Author Topic: Pulsar 4X  (Read 33509 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Antagonist (OP)

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • *
  • A
  • Posts: 124
Re: Pulsar 4X
« Reply #90 on: October 04, 2012, 01:15:11 AM »
This stuff is fantastic Nathanh_!

I don't see anything here that takes advantage of special instructions we dont have in C#, so the algorithm should be portable with a minimum of effort.

Performance seems pretty decent too even if its a situation that would preferably never actually occur in normal gameplay.
 

Offline Nathan_

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Commodore
  • *
  • N
  • Posts: 701
Re: Pulsar 4X
« Reply #91 on: October 04, 2012, 05:49:39 PM »
If someone has more experience with multicore stuff the EM/Thermal/ACT detection routines can be split up for even more gain, they all run independent of each other. I think I might make sensor data persist for a second or so, but that won't be an option for a time scheme like Aurora, or XCOM(both are fairly similar). Also DSTS would have to be integrated into that, missiles have to be done, and best sensors could be sorted globally, but I don't think there'd be any difficulty there.
 

Offline sublight

  • Moderator
  • Captain
  • *****
  • s
  • Posts: 592
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: Pulsar 4X
« Reply #92 on: October 04, 2012, 07:12:55 PM »
I have multi-threading experience, but at the moment I'm tied up with making Pulsar Mac/Linux playable.

That reminds me: if anyone out there has free time and C# experience in Mac/Linux environments (especially mono) we could use another person working on solving cross-platform compatibility issues and testing.
 

Offline clement

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • *
  • c
  • Posts: 137
  • Thanked: 13 times
Re: Pulsar 4X
« Reply #93 on: October 04, 2012, 09:01:41 PM »
If someone has more experience with multicore stuff the EM/Thermal/ACT detection routines can be split up for even more gain, they all run independent of each other. I think I might make sensor data persist for a second or so, but that won't be an option for a time scheme like Aurora, or XCOM(both are fairly similar). Also DSTS would have to be integrated into that, missiles have to be done, and best sensors could be sorted globally, but I don't think there'd be any difficulty there.

In c# it is very easy to split the detection routines up into multiple threads by using either Parallel or Task from the System.Threading.Tasks Namespace.
 

Offline Elster

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Pulsar 4X
« Reply #94 on: October 25, 2012, 07:42:44 AM »
Hi, I'm also interested in helping developing Pulsar 4x.  I have some experience in Phyton and Open GL, and I already developed a 3D map of the nearest star systems using Python and OpenGl, that I use while I play Aurora.  It's still in an Alpha version, but you can rotate and zoom in and out.  To add new star systems you still have to do it by hand.  But I don't think it will be too much of a problem to use a plain text file with the coordinates and characteristics of the system, like the coordinates, size, type of star, or if the system belong to you or to another race.  Another thing that can be added could be the number of planets and the mineral resources or infrastructure if the system has them. 
I attach a pair of screenshots and the source code of the application in plain text.  To run it you need Python 2. 6, Open Gl, and PyOpenGl.

Also, I did this in python and Open GL I don't know how hard or convenient can it be to port that to C#.  But since this is just an ancillary application maybe It can be in Python.

Instructions:

To run the application download and install Python, Open GL and PyOpenGL. 

To rotate the map just click with the left mousebutton and move the mouse around.  To zoom in click with the middle mouse button and move the mouse, and to zoom out click with the left mousebutton and move the mouse.
 

Offline skeolan

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • s
  • Posts: 14
Re: Pulsar 4X
« Reply #95 on: January 28, 2013, 11:28:52 AM »
Aw man. I was lurking this project with interest. Don't tell me it's gone dark? :)
 

Offline sublight

  • Moderator
  • Captain
  • *****
  • s
  • Posts: 592
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: Pulsar 4X
« Reply #96 on: January 28, 2013, 11:59:16 AM »
Fear not, the project continues.  8)

A number of us, myself guiltily included, have taken unofficial leaves of absences for January: but most of the team has quietly continued to work in the background.
 

Offline sublight

  • Moderator
  • Captain
  • *****
  • s
  • Posts: 592
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: Pulsar 4X
« Reply #97 on: February 21, 2013, 08:55:46 PM »
Ok, I've heard a few hits that maybe, just maybe, we should update more.

So, here we go:

Pulsar4x Winter Update

Q: Is the project dead?
A: No. We've just finished a lot of the easy stuff and have been quietly digging into the harder stuff.

Q: Who is employee of the month?
A: Nathan_, for exceptional work coding ship classes and components.

Q: What is the biggest change that has happened this winter?
A: Added Classic Trans-Newtonian Rules

Q: What have you, Sublight, personally done?
A: Newtonian Rules, Mac/Linux User Interface, Public Relations
I've put off work on Newtonian ship design until Nathan finishes to make sure both have similar code interfaces to allow.

The Mac user interface development has stalled while I brush up on Cairo vector graphics. The OpenTK C# port of OpenGL was discovered to have major incompatibility problems across different platforms, so for now Pulsar4X is more or less Windows Only.

Q: Any more thoughts about 3-D planet maps?
A: Yes. We've decided it won't happen. Or at least, that won't happen in the Alpha, first Beta, or anytime soon. What we might do is go for 1-D planet maps.
Aurora (and Pulsar) are mostly about a vast 3-D volume abstracted down to a 2-D surface. By the same logic, a 2-D surface ought to be abstracted down to a 1-D line, possibly looped into a circle. A line for planets is simple enough to program and offers a tremendous improvement in relative spatial positioning over the existing 0-D single points. It's not what we dreamed of, but 1-D planets are simple enough for our existing team of 4-6 part time volunteer programers to finish.


Expect to see the Spring Progress Report sometime in May.
 

Offline interstellarshadow

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • i
  • Posts: 8
Re: Pulsar 4X
« Reply #98 on: March 13, 2013, 09:12:02 PM »
As I said on the ideas thread, I have been lurking for a while, and I would like to try and get involved on this, so I would be grateful if I could be added to the list of users on github.  My github username is interstellarshadow.
 

Offline Nathan_

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Commodore
  • *
  • N
  • Posts: 701
Re: Pulsar 4X
« Reply #99 on: March 15, 2013, 01:42:03 AM »
alright you should be added now, thanks to Antagonist I think. Do you use skype? we have a chat channel that we use for most things.
 

Offline 3_14159

  • Registered
  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 84
Re: Pulsar 4X
« Reply #100 on: April 02, 2013, 12:30:08 PM »
Alright, here's the comment to the Newtonian Combat:

Quote
I still haven't run through the battles involving the Rama cruisers, but my conclusions so far:
> Lasers are very good at point defense. Solid round rail-guns are very bad at point defense.
That's not really a surprise, I'd say.
Quote
> Having a higher acceleration may be of minimal use in strategic movement, but is a significant advantage when closing to direct fire weapon ranges.
> Direct fire weapon combat feels right.
That's great, and it looks like it from your descriptions.
Quote
> Missile combat mechanics feel like they need work.
Maybe, but maybe not. The problem with the missiles you used, as far as I can see, is that they're all only five tons - the equivalent of 2 MSPs of aurora. That means they're quite small. What could one do with quadrupling the size of missiles? Let's take, for example, the Killer ASM:
Quote
Killer Pumped-Laser ASM
Mass: 5 tons
Engine: 1x G.F. AMM-Standard   Warhead: 135 kTon Nuke
Starting_Accell: 3.0 m/s   DeltaV = 38.4 km/s, Reserve DV = 8.4 km/s
Max Burn Time: 2.8 hours
Proximity Detonation: 1.5k km      Damage at PDR: 0 MJ/m^2
Lasing Rods: 1       Rod Output: 708 MJ   Jitter    7 m/k km
Beam at PDR:   3m wide, 100 MJ/m^2
Quadrupling the size should leave us with something very much like this, probably even better:
Code: [Select]
Killer Mark II Pumped-Laser ASM
Mass: 20 tons
Engine: 4x G.F. AMM-Standard   Warhead: 540 kTon Nuke
Starting_Accell: 3.0 m/s   DeltaV = 38.4 km/s, Reserve DV = 8.4 km/s
Max Burn Time: 2.8 hours
Proximity Detonation: 1.5k km      Damage at PDR: 0 MJ/m^2
Lasing Rods: 1       Rod Output: 2832 MJ   Jitter    7 m/k km
Beam at PDR:   3m wide, 400 MJ/m^2
Still too easy to intercept, right? Well, that's not what I actually wanted. Instead, let's use the bigger size to increase the Proximity detonation range. In fact, to make this easier, let's quadruple it, too, leading to a proximity detonation range of 6k km:
Code: [Select]
Proximity Detonation: 6k km      Damage at PDR: 0 MJ/m^2
Lasing Rods: 1       Rod Output: 2832 MJ   Jitter    7 m/k km
Beam at PDR:   12m wide, 100 MJ/m^2
(I'm going with the idea that doubling the range doubles the beam width, too. I'm not sure about that, at the moment, and it changes quite a bit)
That would mean that the weapon detonates at 6k km, outside the point defense envelope of the Barbarians, inflicting 100MJ/m^2 over an are of 12m. While this would (I think) pretty much only boil the armor away, a third or fourth missile is basically guaranteed to hit components inside the ship, probably killing it. So, that should just be the end of that ;-)

Alternatively, implement the arbitrary fire delay as you said, but with a difference in hit probabilities: A given fire control needs to track its target to increase its hit percentage, this being an additional point of tech research and component building. Basically, when a FC has twenty seconds or so for tracking, it's basically guaranteed to hit the enemy - when it has to switch from missile to missile every four seconds, the shots are going to hit a lot less.
 

Offline Theeht

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • T
  • Posts: 26
Re: Pulsar 4X
« Reply #101 on: April 27, 2013, 05:29:28 PM »
From what I have seen the Newtonian combat stuff seems good, especially the beam stuff; hard to tell obviously but the larger missiles should be the solution.

Does Pulsar need any icons or similar done?  I have some experience with pixel art, and will in about 2 weeks have excessive amounts of time.
 

Offline sublight

  • Moderator
  • Captain
  • *****
  • s
  • Posts: 592
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: Pulsar 4X
« Reply #102 on: April 30, 2013, 06:12:08 AM »
Theeht, take a look at the UI Design and Suggestion thread.

LB did a great job earlier on designing a logo and application icon, but we still need button icons.

We are also looking into eventually replacing the generic dots on the system map with sprites or tactical display-like line art, but it might be a while before we finish the basic game play and start looking to upgrade graphics.
 

Offline Retropunch

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • R
  • Posts: 18
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: Pulsar 4X
« Reply #103 on: May 28, 2013, 10:18:08 AM »
Just created an account to say how extremely happy I am that this is being made.  I absolutely love Aurora, but it's unfortunately sometimes too unstable to play for long (well, by that I mean by about my fifth hour I'm starting to get tired of the slowdowns. . . ). 

Unfortunately I'm way to busy at the moment to do any proper C# coding or contribute much, but let me know if you'd like a website hosting or some testing!
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1242
  • Thanked: 154 times
Re: Pulsar 4X
« Reply #104 on: July 08, 2013, 08:43:19 AM »
Expect to see the Spring Progress Report sometime in May.
Time for a Spring (Summer) Update soon? :)

Also consider releasing an alpha if you guys want more feedback, suggestions and activity around here. I got experience in gametesting/modding/scripting and might be able to assist a bit.