Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 251148 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bughunter

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 667
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2265 on: June 20, 2019, 01:08:21 PM »
Anyway, imagine 20 years without getting out of your armor, just think about the smell !!!

Explains green-skinned space orks then :)

I think it would be reasonable enough to RP that they have enough resources to protect some civilians handling production, food and.. procreation if it comes to that. It would anyway be a boring gameplay option to wait them out to die of old age.
 

Offline space dwarf

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • s
  • Posts: 26
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2266 on: June 23, 2019, 05:14:45 PM »
Question: In a "collapse of a larger empire" scenario, wouldnt it make sense for the new spoiler race to also be replaced by your own species?
 

Offline Hallec

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • H
  • Posts: 1
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2267 on: June 24, 2019, 09:21:36 AM »
I just wanted to say,  I have really enjoyed playing the VB version of the game, and seriously look forward to playing the C# version.   What I've read and played so far shows a depth that may get overwhelming, but appeals to me nonetheless.   Keep up the good work, and I look forward to playing the next iteration.

When Steve thinks it's ready!
 

Offline TheRowan

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 43
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2268 on: June 24, 2019, 09:41:41 AM »
I love the option for automated medals... A quick question though, would it be possible to have an option to display medals in order of Promotion Point values instead of chronologically? Just to make your heroic admiral's Victoria Cross stand out from his rack of "most efficient paperclip manager" ribbons...
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 8241
  • Thanked: 5461 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2269 on: June 24, 2019, 10:25:53 AM »
I love the option for automated medals... A quick question though, would it be possible to have an option to display medals in order of Promotion Point values instead of chronologically? Just to make your heroic admiral's Victoria Cross stand out from his rack of "most efficient paperclip manager" ribbons...

Yes, I'll make that the default display option.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Captain
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 585
  • Thanked: 53 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2270 on: June 24, 2019, 11:17:18 AM »
And yet, many people who get a Victoria Cross didn't get promoted beyond the enlisted ranks.

Admittedly, in no few cases that's because the VC got awarded posthumously, or the injuries suffered (physical and mental) were so severe the soldier in question was no longer fit for duty.
 

Offline HMX1

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • H
  • Posts: 1
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2271 on: June 24, 2019, 04:47:37 PM »
about Missile Engines Integrated into Missile Design
wouldn't it be more realistic if we have  a exponential curve on rocket performance  and cost
lets say performance curve is (x^1. 3) and cost (x^1. 333)  that will alow us to have a really good ships/rocket but hey will be really expensive so
for example

lets set                                           nuclear thermal Engine       cost as it is now 70 Gallicite , with the same performance . . . Engine Power: 25. . . 
but for the next tech level ::             Nuclear Pulse Engine           cost will be (X^1. 333) and performance wiil be (X^1. 3) so 250 Gallicite "300% increase " and Engine Power: 65 "260% increase" and so on
then we reach the final tech level       Inertial Fusion Drive           it will be 2644 power and cost (58279226 Gallicite = 58m) 
 
for comparison if i want to get the same power  in the current public game version it will cost me  1200x Gallicite with the following sittings
====================================================
Engine Power: 2400     Fuel Use Per Hour: 992. 16 Litres
Fuel Consumption per Engine Power Hour: 0. 413 Litres
Engine Size: 50 HS    Engine HTK: 25
Thermal Signature: 2400     Exp Chance: 15
Cost: 1200    Crew: 75
Materials Required: 1200x Gallicite
Military Engine
Development Cost for Project: 12000RP
===================================================

and that is the cost of all tiers https://ibb. co/c1MZ3KH

that will make me think about other variables ,so i will make cheap Nuclear Engine to use on my tankers and small war ships , and will use the Inertial Fusion Drive on a mega mother ship

but there is a loophole some of you will figure it out instantly >>let me  add more cheap  nuclear Engine until i get the 2644 power that is  needed , to solve this we will have to make that game more realistic :
different types of fuel  (and/or) much better efficiency per tech or as it is in the game Fuel Consumption per Engine Power Hour
so yes you can add more tier 1 engines to get the same power but it will affect the amount of fuel you have to take with you in an exponential curve which will add more mass which add more need for power and so on

about the different types of fuel suggestion
technically we can create every element from every other element using fusion and fission and a lot of power  "Nuclear transmutation". . . so for high tech fuel you create it from lower grade fuel using some sort of  Nuclear transmutation machine in orbit around the sun "collecting energy " and imputing  any type of  mass  and output any resource you want in small amount and a very small efficiency lets say 100 t in and 1 ton out .   you could even start to make some sort of Nuclear transmutation machine fleet that get in a system orbit the sun while eating the whole solar system, finish and move on to other system " the bad aliens that have come to eat your solar system in a sci-fi movie  "
==========================
finally i am sorry for my bad English
and by the way i have noticed that the game uses only one core "i know c# will be much faster but when you  invest in a world  the game become  very complex and unplayable too fast " so can the game  use all possible core .
you can even use the graphic card to do some of the calculations
 

Offline nukeLEAR

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • n
  • Posts: 3
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2272 on: June 25, 2019, 12:19:44 PM »
Quote from: HMX1 link=topic=8497. msg115080#msg115080 date=1561412857
finally i am sorry for my bad English
and by the way i have noticed that the game uses only one core "i know c# will be much faster but when you  invest in a world  the game become  very complex and unplayable too fast " so can the game  use all possible core . 
you can even use the graphic card to do some of the calculations

as someone who has worked with multi-threading in C#/. NET before, it is not as easy as flipping a switch to say "use all the cores"
Implementing multi-threading is no easy tasks, and even when you do use multi-threading not everything can be multi-threaded, if stuff needs to happen 1 after the other you can't multi-thread that.
Offloading processing to a GPU is even more complex and only works for very specific workloads, Aurora is not one of those.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 8241
  • Thanked: 5461 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2273 on: June 25, 2019, 12:25:37 PM »
Quote from: HMX1 link=topic=8497. msg115080#msg115080 date=1561412857
finally i am sorry for my bad English
and by the way i have noticed that the game uses only one core "i know c# will be much faster but when you  invest in a world  the game become  very complex and unplayable too fast " so can the game  use all possible core . 
you can even use the graphic card to do some of the calculations

as someone who has worked with multi-threading in C#/. NET before, it is not as easy as flipping a switch to say "use all the cores"
Implementing multi-threading is no easy tasks, and even when you do use multi-threading not everything can be multi-threaded, if stuff needs to happen 1 after the other you can't multi-thread that.
Offloading processing to a GPU is even more complex and only works for very specific workloads, Aurora is not one of those.

Yes, agreed. I've done some multi-threading in non-Aurora code and it adds a lot of scope for bugs. Because Aurora is linear in nature, there aren't a lot of opportunities for handling things in parallel. Detection is one possibility, but even then data has to be shared between threads for such things as assigning IDs or names to contacts, alien ships, etc..  Also, in some situations, multi-threading is actually slower than single threading because of the thread overhead.

Given that C# Aurora is very fast compared to VB6, I haven't seen a need to take on the extra complexity when the potential performance gain isn't significant. Even if was twice as fast, that doesn't really provide a benefit if it is already fast enough.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 8241
  • Thanked: 5461 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2274 on: June 25, 2019, 12:28:06 PM »
about Missile Engines Integrated into Missile Design
wouldn't it be more realistic if we have  a exponential curve on rocket performance  and cost

There are new rules on missile engines for C# Aurora.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg102804#msg102804
 

Offline Shuul

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • S
  • Posts: 72
  • Thanked: 14 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2275 on: June 25, 2019, 03:33:43 PM »
Just wanted to ask if you coded Combat Air Patrol mission for fighters, as it still looks to be a placeholder for it.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 8241
  • Thanked: 5461 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2276 on: June 25, 2019, 03:46:30 PM »
Just wanted to ask if you coded Combat Air Patrol mission for fighters, as it still looks to be a placeholder for it.

I don't think so - it is getting hard to remember what is and isn't coded. A couple of times I have started to code something and realised I already did it :)
 

Offline nukeLEAR

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • n
  • Posts: 3
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2277 on: June 25, 2019, 03:59:40 PM »
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=8497. msg115102#msg115102 date=1561483537
Yes, agreed.  I've done some multi-threading in non-Aurora code and it adds a lot of scope for bugs.  Because Aurora is linear in nature, there aren't a lot of opportunities for handling things in parallel.  Detection is one possibility, but even then data has to be shared between threads for such things as assigning IDs or names to contacts, alien ships, etc. .   Also, in some situations, multi-threading is actually slower than single threading because of the thread overhead.

Given that C# Aurora is very fast compared to VB6, I haven't seen a need to take on the extra complexity when the potential performance gain isn't significant.  Even if was twice as fast, that doesn't really provide a benefit if it is already fast enough.

To add to this even most Triple A super high budget games are not really multi-threaded, you will still find one core doing 90% of the heavy lifting since like Steve said most games are very linear in execution, things have to happen in order or things get frakky

Also multi-threading makes debugging and absolute pain in the rear end, even when I was using it in a good use case for multi-threading (mass api calls)
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1362
  • Thanked: 198 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2278 on: June 25, 2019, 05:39:26 PM »
Will the new Diplomacy rules treat 'my ship enters a new system, realizes it is inhabited, and sits on the jump point with its transponder on waiting for the aliens to come visit' as less offensive than 'my ship pulls up to alien planet and hangs around' or 'my ship visits grav survey location after grav survey location, ignoring the aliens'?

I guess what I'm asking for is to replace the single 'foreign ship in claimed system' penalty with ones that are based on the ship's activities.  I'd like aliens to be less upset if my empire says hello than if it doesn't, and considerably more upset if it starts surveying their territory & worlds, and/or stabilizing local jump points.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 8241
  • Thanked: 5461 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2279 on: June 25, 2019, 05:50:38 PM »
Will the new Diplomacy rules treat 'my ship enters a new system, realizes it is inhabited, and sits on the jump point with its transponder on waiting for the aliens to come visit' as less offensive than 'my ship pulls up to alien planet and hangs around' or 'my ship visits grav survey location after grav survey location, ignoring the aliens'?

I guess what I'm asking for is to replace the single 'foreign ship in claimed system' penalty with ones that are based on the ship's activities.  I'd like aliens to be less upset if my empire says hello than if it doesn't, and considerably more upset if it starts surveying their territory & worlds, and/or stabilizing local jump points.

Yes, that is the plan. Not coded yet though :)
 

 

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 55