Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 157186 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TMaekler

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 422
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1470 on: February 05, 2018, 06:53:11 AM »
I myself always not in need of one or 2 minerals so I adjust the queue using this simple trick.
I hope this helps if Steve will not fix or implement this issue.

Sure, it was just a suggestion for C# Aurora. I am going through what bugs me the most in VB6 Aurora and make some QOL suggestions ;-)
 

Offline the obelisk

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • t
  • Posts: 64
  • Thanked: 9 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1471 on: February 06, 2018, 03:15:56 PM »
If we're still on the subject of a hypothetical Economy overhaul, maybe there could be a system where different populations have some kind of wealth/prosperity value that gets drained by stuff like taxes and trade good shortages but boosted by things like government spending in the population (probably mostly in terms of installations, but maybe to a lesser extent military units and ships stationed at the population, representing them spending money on stuff when they have shore leave or whatever), civilian mine activity, exports, etc.   It would probably effect the rate of civilian mine foundation and expansion in the system, the construction of civilian ships, and maybe the production of trade goods.   It might make civilian shipping lines worth protecting/targeting, since disrupted shipping could cause economic problems.

Also, I was thinking that maybe transnewtonian minerals could become a new type of trade good (not as each individual mineral, but just in general) gets generated by civilian mines sending minerals into the civilian economy.
 

Offline JacenHan

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 283
  • Thanked: 34 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1472 on: February 08, 2018, 09:04:41 PM »
As another minor QOL suggestion, I wonder if it would be better for the "total accessibility" box in the mining tab to be changed to display the actual total of the accessibility of the planets minerals, rather than the average. This would help show at a glance the number of total minerals that a planet could produce. I would argue that this is more useful than the average accessibility, which does not take into account the effects of having different kinds of minerals. A planet with a single mineral at 1.0 accessibility would have an average accessibility of 1.0, the highest possible, even though another planet with a lower average accessibility but more types of minerals might produce far more minerals in total, with the same number of mines.
 
The following users thanked this post: TheDeadlyShoe, Iranon, DIT_grue, smoelf, Xtrem532

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7234
  • Thanked: 2370 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1473 on: February 10, 2018, 09:52:29 AM »
As another minor QOL suggestion, I wonder if it would be better for the "total accessibility" box in the mining tab to be changed to display the actual total of the accessibility of the planets minerals, rather than the average. This would help show at a glance the number of total minerals that a planet could produce. I would argue that this is more useful than the average accessibility, which does not take into account the effects of having different kinds of minerals. A planet with a single mineral at 1.0 accessibility would have an average accessibility of 1.0, the highest possible, even though another planet with a lower average accessibility but more types of minerals might produce far more minerals in total, with the same number of mines.

Good idea. I have made that change.
 
The following users thanked this post: DIT_grue, TMaekler

Offline TMaekler

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 422
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1474 on: February 12, 2018, 12:51:20 PM »
In C# Aurora civilian shipping can be disabled. I was wondering if there could be "levels" of disabling. I personally found the cargo function pretty useful but was annoyed by the civilians building fuel freighters and civilian transports. Options to choose what civilian shipping is allowed to do (maybe as a political instrument) would be an interesting addition.
 
The following users thanked this post: somebody1212

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7234
  • Thanked: 2370 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1475 on: February 12, 2018, 01:48:02 PM »
In C# Aurora civilian shipping can be disabled. I was wondering if there could be "levels" of disabling. I personally found the cargo function pretty useful but was annoyed by the civilians building fuel freighters and civilian transports. Options to choose what civilian shipping is allowed to do (maybe as a political instrument) would be an interesting addition.

I don't want to provide too much control over civilians as the main point is that they are independent and not additional player shipping.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 984
  • Thanked: 36 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1476 on: February 13, 2018, 02:52:07 AM »
I don't want to provide too much control over civilians as the main point is that they are independent and not additional player shipping.

I think it wouldn't hurt to have a bit of indirect control like tax hard to prevent growth or tax low to promote it, and subsidize or tariff certain locations to promote shipping to certain destinations and discourage others. Or if they were a bit better connected with supply/demand (first delivery of a missing goods is worth alot, and colonists want to move where there are job opportunities).
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 277
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1477 on: February 13, 2018, 04:22:16 AM »
I'd actually rather like to be able to offer civilian shipping higher rates in order to get them to go to out-of-the-way places.  Of course, I'd also like to be able to use them to ship minerals, which apparantly is specifically not desirable, so who knows whether its a good idea or not.
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 422
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1478 on: February 13, 2018, 09:57:32 AM »
I don't want to provide too much control over civilians as the main point is that they are independent and not additional player shipping.

There already is some kind of control because as long as one does not issue colonist or cargo orders those ships are more or less wasted (at least the colonist transporters). I mainly wanted to "officialize" this ;-).
What might be interesting would be if the civilian shipping "monitors" what is usually transported and builds their ships accordingly. So if you don't use the civilians for colonist transports and then suddenly do, it will be slow because they don't have the capacity but will build it. And then when you stop that, they we slowly scrap them and rebuild normal transporters - fitting to the actual demands... .
 

Offline Hydrofoil

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • H
  • Posts: 112
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1479 on: February 16, 2018, 07:50:00 AM »
There already is some kind of control because as long as one does not issue colonist or cargo orders those ships are more or less wasted (at least the colonist transporters). I mainly wanted to "officialize" this ;-).
What might be interesting would be if the civilian shipping "monitors" what is usually transported and builds their ships accordingly. So if you don't use the civilians for colonist transports and then suddenly do, it will be slow because they don't have the capacity but will build it. And then when you stop that, they we slowly scrap them and rebuild normal transporters - fitting to the actual demands... .

This requires a level of economic simulation and tracking that just isnt in the game at this time.
 

Offline serger

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 157
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1480 on: February 17, 2018, 03:48:59 AM »
Looking at new Commanders window (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8455.msg101804#msg101804).

I think it will be cool to order personal records by rowid, not datetime. Or date + rowid, both decreasing (if you want to have a possibility to insert records post factum).
It will prevent this small bug with partially reversed record order (when records have the same datetime).
 
The following users thanked this post: Nori

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7234
  • Thanked: 2370 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1481 on: February 17, 2018, 04:21:47 AM »
Looking at new Commanders window (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8455.msg101804#msg101804).

I think it will be cool to order personal records by rowid, not datetime. Or date + rowid, both decreasing (if you want to have a possibility to insert records post factum).
It will prevent this small bug with partially reversed record order (when records have the same datetime).

I've already fixed the issue when there is a simultaneous unassign and reassign. The unassign is no longer displayed.
 

Offline serger

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 157
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1482 on: February 17, 2018, 04:27:13 AM »
I've already fixed the issue when there is a simultaneous unassign and reassign. The unassign is no longer displayed.
What about two simultaneous assings (first one was made by mistake)? They can be displayed at wrong order also.
The best case, as for me - if first one will be deleted/filtered too.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2018, 04:29:17 AM by serger »
 

Offline ChildServices

  • Hegemon
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 140
  • Thanked: 9 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1483 on: February 17, 2018, 11:23:46 PM »
Can we name each admin rank? Adm7 might be Proconsul or Governor and Adm1 might only be a Quaestor.
Aurora4x Discord: https://discordapp.com/invite/Q5ryqdW

Cold as steel the darkness waits, its hour will come
A cry of fear from our children, worshipping the Sun
Mother Nature's black revenge, on those who waste her life
War babies in the Garden Of Eden, she'll turn our ashes to ice
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7234
  • Thanked: 2370 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1484 on: February 19, 2018, 04:19:43 AM »
Minor milestone - a geosurvey ship just executed the first default order in C# Aurora.

Well into the default orders code now, which is one of the major areas remaining. As a side-benefit of completely rewriting the path-finding code, you will have the ability to pick a system from a list on the fleet orders window and have the game plot all the jumps for you (including using Lagrange points). I'll do the same for populations and way points.
 
The following users thanked this post: Zincat, Iranon, hyramgraff, Viridia, TMaekler, serger, Nori

 

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