Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 181909 times)

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1860
  • Thanked: 84 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2175 on: March 03, 2019, 06:16:25 AM »
Oh, my mistake, I always get mixed up when percentages are used that way :s.
That's about in line with the speed I was thinking they could be reduced by, someone else suggested that perhaps adding a fuel cost to terraforming might help to prevent excessive use of terraformers, it would be interesting to have to consider the long term running costs rather than just the upfront cost of producing the terraformers, plus manning requirements.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2019, 06:18:13 AM by MarcAFK »
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 455
  • Thanked: 59 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2176 on: March 04, 2019, 06:47:11 AM »
In regards to the recently changed value for manufactung / service sector percentage: maybe adding an additional race parameter which allows different races to have different needs for service might be a handy addition. Some races don't need so many entertainment centers as other - and those people could work in the military construction sector. Or a race is generally more militaristic and demands people to work more in that sector.
 

Offline Xenotrenium

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • X
  • Posts: 3
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2177 on: April 10, 2019, 04:08:30 PM »
Hope this is an okay place to put this. 
I posted a bug for VB Aurora that might impact some C# things.    There is possibly a rounding error for very low TCS on ships, making them completely undetectable on active sensors.   

hxxp: aurora2. pentarch. org/index. php?topic=8144. msg113736#msg113736
« Last Edit: April 10, 2019, 04:15:35 PM by Xenotrenium »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7584
  • Thanked: 3321 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2178 on: April 10, 2019, 05:56:20 PM »
Hope this is an okay place to put this. 
I posted a bug for VB Aurora that might impact some C# things.    There is possibly a rounding error for very low TCS on ships, making them completely undetectable on active sensors.   

hxxp: aurora2. pentarch. org/index. php?topic=8144. msg113736#msg113736

Thanks. I've added a check to the class design code to ensure a class cross-section is never below the minimum possible value of 0.33 HS.
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1860
  • Thanked: 84 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2179 on: April 10, 2019, 07:09:58 PM »
Considering missiles can get down to .05 HS perhaps it would be fine if extraordinarily high tech cloaked ships could get down to a similar cross section?
Discussion over on discord seems to suggest these hyper stealth ships arent as bad as we originally thought because they still have significant thermal output.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline DIT_grue

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • D
  • Posts: 164
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2180 on: April 11, 2019, 02:45:26 AM »
Considering missiles can get down to .05 HS perhaps it would be fine if extraordinarily high tech cloaked ships could get down to a similar cross section?
Discussion over on discord seems to suggest these hyper stealth ships arent as bad as we originally thought because they still have significant thermal output.

If you can reduce a missile's cross-section that far, you've got a bug that's going to show up a lot more often than this one. Remember when the MCR and so on were added, so that any missile 6MSP or less was detected at the same range?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7584
  • Thanked: 3321 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2181 on: April 11, 2019, 03:25:24 AM »
Considering missiles can get down to .05 HS perhaps it would be fine if extraordinarily high tech cloaked ships could get down to a similar cross section?
Discussion over on discord seems to suggest these hyper stealth ships arent as bad as we originally thought because they still have significant thermal output.

Missiles can be 0.05 HS in size, but their cross-section for detection is a minimum of 0.3 HS (0.33 in C#).
 

Offline Tree

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 103
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2182 on: April 11, 2019, 04:26:16 AM »
Since we're onto thirds, do 33% reduced size launchers work properly in C# ? In VB6 with for example size 3 or 4 launchers, you end up with launchers that have a crew requirement of 0, even though the 25% version has a crew requirement of 1. Kinda annoying, 33% sounds perfect to me, but using them feels like cheating because of the reduced crew size.
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1860
  • Thanked: 84 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2183 on: April 11, 2019, 04:56:18 AM »
Is there a reason why missile detection is capped at 0.3 HS rather than being able to get down to 0.05?
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7584
  • Thanked: 3321 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2184 on: April 11, 2019, 05:03:17 AM »
Is there a reason why missile detection is capped at 0.3 HS rather than being able to get down to 0.05?

To balance the range at which you can detect missiles with the rest of the sensor model. The other option would be a sub-resolution 1 sensor.
 

Offline TheRowan

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2185 on: April 15, 2019, 02:06:40 AM »
With the changes to thermal emissions, I assume the signature of a moving ship will have a minimum of its stationary signature? I. E. A large ship with small engines could not reduce its signature by travelling at speed 1 rather than remaining stationary?
 

Offline DIT_grue

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • D
  • Posts: 164
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2186 on: April 15, 2019, 02:21:23 AM »
With the changes to thermal emissions, I assume the signature of a moving ship will have a minimum of its stationary signature? I. E. A large ship with small engines could not reduce its signature by travelling at speed 1 rather than remaining stationary?

This has been raised several times, and it seems the only problem is that Steve doesn't remember to say so. For example:

I also have to ask... From your Changes post, it seems there is an exploit. Notably if the ship IS moving at very slow speed, the speed formula is used allowing to go below the minimal intended thermal signature. Is this just a bad wording in the post or is this also an error in the coding?

The minimum is the base signature, even when the ship is moving. It is coded that way but I didn't mention it in the post. I'll update it.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7584
  • Thanked: 3321 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2187 on: April 15, 2019, 03:27:39 AM »
With the changes to thermal emissions, I assume the signature of a moving ship will have a minimum of its stationary signature? I. E. A large ship with small engines could not reduce its signature by travelling at speed 1 rather than remaining stationary?

Yes, that's correct.
 

Offline Darkminion

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • D
  • Posts: 22
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2188 on: April 17, 2019, 10:50:48 AM »
Regarding the recent change added for Jump Point Transit Shock, how will transits through stabilized wormholes be handled? Would they be considered a standard transit?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7584
  • Thanked: 3321 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2189 on: April 17, 2019, 11:41:17 AM »
Regarding the recent change added for Jump Point Transit Shock, how will transits through stabilized wormholes be handled? Would they be considered a standard transit?

Yes, like a jump gate in VB6 Aurora.
 

 

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