Author Topic: No Thermal when Stationary  (Read 2368 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Shadow

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 327
Re: No Thermal when Stationary
« Reply #45 on: April 12, 2019, 02:11:56 PM »
Option 2, hands down. In essence.

While burning engines would produce a big heat spike, the routine operation of a spacecraft's systems generates heat.

Each vessel should produce a base amount of heat, for starters.
  • If you want more complexity, a portion of that should come from the hull, and then each individual system should pile on that.
  • If you want more, certain systems other than the engines (like weapons) could produce secondary heat spikes.
  • If you want more, each ship could have a heat radiation rate according to the number and quality of radiator components installed. They would control how fast heat comes down to base level after a spike, and after the ship stops burning its engines.
Beyond that, there could be certain components which decrease the base heat signature, like specialized power infrastructure and certain hull coatings. If you want more complexity, you could have heatsink components, which would temporarily absorb large amounts of vessel heat (and therefore reduce the base level) for circumstantial tactical advantage.

Lots of potential here.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2019, 02:22:37 PM by Shadow »
 

Offline Alucard

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • A
  • Posts: 16
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: No Thermal when Stationary
« Reply #46 on: April 12, 2019, 05:31:37 PM »
I would just really like to suggest using square root of the size of the ship for thermal signature purposes. Eg: Thermal = roof(sqrt(HS)) would result in:

Size            Sqrt    Current
250t           3         0.25 (=0 ??)
1 000t        5         1
10 000t      15       10
25 000t      23       25
50 000t      32       50
100 000t    45       100


I love to play with smaller number of larger warships and there are many detriments to this in Aurora already. This one however seems to be particularly crippling in some scenarios. The square root approach gives a nicer baseline signature for fighters to be detected but does not end up lighting larger ships like a x-mass tree on passive sensors. This both allows larger warships to be used with some amount of stealth as well as prevents fighters abusing being undetectable (less then 1 thermal signature).

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?
« Last Edit: April 12, 2019, 05:34:05 PM by Alucard »
 

Online Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7738
  • Thanked: 3768 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: No Thermal when Stationary
« Reply #47 on: April 12, 2019, 05:59:33 PM »
I would just really like to suggest using square root of the size of the ship for thermal signature purposes. Eg: Thermal = roof(sqrt(HS)) would result in:

Size            Sqrt    Current
250t           3         0.25 (=0 ??)
1 000t        5         1
10 000t      15       10
25 000t      23       25
50 000t      32       50
100 000t    45       100


I love to play with smaller number of larger warships and there are many detriments to this in Aurora already. This one however seems to be particularly crippling in some scenarios. The square root approach gives a nicer baseline signature for fighters to be detected but does not end up lighting larger ships like a x-mass tree on passive sensors. This both allows larger warships to be used with some amount of stealth as well as prevents fighters abusing being undetectable (less then 1 thermal signature).

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?

With the new passive sensor rules, the square root of the signature is already used for detection:

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg103085#msg103085

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.
 
The following users thanked this post: Alucard

Offline Alucard

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • A
  • Posts: 16
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: No Thermal when Stationary
« Reply #48 on: April 12, 2019, 06:24:28 PM »
With the new passive sensor rules, the square root of the signature is already used for detection.

I failed to consider that. Thanks for the clarification :)
 

 

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