Author Topic: Newtonian Aurora  (Read 147031 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11695
  • Thanked: 20557 times
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #645 on: December 10, 2011, 11:27:49 AM »
Just spent 30 minutes going through the movement code looking for bugs as I noticed my two gravitational survey ships had stopped moving. Eventually I remembered that when I revised the engine tech, I deleted the old engines from every class and replaced them with updated versions. Except for the gravitational survey ships which for some reason I left with no engines at all :)

Steve
 

Offline PTTG

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 125
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #646 on: December 10, 2011, 11:48:11 AM »
You mentioned something about exhaust velocities recently, I don't remember where. Does this mean that engine techs will have progressively higher ev or is there a potential for some engines to have non-linear performance?

For instance, the ion drive could have very good "native" fuel efficiency (that is, even without researching the fuel line) while a nuclear pulse engine could have far greater actual output but worse efficiency.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11695
  • Thanked: 20557 times
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #647 on: December 10, 2011, 11:56:56 AM »
You mentioned something about exhaust velocities recently, I don't remember where. Does this mean that engine techs will have progressively higher ev or is there a potential for some engines to have non-linear performance?

For instance, the ion drive could have very good "native" fuel efficiency (that is, even without researching the fuel line) while a nuclear pulse engine could have far greater actual output but worse efficiency.

Exhaust velocities are taken into account by the fuel efficiency tech line. You can design engines with high thrust and low fuel efficiency or vice versa. The reason that exhaust velocities were mentioned is Yonder pointed out that the fuel efficiencies of the original engines were so good that their exhaust velocity exceeded the speed of light :). As this supposed to be a realistic physics game, I dropped the fuel efficiency considerably so that when you converted that to exhaust velocity (which you can do because there is a way to calculate the specific impulse of Aurora engines), it was lower than the speed of light.

Steve
 

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 1108
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #648 on: December 10, 2011, 02:55:31 PM »
I think the suggestion would be more that as you research new technologies, sometimes they aren't plain better, they might be worse in one respect and better in two others.

As for BH systems, it can currently be assumed that a stellar black hole is created if a massive star blows up.
Thus, planets are possible, but a lot less likely than in a normal star system.
 

Offline Mel Vixen

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 315
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #649 on: December 10, 2011, 10:33:06 PM »
XD well it would be funny if a number of BH would stay hidden on the galactic map and you accidently jump into such a system because your ships where on a course that goes through the BH-system (or would pass the BH-system in a reasonable distance).
"Share and enjoy, journey to life with a plastic boy, or girl by your side, let your pal be your guide.  And when it brakes down or starts to annoy or grinds as it moves and gives you no joy cause its has eaten your hat and or had . . . "

- Damaged robot found on Sirius singing a flat 5th out of t
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #650 on: December 10, 2011, 11:23:13 PM »
It would be interesting if there was a particular NPR associated with black holes, or particular ruins in a rapid orbit.  Or you could have unique elements that could only be generated in orbit of black hole.  Could _make_ reasons to explore anomalies.
 

Offline Person012345

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 539
  • Thanked: 29 times
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #651 on: December 11, 2011, 04:03:10 AM »
A thought, will Newtonian Aurora feature Rogue planets?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11695
  • Thanked: 20557 times
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #652 on: December 11, 2011, 05:21:36 AM »
A thought, will Newtonian Aurora feature Rogue planets?

Not at the moment but a possibility for the future

Steve
 

Offline PTTG

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 125
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #653 on: December 13, 2011, 05:21:39 PM »
It occurs to me that we'll have a new problem- ships that run out of fuel on an "escape trajectory"- that is, ships that drift out of system. Will they eventually end up in a distant system? Be presumed lost? When? (any speed above ~42 Km/s will escape solar orbit)

Further, will there be any safety measures to prevent orders that might lead to that? It might be nice to be able to place a standing order on all ships to stop accelerating and break if relative velocity ever reaches remaining Delta-V.

Indeed, ordering a crew to ignore "red lining" might even require a morale roll.

On a related tangent, will ships have to decelerate when approaching planets? Certainly atmospheric breaking and gravitational breaking can do a lot, but if it's late game and a ship with no fuel tries to land at 0.23 C, I get the feeling there should be problems.

Beyond that, if you can stop instantly at a planet, then a ship in an asteroid belt has nearly twice the maneuverability of a similar ship outside of it- instead of decelerating, then accelerating the other way, the ship needs only adjust course to a nearby body, stop at it, then accelerate away.

All that said, gravitational flybys, braking, and slingshotting are an essential part of traditional space travel. It would be interesting to include it, though simplification would be required. Avoiding actually doing a lot of math, you could make a ship leave orbit with a certain percentage of its arrival velocity depending on the mass of the ship, the mass of the body, the arrival velocity, and perhaps pilot skill.

In such a system, a fighter swinging by Jupiter could come to a stop or get 1000% speed, while the death star might only gain or lose 1-2% of velocity swinging past an asteroid.
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #654 on: December 13, 2011, 06:23:49 PM »
Quote
Further, will there be any safety measures to prevent orders that might lead to that? It might be nice to be able to place a standing order on all ships to stop accelerating and break if relative velocity ever reaches remaining Delta-V.
I think orders will probably have to have rough fuel consumption estimations similar to current time estimations, with color coded warnings if they exceed 1/4, 1/2 or all remaining fuel. (1/4 = return voyage fuel).
 

Offline Yonder

  • Registered
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Y
  • Posts: 278
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #655 on: December 13, 2011, 10:06:06 PM »
Keep in mind that in some cases you will be able to mount rescue missions with Tugs and Tankers, though that may take months depending on the relative velocities.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11695
  • Thanked: 20557 times
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #656 on: December 14, 2011, 12:56:32 PM »
It occurs to me that we'll have a new problem- ships that run out of fuel on an "escape trajectory"- that is, ships that drift out of system. Will they eventually end up in a distant system? Be presumed lost? When? (any speed above ~42 Km/s will escape solar orbit)

They will remain in the same system on the same course. I might add some sub-light interstellar travel at some point but a ship at 1000 km/s would take well over a thousand years to reach the nearest star and that is assuming it was lucky enough to be on the correct course - which is highly unlikely - so it isn't an urgent need.

Quote
Further, will there be any safety measures to prevent orders that might lead to that? It might be nice to be able to place a standing order on all ships to stop accelerating and break if relative velocity ever reaches remaining Delta-V.

You can set a maximum speed for a fleet and it won't accelerate beyond that. That speed can be changed whenever you want. I believe tankers are going to be very common and ships accelerating beyond their ability to slow down without refuelling will not be an unusual situation. There will be special rules for underway replenishment in Newtonian Aurora, including fuel transfer rate, and there is a new tech line for a Fuel Transfer System, which will be useful for speeding up the fuel transfer speed from tankers. This is analagous to the technique used for modern naval underway replenishment. You will no longer be able to instantly transfer fuel between ships.

Quote
On a related tangent, will ships have to decelerate when approaching planets? Certainly atmospheric breaking and gravitational breaking can do a lot, but if it's late game and a ship with no fuel tries to land at 0.23 C, I get the feeling there should be problems.

They will absolutely have to slow down. This is a Newtonian game so ships will have to begin slowing a long way out from their destination. The movement code already has this built it so ships will automatically begin decelerating at the appropriate time based on their orders. However, they are allowed to enter orbit as long as they are moving at less than the escape velocity of the planet. So for Earth that would be about 11.2 km/s.

Quote
Beyond that, if you can stop instantly at a planet, then a ship in an asteroid belt has nearly twice the maneuverability of a similar ship outside of it- instead of decelerating, then accelerating the other way, the ship needs only adjust course to a nearby body, stop at it, then accelerate away.

There is no instant stopping.

Quote
All that said, gravitational flybys, braking, and slingshotting are an essential part of traditional space travel. It would be interesting to include it, though simplification would be required. Avoiding actually doing a lot of math, you could make a ship leave orbit with a certain percentage of its arrival velocity depending on the mass of the ship, the mass of the body, the arrival velocity, and perhaps pilot skill.

I will likely add some form of gravitational slingshot and aerobraking at some point, although in the latter case the ship will have to be designed appropriately.

Quote
In such a system, a fighter swinging by Jupiter could come to a stop or get 1000% speed, while the death star might only gain or lose 1-2% of velocity swinging past an asteroid.

The mass of a ship doesn't make any difference to its ability to gain velocity from a planet. Galileo proved this in 1589 :). The only difference is that Jupiter would slow down in its orbit a little more if the Death Star went by than it would due to a fighter.

Steve
« Last Edit: December 14, 2011, 01:07:24 PM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline PTTG

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 125
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #657 on: December 14, 2011, 01:35:55 PM »
Quote
Galileo proved this in 1589 Smiley.

I must have missed that copy of Discovery. I R Dum. Still, in-flight refueling sounds really exciting! I imagine it could be interesting in fighter combat, with them stopping, juicing up, and taking off again in tactically-relevant timespans.
 

Offline Yonder

  • Registered
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Y
  • Posts: 278
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #658 on: December 14, 2011, 05:16:20 PM »
Speaking of the sort of things fighters will replenish for, it looks like in the current weapon and energy system you'll have a lot of freedom in battery and generator sizes. Would it be possible to design fighters with tiny generators and large batteries?

That way they could fly out, fire several shots, and then return to the carrier ship and recharge?

Will carrier generators see Parasite batteries, and charge them if there is excess power? (Or even if there is not, if the priorities are set to favor parasites).

What about the other way? Can a fighter which is not being used transfer its power to the carrier? Perhaps while doing this the maintenance clock proceeds as normal?
 

Offline PTTG

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 125
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #659 on: December 14, 2011, 06:04:37 PM »
Are you thinking of ejectable "power cores" which are big generators with basic engines that can be released if damaged?