Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 151799 times)

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline clement

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *
  • c
  • Posts: 97
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1905 on: October 29, 2018, 12:35:50 PM »

House Fuchida is using a larger base formation, with the Japanese WW2 infantry battalion as a template. The individual Fuchida Infantryman is cheaper but less well protected than the Reichmann Panzergrenadier or the Aurelius Legionary.



Steve I think there may be a bug in the UI for the Fuchida screenshot. The bottom left UI panel is still showing data from the House Aurelius screenshot. There is no selection in the top left UI panel for selecting a unit type, so I think it is continuing to show the data from the previous selection instead of de-selecting or passing an empty view model to the lower left UI panel.

Other than that, these screens look great! Can't wait to see more.

 

Offline Kurt

  • Global Moderator
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 991
  • Thanked: 120 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1906 on: October 29, 2018, 01:52:32 PM »
Hey Steve, it looks great. Super pumped for the test campaign. About how fast is it running compared to VB6 Aurora?

Still not much going as I am still in the process of converting conventional factories. However, there are a dozen research projects, fifteen shipyard upgrades, all the commander experience, health, pop growth, orbital movement (including asteroids), all the detection phases, etc. Essentially the full construction phase for what is actually happening in this so-far limited game.

I am running 5-day increments and they are taking 0.17 seconds each, so definitely faster :)

It will be more interesting once there is shipping, civilians, multiple systems, etc.

That is quite the improvement.  I'm not going to mention how long each of my five-day increments take, but suffice it to say that its isn't a fraction of a second. 

Kurt
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7189
  • Thanked: 2230 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1907 on: October 29, 2018, 02:38:28 PM »
Steve I think there may be a bug in the UI for the Fuchida screenshot. The bottom left UI panel is still showing data from the House Aurelius screenshot. There is no selection in the top left UI panel for selecting a unit type, so I think it is continuing to show the data from the previous selection instead of de-selecting or passing an empty view model to the lower left UI panel.

Other than that, these screens look great! Can't wait to see more.

Yes, I haven't added code yet to blank the panels when a new race is selected. I missed that one when doing the screenshots. There is a lot of tidying up on those lines going on at the moment.

First ships under construction now so progress is still relatively fast.
 
The following users thanked this post: clement, bro918, DEEPenergy

Offline Vroom

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • V
  • Posts: 1
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1908 on: October 30, 2018, 02:33:38 AM »
Steve, could you please add female names into the Roman names database.
 

Offline froggiest1982

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • f
  • Posts: 39
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1909 on: November 02, 2018, 04:14:25 PM »
"Linked Windows
C# Aurora has a option to link all the open windows, so that when you change the current Race in one window, all the other windows change to the same race."

Massive quality of life improvement for those who likes Roleplay with multiple races!
 

Offline Profugo Barbatus

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • P
  • Posts: 39
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1910 on: November 03, 2018, 01:46:24 AM »
Linked windows, me and my multi empire games thank you Steve.
 

Wise PingWin

  • Guest
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1911 on: November 07, 2018, 02:07:38 AM »
Quote from: Vroom link=topic=8497. msg110717#msg110717 date=1540884818
Steve, could you please add female names into the Roman names database.

It's imposible  :(.  Weman has no personal name in Roman Empire/Republic.  Only name of family.

For example: if family name is August, then daughter named Augusta.
If family has more than one daughters, then number should be added to name.  Augusta I, Augusta II. . .
If mother also has name Augusta, then she becomes Augusta Senior and daughter name is Augusta Junior.
 

Offline Hamof

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • H
  • Posts: 11
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1912 on: November 07, 2018, 02:03:44 PM »
I feel like there should be lines between the mineral columns, might look better that way. Possibly also between the mineral amount and the mineral accessibility.
 

Offline space dwarf

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • s
  • Posts: 15
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1913 on: November 08, 2018, 11:14:34 AM »
Quote from: Vroom link=topic=8497. msg110717#msg110717 date=1540884818
Steve, could you please add female names into the Roman names database.

It's imposible  :(.  Weman has no personal name in Roman Empire/Republic.  Only name of family.

For example: if family name is August, then daughter named Augusta.
If family has more than one daughters, then number should be added to name.  Augusta I, Augusta II. . .
If mother also has name Augusta, then she becomes Augusta Senior and daughter name is Augusta Junior.

then add those feminised family names, silly
 

Offline Kelewan

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • K
  • Posts: 15
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1914 on: November 09, 2018, 05:48:21 AM »
Regarding the changing colony cost of comets and  planets with eccentric orbits.
I like the idea at first, but now i have some concerns depending the micromanaging overhead
and the additional game play value.

Depending on the orbit time, the population has to be moved to and away form the comet/planet constantly,
or only the minimum supported population at maximum colony cost is send to the comet/planet.

Will the maximum colony cost be shown?
Will shipping lines use the current or the maximum colony cost for sending colony ships?
What is the benefit of constant moving population over only moving the minimum population.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7189
  • Thanked: 2230 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1915 on: November 09, 2018, 06:41:29 AM »
Regarding the changing colony cost of comets and  planets with eccentric orbits.
I like the idea at first, but now i have some concerns depending the micromanaging overhead
and the additional game play value.

Depending on the orbit time, the population has to be moved to and away form the comet/planet constantly,
or only the minimum supported population at maximum colony cost is send to the comet/planet.

Will the maximum colony cost be shown?
Will shipping lines use the current or the maximum colony cost for sending colony ships?
What is the benefit of constant moving population over only moving the minimum population.

A max colony cost is calculated for each comet, as well as it's normal colony cost. You can flip between them on the system view (there is a checkbox to change).

I've set it so the standing order for unload colonists ignores comets, which is what effectively happens now anyway. That prevents other potential issues with colony ships chasing comets. The decisions about considering potential max colony cost and whether to use the comet will only sit with the player.
 
The following users thanked this post: Kelewan

Offline Hazard

  • Commander
  • *********
  • H
  • Posts: 335
  • Thanked: 26 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1916 on: November 09, 2018, 09:19:57 AM »
It is likely that with planets with sufficiently eccentric orbits to be automatic colonisation candidates that only need a seed population for civilian shipping to move populations into position. If that happens and the planet becomes sufficiently cold or hot to need infrastructure to compensate for the colony cost that will be very... unfortunate. Will it be possible to tick a box for planets like that for the colonisation and infrastructure demand calculations to consider the max colony cost instead of the current colony cost?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7189
  • Thanked: 2230 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1917 on: November 09, 2018, 10:40:24 AM »
It is likely that with planets with sufficiently eccentric orbits to be automatic colonisation candidates that only need a seed population for civilian shipping to move populations into position. If that happens and the planet becomes sufficiently cold or hot to need infrastructure to compensate for the colony cost that will be very... unfortunate. Will it be possible to tick a box for planets like that for the colonisation and infrastructure demand calculations to consider the max colony cost instead of the current colony cost?

If I decide to add eccentric orbits for planets, I will add something on those lines.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 975
  • Thanked: 69 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1918 on: November 09, 2018, 12:11:34 PM »
Quite interesting. I thought all comets were basically unstable piles of rubble barely held together. Guess I was wrong and they are more solid.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 272
  • Thanked: 18 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1919 on: November 09, 2018, 04:35:42 PM »
The Rosetta mission assumed that, then it's harpoons bounced off the hard surface of the comet.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 04:38:25 PM by QuakeIV »
 

 

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