Newtonian Aurora

[TheDeadlyShoe]

The way missiles can miss and come back around for annuva go gave me an idea.  What if missile control range was based on telemetry gadgetry on the missile?   So missiles would have a control range as well as a fuel range. This is more complicated, but it would mean ECM would actually work on missiles.    The additional tricksiness is that missiles could still seek enemies they have on sensors, even if they're outside control range.

Further thought: Maybe missiles could mount MFC-style 'lock on' sensors of their own, that get the 3x range bonus but need to have acquisition passed to them from the launching ship. I am not sure the numbers would work out on these to ever be effective tho.  Hmm...

(Admittedly, I was reviewing my designs recently and realized it was more efficient to mount bigger FCs on missile ships than to mount ECCM. lol.)

[bean]

The way missiles can miss and come back around for annuva go gave me an idea.

They really shouldn't.  A missile could theoretically turn around and come back, but if we assume that both passes are made at the same velocity, and the target is stationary (both might be incorrect, but not enough to invalidate the argument) then you only spent 1/3rd of your delta-V on the first pass.  That is not a good idea.  Spend something like 90%, saving the rest for maneuvering.
Edit:
Actually, this could happen if you're firing the missiles at very short range.  Given that surprise combat is unlikely, so is this case, but it could happen.  I'd recommend nukes, though.

And speaking of missiles, Steve, can you add a self-destruct switch for stages?  It's sort of annoying to have to manually clean up mines that have launched their payload.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

They really shouldn't.  A missile could theoretically turn around and come back, but if we assume that both passes are made at the same velocity, and the target is stationary (both might be incorrect, but not enough to invalidate the argument) then you only spent 1/3rd of your delta-V on the first pass.  That is not a good idea.  Spend something like 90%, saving the rest for maneuvering.
Edit:
Actually, this could happen if you're firing the missiles at very short range.  Given that surprise combat is unlikely, so is this case, but it could happen.  I'd recommend nukes, though.

And speaking of missiles, Steve, can you add a self-destruct switch for stages?  It's sort of annoying to have to manually clean up mines that have launched their payload.

It depends on range. You may not be far enough away from the target for a missile to use a large proportion of available deltaV before it arrives at the target, in which case it can turn around. Or the missile may start with a high speed due to the launching ship and cover the distance before using much fuel so again it may reverse course.

Steve

[chrislocke2000]

Just on setting the missile speed I assume this is just the max and not the target speed. Ie if you set top speed at 4000 but your ship is doing 5000 it's not going to immediately decelerate to 4000. (assuming on same bearing to target). Also if you are heading for your target in the above scenario, although the missile has capacity to burn up to 9000 it will stay at 5000 and hence you would have to break your ships to allow the missiles to gain distance.

Given the huge range of possible scenarios on what you want your missile to be doing, being able to set top speed outside of the initial design phase might become somewhat of a necessity.

[UnLimiTeD]

True, actually, you could give additional parameters on launch.

[Mel Vixen]

Steve i see how Nebulas and Normal Stars behave in Newtonian aurora but how will Black Holes work out? I guess the speed penalties will not realy work on a newtonian drive.

[PTTG]

Well, it could add a vector to all movement.

[Person012345]

Black holes actually don't have any stronger gravity outside of the diameter of the original star than the original star did. In fact, they usually have lower gravity since the star loses some of it's mass before collapsing. So if you're going for realism they wouldn't really have to do anything unless you got in really close. If you did that, then I imagine it could basically act as if a constant acceleration is being applied in the direction towards the black hole, depending on how close you are. So accelerating at the same speed in the other direction would keep you standing still.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Steve i see how Nebulas and Normal Stars behave in Newtonian aurora but how will Black Holes work out? I guess the speed penalties will not realy work on a newtonian drive.

For the moment, there are no Black Holes in Newtonian Aurora. In Standard Aurora, a ship can enter a BH system by accident and they can provide a terrain obstacle. Neither of those in true when you can see every system on the map.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Just on setting the missile speed I assume this is just the max and not the target speed. Ie if you set top speed at 4000 but your ship is doing 5000 it's not going to immediately decelerate to 4000. (assuming on same bearing to target). Also if you are heading for your target in the above scenario, although the missile has capacity to burn up to 9000 it will stay at 5000 and hence you would have to break your ships to allow the missiles to gain distance.

Given the huge range of possible scenarios on what you want your missile to be doing, being able to set top speed outside of the initial design phase might become somewhat of a necessity.

Yes, it is the max and not the target and yes you would have to decelerate or change course to allow the missile to pull away if you are already exceeding the max speed for the missile.

Steve

[Mormota]

I'd like to see ship designs themselves having to be researched. To me, it just doesn't make sense that while a missile, for example, needs to be designed, a huge warship with complex electronics and interior does not.

[UnLimiTeD]

Well, the shipyard has to be tooled for it.

As for BH, I'd like to point back to the suggestion that the star size increases the stability of jumps.
A singularity could have that kind of effect, it's likely an empty system, as such, it won't need to be surveyed.
Quite the opposite of what it does now.
Gravity shouldn't be a problem with the projected accelerations.

[Person012345]

Well, the shipyard has to be tooled for it.

As for BH, I'd like to point back to the suggestion that the star size increases the stability of jumps.
A singularity could have that kind of effect, it's likely an empty system, as such, it won't need to be surveyed.
Quite the opposite of what it does now.
Gravity shouldn't be a problem with the projected accelerations.

Also, btw, black holes are perfectly capable of supporting planetary systems.

[Mormota]

Yeah, but keep in mind that those planets would be damn cold, unless they have a heavy greenhouse atmosphere. Like, very heavy. Way above human tolerance, and if you try to decrease the atmospheric pressure, the planet will soon grow incredibly cold. There is no local star to heat it, remember.

[Person012345]

Yeah, but keep in mind that those planets would be damn cold, unless they have a heavy greenhouse atmosphere. Like, very heavy. Way above human tolerance, and if you try to decrease the atmospheric pressure, the planet will soon grow incredibly cold. There is no local star to heat it, remember.

Yep. Not saying they could be habitable (not sure how the colonising system works in Newt Aurora), but a black hole system would not necessarily need to be empty.