Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 157329 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 277
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1500 on: February 22, 2018, 02:04:07 PM »
I mean, you realise the currently released version has auto-lagrange point stuff right?
 

Offline Bremen

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 424
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1501 on: February 22, 2018, 11:16:01 PM »
I look forward to watching someone's million ton fleet base explode when a few missiles slip past the defense platforms :p

Jokes aside, I think it's an awesome change. Was C# going to have the coding changed to allow for deep space production as well?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7234
  • Thanked: 2383 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1502 on: February 23, 2018, 04:42:47 AM »
I look forward to watching someone's million ton fleet base explode when a few missiles slip past the defense platforms :p

Jokes aside, I think it's an awesome change. Was C# going to have the coding changed to allow for deep space production as well?

Deep space maintenance / recreation, etc is possible. Not coded anything yet for factories, shipyards, etc. and probably won't for the first release. However, I have coded C# in such as a way that it will be possible to have populations away from system bodies in the future.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7234
  • Thanked: 2383 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1503 on: February 23, 2018, 10:29:21 AM »
I mean, you realise the currently released version has auto-lagrange point stuff right?

Yes, it does :)

Although in VB6, the program calculates the closest target item (system body, jump point, etc.) and then checks if the shortest route is via a Lagrange point. in C#, the program calculates the closest target item, taking into account any potential routes via a Lagrange point.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 277
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1504 on: February 23, 2018, 11:53:57 AM »
Oh okay, so somewhat upgraded then.  Nice.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 424
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1505 on: February 23, 2018, 02:23:13 PM »
Deep space maintenance / recreation, etc is possible. Not coded anything yet for factories, shipyards, etc. and probably won't for the first release. However, I have coded C# in such as a way that it will be possible to have populations away from system bodies in the future.

Good enough for me! Though I suspect if I build fleet bases I'll probably still do it in civilian shipyards so they can have a bit of armor, it's definitely a nice change for fuel harvesters and terraformers.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7234
  • Thanked: 2383 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1506 on: February 24, 2018, 05:07:56 AM »
Good enough for me! Though I suspect if I build fleet bases I'll probably still do it in civilian shipyards so they can have a bit of armor, it's definitely a nice change for fuel harvesters and terraformers.

Yes, will be interesting to see in which direction people go. I always like to have an engine on my asteroid miners, terraformers and harvesters so they can be self-mobile if needed. With the potential construction factory route they will be cheaper and easier to build, but immobile and very fragile.
 

Offline clement

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *
  • c
  • Posts: 97
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1507 on: February 24, 2018, 08:26:40 AM »
Will it be possible to refit a Space Station if it is at a population center that has construction capacity?

An example would be if you wanted to refit one after making improvements in CIWS technology.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7234
  • Thanked: 2383 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1508 on: February 24, 2018, 08:37:19 AM »
Will it be possible to refit a Space Station if it is at a population center that has construction capacity?

An example would be if you wanted to refit one after making improvements in CIWS technology.

Good question :)

At the moment no, although you could do it in a shipyard that was large enough.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commander
  • *********
  • H
  • Posts: 348
  • Thanked: 28 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1509 on: February 24, 2018, 09:18:30 AM »
Good question :)

At the moment no, although you could do it in a shipyard that was large enough.

In the same vein, could you decommission a space station without a shipyard?

And shipyards large enough to build a space station, even a civilian yard, would be rather expensive, might as well use it to build space stations. Retooling won't be cheap either, if you need to swap between terraformers, miners and fuel stations.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7234
  • Thanked: 2383 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1510 on: February 24, 2018, 10:27:13 AM »
Thinking further about the space station refits, it is probably fine if there is no refit. All space stations will be commercial and can't have engine or weapons, so there isn't much to refit apart from the example of CIWS.
 

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2730
  • Thanked: 66 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1511 on: February 24, 2018, 10:45:16 AM »
Thinking further about the space station refits, it is probably fine if there is no refit. All space stations will be commercial and can't have engine or weapons, so there isn't much to refit apart from the example of CIWS.

I think this discussion is touching on something that always confused me in StarFire: how to handle space station growth/refits.  IIRC, one could grow a space station by simply bolting an extra bit on to the design code, the theory being that space stations are modular and so you're just tacking another module on, but the exact mechanics of how to do so seemed a bit opaque. 

It feels like Aurora space stations have a similar issue: how does one manage going from a small station to total station capacity that's 10x bigger, especially if it's done in e.g. 5 increments?  Does one simply A) build 5 more individual stations, one for each increment?  Or does one B) expand the existing station?  "A" seems easiest to manage in terms of code complexity (since you're not doing any special-casing), while "B" seems easier (and more natural) to manage in terms of gameplay.  "B" seems like it's fraught with the possibility of (from a coding/special case perspective) turning into "the next PDC". 

I suspect the best thing to do is to roleplay a task group containing several space stations as really being a single station with multiple modules, which avoids the coding difficulties.  The question then becomes if this would have any weird gameplay effects.  One good side effect is that it would solve the refit problem - individual modules could be refit or de-constructed in facilities with a size capacity of a module (rather than the whole station).  A potential exploit would be to have a swarm of very tiny modules.

John

PS - Don't remember the details of Aurora space stations; apologies if there are already special case circumstances in place in the way they're built that makes the above discussion moot.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7234
  • Thanked: 2383 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1512 on: February 24, 2018, 11:08:03 AM »
I think this discussion is touching on something that always confused me in StarFire: how to handle space station growth/refits.  IIRC, one could grow a space station by simply bolting an extra bit on to the design code, the theory being that space stations are modular and so you're just tacking another module on, but the exact mechanics of how to do so seemed a bit opaque. 

It feels like Aurora space stations have a similar issue: how does one manage going from a small station to total station capacity that's 10x bigger, especially if it's done in e.g. 5 increments?  Does one simply A) build 5 more individual stations, one for each increment?  Or does one B) expand the existing station?  "A" seems easiest to manage in terms of code complexity (since you're not doing any special-casing), while "B" seems easier (and more natural) to manage in terms of gameplay.  "B" seems like it's fraught with the possibility of (from a coding/special case perspective) turning into "the next PDC". 

I suspect the best thing to do is to roleplay a task group containing several space stations as really being a single station with multiple modules, which avoids the coding difficulties.  The question then becomes if this would have any weird gameplay effects.  One good side effect is that it would solve the refit problem - individual modules could be refit or de-constructed in facilities with a size capacity of a module (rather than the whole station).  A potential exploit would be to have a swarm of very tiny modules.

John

PS - Don't remember the details of Aurora space stations; apologies if there are already special case circumstances in place in the way they're built that makes the above discussion moot.

Space stations in the same location will combine their maintenance capabilities and will draw MSP from any space stations designed as supply ships, so you wouldn't need a single station with all the required capabilities. You could have separate stations providing fuel and ordnance, etc. while another handles repairs in a large commercial hangar. Defensive military bases in the same location would be supported by the space stations with maintenance capabilities. So you can establish a station 'cluster' in deep space, rather than building and expanding a single huge station. More flexible too as you can easily add and take away individual elements. If I add deep space shipyards, they will be separate but manned by any colonists in the space stations.
 

Offline Tuna-Fish

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • T
  • Posts: 18
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1513 on: February 26, 2018, 03:28:25 PM »
Fleet Movement Auto Route

The Fleet Movement Orders section of the Naval Organization window has an option called Auto Route by System. When this option is selected, the normal movement destinations list will be replaced by a list of systems that the Fleet is capable of reaching.

Any chance of coloring the entries in this list? Maybe match the light green in the in-system target view for any systems that have bodies that have population on them, and the dark green for any systems that have any non-populated colonies.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2018, 03:32:01 PM by Tuna-Fish »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7234
  • Thanked: 2383 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1514 on: February 26, 2018, 03:43:35 PM »
Any chance of coloring the entries in this list? Maybe match the light green in the in-system target view for any systems that have bodies that have population on them, and the dark green for any systems that have any non-populated colonies.

Like this?

 
The following users thanked this post: Tuna-Fish

 

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