula would be:

Code: [Select]

Range = sqrt(Resolution)*Strength*EM*10Kkm*min(1, (Size/Resolution)^(3/2)).
This flattens the drop-off curve, but in such a way as to compensate for the overall reduced range for large targets.  With this formula, doubling the resolution cuts the range for small targets by a factor of 2, and increases the range for large targets by a factor of sqrt(2) - the current formula cuts the range for small targets by 2*sqrt(2) and increases the range for large targets by sqrt(2) (the same).  The original formula cut the small-target range by 2 and increased the large target range by 2 as well.

I would prefer the latest formula proposal, but at the end of the day it's your game (and work) so your decision :-)

I think this is something I going to have to study when I am less tired and then get back to you . I have been playing with Visual Basic 2010 today and it has been both enlightening and frustrating. There is definitely no way to upgrade Aurora without effectively rewriting it. They are barely the same language. Its also surprising that several useful features in VB6 are not even in VB2010. On the other hand, if I start a new project I will write it in VB2010 because it is far more OO-friendly and obviously will be supported for a lot longer. I have also been looking at SQL Server 2008 but I think it is over-complicated for what I need.

Steve

[sloanjh]

I think this is something I going to have to study when I am less tired and then get back to you . I have been playing with Visual Basic 2010 today and it has been both enlightening and frustrating. There is definitely no way to upgrade Aurora without effectively rewriting it. They are barely the same language. Its also surprising that several useful features in VB6 are not even in VB2010. On the other hand, if I start a new project I will write it in VB2010 because it is far more OO-friendly and obviously will be supported for a lot longer. I have also been looking at SQL Server 2008 but I think it is over-complicated for what I need.

Steve

That's fine with me - rest is good :-)  Like I said, sorry I didn't realize all this before you coded it up - I'm mainly trying to plant the seed right now....

On VB2010, Joel On Software (a collection of blogs from a very insightful guy) characterizes the various .NET languages as being different syntactic sugar (my name) on top of the same underlying language.  This is accurate - what they've done is added language extensions to the various languages to essentially let you write C# (which is a truly excellent language) in those languages.  If you go to a .NET language, you might be better off simply biting the bullet and learning C# - after all, didn't SA start out as your toy to learn VB? :-)

John

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

That's fine with me - rest is good :-)  Like I said, sorry I didn't realize all this before you coded it up - I'm mainly trying to plant the seed right now....

On VB2010, Joel On Software (a collection of blogs from a very insightful guy) characterizes the various .NET languages as being different syntactic sugar (my name) on top of the same underlying language.  This is accurate - what they've done is added language extensions to the various languages to essentially let you write C# (which is a truly excellent language) in those languages.  If you go to a .NET language, you might be better off simply biting the bullet and learning C# - after all, didn't SA start out as your toy to learn VB? :-)

Yes, you are probably right. Many years ago I was a commercial C++ programmer (in Windows 3.1 !!) so C# is probably going back to my roots. I'll download the Express version and take a look.

Steve

[Beersatron]

I use SQL 2000, 2005 and recently 2008 for work, 2005 is definitely better than 2000 but I haven't had a chance to do anything new in 2008 yet.

In saying that, you'd need a licence to package SQL Server methinks?

[UnLimiTeD]

So, does that mean that Aurora will eventually be rewritten? Or will it just die in favor of something new?

As for the resolutions, what is it with R100?
I mean, I hardly EVER see a ship of that size, every reasonable precursor is at least 120, and I find resolutions below 150 for sensors to be a waste of range.
All the recent change did for me is that my sensor Ships now need an additional 10 HS of sensor, because the long range sensor is way less long ranged, and missiles now require me to have a 10 HS R1 sensor to detect at reasonable ranges, where before a 4 HS R0 would do.
Which obviously means I can't pack Anti-Missile Sensors on my Anti-Missile Escorts anymore.

Still, I weirdly like the change, makes it more expensive to detect anything. Recon becomes more challenging.

[Charlie Beeler]

Yes, you are probably right. Many years ago I was a commercial C++ programmer (in Windows 3.1 !!) so C# is probably going back to my roots. I'll download the Express version and take a look.

Steve

Keep this in mind.  C# is not a derivitive of C or C++.  It's Microsoft's version (ripoff from some points of view) of Sun's JAVA. 

[Erik L]

I use SQL 2000, 2005 and recently 2008 for work, 2005 is definitely better than 2000 but I haven't had a chance to do anything new in 2008 yet.

In saying that, you'd need a licence to package SQL Server methinks?

Actually in VS2005+ there is a desktop version of SQL Server called SQL Express. This can be distributed with apps.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

So, does that mean that Aurora will eventually be rewritten? Or will it just die in favor of something new?

The most likely outcome is that it will continue to be developed in VB6 and I will eventually create a different type of game in C#.

As for the resolutions, what is it with R100?
I mean, I hardly EVER see a ship of that size, every reasonable precursor is at least 120, and I find resolutions below 150 for sensors to be a waste of range.
All the recent change did for me is that my sensor Ships now need an additional 10 HS of sensor, because the long range sensor is way less long ranged, and missiles now require me to have a 10 HS R1 sensor to detect at reasonable ranges, where before a 4 HS R0 would do.
Which obviously means I can't pack Anti-Missile Sensors on my Anti-Missile Escorts anymore.

Anti-missile sensors are actually slightly better with the changes, especially against missiles larger than size 6. Longer range sensors above resolution 100 are slightly worse but that is working as intended.

Steve

[UnLimiTeD]

I currently have a game (my AAR) with all research 5k, with active sensor tech 2 levels higher, and I need a size 6 Sensor to find enemy missiles at roughly 300k, while my Anti-Missiles have a million range.
Suffice to say, this makes it impossible for me to Anti-Missile Sensors on my Anti-Missile Escorts, so I need a dedicated sensor ship for it.
Btw, I've never ever had an NPR, precursors, or anythign else really fire missiles or >size 6 at me.

I now need a size 50 Fleet Scout Sensor for good sensor coverage instead of the size 30, so "slightly worse" is a drastic understatement, while I still need a fightersensor of nearly the same size to have any chance to detect them at a good distance; Dectection kinda just became harder across the board. R100 is just a retarded resolution, who builds ships of 5000 tons? I've yet to see any.

But as said, I like the changes. More challenging to get good recon now. On the other hand, Cloaking is likely less efficient, but I've yet to test that.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I currently have a game (my AAR) with all research 5k, with active sensor tech 2 levels higher, and I need a size 6 Sensor to find enemy missiles at roughly 300k, while my Anti-Missiles have a million range.
Suffice to say, this makes it impossible for me to Anti-Missile Sensors on my Anti-Missile Escorts, so I need a dedicated sensor ship for it.
Btw, I've never ever had an NPR, precursors, or anythign else really fire missiles or >size 6 at me.

I now need a size 50 Fleet Scout Sensor for good sensor coverage instead of the size 30, so "slightly worse" is a drastic understatement, while I still need a fightersensor of nearly the same size to have any chance to detect them at a good distance; Dectection kinda just became harder across the board. R100 is just a retarded resolution, who builds ships of 5000 tons? I've yet to see any.

But as said, I like the changes. More challenging to get good recon now. On the other hand, Cloaking is likely less efficient, but I've yet to test that.

Using Active Sensor Strength 21 and EM Sensitivity 8, this is a size six, resolution 1 sensor. It has a base range of 10 million kilometers. Against a size 6 or less missile target, the detection range is still greater than a million kilometers. I am not sure why your sensors have such short range. Could you post an example of the 6HS sensor with the 300k range?

Test Sensor
Active Sensor Strength: 126   Sensitivity Modifier: 80%
Sensor Size: 6 HS    Sensor HTK: 1
Resolution: 1    Maximum Range vs 50 ton object (or larger): 10,080,000 km
Range vs Size 6 Missile (or smaller): 1,097,712 km
Range vs Size 8 Missile: 1,612,800 km
Range vs Size 12 Missile: 3,628,800 km
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 100%
Cost: 126    Crew: 30
Materials Required: 31.5x Duranium  94.5x Uridium
Development Cost for Project: 1260RP