v2.0.0 Changes Discussion Thread

[nuclearslurpee]

I was wondering if it will be possible to limit population to the higher Colony cost with the present infraestructure to avoid accidental genocide.

Steve confirmed earlier in the thread that the civilians will consider the max colony cost when shipping colonists. Beyond that, as is tradition the onus is on the player. 

As far as I can tell, natural population growth ignores the max colony cost. This must be the Aurora equivalent of real-life people building homes on volcanoes, in floodplains, in the path of hurricanes, etc.

Yes, but this has always been the case. Personally, I just live with it and if the population overexpands slightly and then a few thousand more people die off in the next increment I chalk it up to the cycle of life. This may be harsh and unforgiving of me, but then again that is the nature of colonial life and I do not make the rules.

[QuakeIV]

This is going to be a much bigger issue since the cost can fluctuate so much.

[Kiero]

Steve, can you explain how do we know at which point of colony cost projection, the planet is currently?

Since on the first screen, Mars's current Colony Cost is at 2.05 but the first week of the first period is 2.54 (shouldn't it start from 2.05?). Can you explain in detail how to read it?

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I was wondering if it will be possible to limit population to the higher Colony cost with the present infraestructure to avoid accidental genocide.

Steve confirmed earlier in the thread that the civilians will consider the max colony cost when shipping colonists. Beyond that, as is tradition the onus is on the player. 

As far as I can tell, natural population growth ignores the max colony cost. This must be the Aurora equivalent of real-life people building homes on volcanoes, in floodplains, in the path of hurricanes, etc.

Pop growth will go to zero or less if the amount of infrastructure is insufficient at the current colony cost. However, if there is room to expand the population will keep growing even if that room may vanish later in the orbit.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Steve, can you explain how do we know at which point of colony cost projection, the planet is currently?

Since on the first screen, Mars's current Colony Cost is at 2.05 but the first week of the first period is 2.54 (shouldn't it start from 2.05?). Can you explain in detail how to read it?

Its a bug. The colony cost projection wasn't taking the direction eccentricity into consideration. Fixed now.

The new orbital mechanics are a lot more complex, due to the combination of eccentric orbits and direction of eccentricity within an xy coordinates system (which is being translated from polar coordinates in some situations), which means more scope for bugs. I'll be finding and fixing those over the next few weeks.

[Gabrote42]

This last wave of changes goes above and beyond, as the best set of non-QoL changes since launch in my opinion. Your performance considerations, selective abstractions, and solid concepts makes me feel the need to congratulate you for making this possible. And while I am at it, thanks to everyone else for being here making this community great

[db48x]

The picture attached to this post shows a column for "Inclination." Does this have a different meaning for 2D orbits that I'm not aware of? Because these are most definitely not the actual inclinations of the planets, and the game doesn't really model inclination as far as I'm aware so it's kind of strange to see it listed. Is this supposed to be the argument of periapsis or something like that? I don't really know orbital mechanics -- anyone who actually does feel free to chime in here.

Inclination in 3D space is the angle by which an orbit deviates from the plane of the ecliptic. In Aurora, I am using it to represent the direction in which the orbit stretches away from the star, which is the opposite direction to the argument of perihelion.

It might not be the correct term from an orbital mechanics perspective, but inclination isn't used in 2D space so I borrowed it to use as a simple term for orbital 'stretchiness'

Why not just call it the argument of the perhelion then, so that everyone would know what you meant? (Or argument of the periapsis, to be more generic?)

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

The picture attached to this post shows a column for "Inclination." Does this have a different meaning for 2D orbits that I'm not aware of? Because these are most definitely not the actual inclinations of the planets, and the game doesn't really model inclination as far as I'm aware so it's kind of strange to see it listed. Is this supposed to be the argument of periapsis or something like that? I don't really know orbital mechanics -- anyone who actually does feel free to chime in here.

Inclination in 3D space is the angle by which an orbit deviates from the plane of the ecliptic. In Aurora, I am using it to represent the direction in which the orbit stretches away from the star, which is the opposite direction to the argument of perihelion.

It might not be the correct term from an orbital mechanics perspective, but inclination isn't used in 2D space so I borrowed it to use as a simple term for orbital 'stretchiness'

Why not just call it the argument of the perhelion then, so that everyone would know what you meant? (Or argument of the periapsis, to be more generic?)

Two reasons:

1) Let's assume for a moment that most people playing Aurora don't know the technical terms for orbital mechanics. In that case, inclination is going to make more sense than 'argument of perihelion' given its use in common English. On the same grid I use diameter for clarity when I should use radius, 'day' instead of sidereal rotation, and reverse Albedo values because it makes the use of Albedo in the game more obvious.

2) The column isn't wide enough

[Zap0]

and reverse Albedo values because it makes the use of Albedo in the game more obvious.

This one has always confused me when I looked up the albedo of any planetary bodies on wikipedia.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

After giving it some thought and listening to feedback on my current campaign, I have decided to change the design philosophy of Aether Raiders. Rather than being focused on speed and additional ECM, they will have cloaking devices and thermal reduction technology. Speed and ECM will be 'normal' for a race of their general tech level.

The primary reason for the change is that high speed, short-range missiles and/or fast beam fighters are probably the best way to counter high speed / high ECM and I don't want to force players (or myself) to adopt a specific philosophy. The new raiders, which I will test in the same campaign as the new orbital mechanics, will be hard to track down, but no more difficult to destroy than other similar tech level ships. Guarding against them and hunting them down will now be viable with a wider range of design philosophies.

EDIT: Their starting research points are also being reduced from Precursor-level to about 2/3rds Precursor-level.

[Garfunkel]

I'm a space nerd and I had never heard of "argument of the perihelion" so using inclination is indeed probably better in that it's more intuitive to understand even if its technically incorrect.

Guarding against them and hunting them down will now be viable with a wider range of design philosophies.

Hooray! It was starting to look like the Raiders were going to only show in a single game where I get my ass kicked and then turned off because there's only one way to deal with them.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Yes, I was about to turn them off for the new campaign and then thought that decision through a little more

I'm also going to reduce their starting RP a little as they progress quite quickly with no need to consider non-combat techs.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

and reverse Albedo values because it makes the use of Albedo in the game more obvious.

This one has always confused me when I looked up the albedo of any planetary bodies on wikipedia.

I use the reverse value so the temp formula is obvious, plus most people aren't checking what albedo really means. Even if you do check the Sol system bodies, the albedo I use in the DB won't match because it is rigged to create the right temperatures for the system generation mechanics in Aurora (because in real life temperature is affected by more factors than are considered in Aurora).

[nuclearslurpee]

After giving it some thought and listening to feedback on my current campaign, I have decided to change the design philosophy of Aether Raiders. Rather than being focused on speed and additional ECM, they will have cloaking devices and thermal reduction technology. Speed and ECM will be 'normal' for a race of their general tech level.

The primary reason for the change is that high speed, short-range missiles and/or fast beam fighters are probably the best way to counter high speed / high ECM and I don't want to force players (or myself) to adopt a specific philosophy. The new raiders, which I will test in the same campaign as the new orbital mechanics, will be hard to track down, but no more difficult to destroy than other similar tech level ships. Guarding against them and hunting them down will now be viable with a wider range of design philosophies.

EDIT: Their starting research points are also being reduced from Precursor-level to about 2/3rds Precursor-level.

This is excellent, since Raiders are now probably viable to have along with Precursors and Rakhas as spoilers in a conventional or low-tech TN start - though still as quite a challenge.

[db48x]

Why not just call it the argument of the perhelion then, so that everyone would know what you meant? (Or argument of the periapsis, to be more generic?)

Two reasons:

1) Let's assume for a moment that most people playing Aurora don't know the technical terms for orbital mechanics. In that case, inclination is going to make more sense than 'argument of perihelion' given its use in common English. On the same grid I use diameter for clarity when I should use radius, 'day' instead of sidereal rotation, and reverse Albedo values because it makes the use of Albedo in the game more obvious.

Hmm. If I understand you correctly, you are positing the existence of an entire class of people who both play Aurora but also don’t remember the orbital elements from middle–school? That’s crazy talk.

2) The column isn't wide enough

Well… I guess columns can be made as wide as they need to be. It’s even easier to do if you use an actual grid view

But that column would be a lot wider than the others, which some might find unaesthetic, I suppose. Or you could just label it 𝜔 instead. We have Unicode for a reason.