v2.0.0 Changes Discussion Thread

[nuclearslurpee]

My chemistry-focused brain read "P-type", thought of orbitals instead of planetary orbits, and I am now here to ask Steve to add planets which orbit both stars of a binary system in a figure-8 path because it would be cool as all frell.

[vorpal+5]

I was wondering if Steve has considered at some point to split planets into objects which are made of several continents, each having (possibly) a different terrain. Hostiles races would be able to co-exist if not on the same continent, and reversely (somehow) conquering a planet would ask for the invasion of all continents. You could even have completely liquid 'continents', with a kind of blue navy present and defending it (well, that would be version 2 of the implementation perhaps).

I have read my share of books where planetary conquest is made with an initial beachhead, and then you need to push further to different environs.


Edit: OK, I have read all Steve posts since 8 months, with the exception of the new AAR! When is 2.0 coming out, I'm hyped and I think I'm done gorging myself with Rimworld 
ps: are the cosmetic components in btw? Please say yes, can't wait to design superfluous infirmaries, brigs and armories.

[Destragon]

ps: are the cosmetic components in btw? Please say yes, can't wait to design superfluous infirmaries, brigs and armories.

Misc components that have no actual gameplay function can be designed in the current version, yes.

[nuclearslurpee]

ps: are the cosmetic components in btw? Please say yes, can't wait to design superfluous infirmaries, brigs and armories.

Misc components that have no actual gameplay function can be designed in the current version, yes.

They are a bit bugged because you have to instant-research them using SM as they have no research category, but they are available in 1.13.

[db48x]

If Aurora generates P-type star systems, the combined heating effects of all the central stars should be factored in.

Sadly, at the moment Aurora does not generate P-type solar systems around binaries. In fact, binary stars don’t orbit barycenters either, which is a necessary precondition.

Even so, I second this suggestion!

[Fistandantillus7]

Sadly, at the moment Aurora does not generate P-type solar systems around binaries.

It does in SM mode 

Tatooine demands an update to Aurora's solar system models.

In fact, binary stars don’t orbit barycenters either, which is a necessary precondition.

I intentionally didn't bring that up. Barycentres would likely require a huge computational load for negligible in-game impact. The current fixed central star abstraction is adequate I think (as long as it is the most massive, which I think it currently always is).

[nuclearslurpee]

I intentionally didn't bring that up. Barycentres would likely require a huge computational load for negligible in-game impact. The current fixed central star abstraction is adequate I think (as long as it is the most massive, which I think it currently always is).

Actually the direct computational load is not a problem, at least for binary systems. The only addition is that the primary star would have to be given an orbit, and bodies orbiting it will have the coordinates of that star added to their positions which is relatively minor compared to the sin, cos, etc. required to compute orbital positions in (x,y) coordinates.

The bigger problem is actually mechanical, at least flavor-wise, suddenly jump points in a multiple-star system will make even less sense than they already do as they are not fixed around the system primary anymore.

I guess maybe one solution is to have the barycenter be an invisible "star", i.e., a binary system is modeled as a trinary system with the barycenter 'B' orbiting the primary 'A' and the secondary 'C' orbiting 'B'. However I can see how this would probably get too complicated for trinary and quaternary systems, which poses a second major difficulty.

[ArcWolf]

N-Body physics is a real bit*h when you get past n=2... Solving an n=2 body proof took 1 hole page of binder paper in my Quantum Mech. class. n=3 took 9 pages just to set up.

[db48x]

N-Body physics is a real bit*h when you get past n=2... Solving an n=2 body proof took 1 hole page of binder paper in my Quantum Mech. class. n=3 took 9 pages just to set up.

Yes, we are lucky that Aurora is only doing nested 2–body approximations! Have you ever seen the Principia mod for Kerbal Space Program? The source code is a great read though:

https://github.com/mockingbirdnest/Principia/

But I still wish we had barycenters, and the ability to set any body as the center of the view. (so that you could zoom in on a planet with a lot of moons and not have the planet vanish off of the screen at the next build cycle).

[ArcWolf]

N-Body physics is a real bit*h when you get past n=2... Solving an n=2 body proof took 1 hole page of binder paper in my Quantum Mech. class. n=3 took 9 pages just to set up.

Yes, we are lucky that Aurora is only doing nested 2–body approximations! Have you ever seen the Principia mod for Kerbal Space Program? The source code is a great read though:

https://github.com/mockingbirdnest/Principia/

But I still wish we had barycenters, and the ability to set any body as the center of the view. (so that you could zoom in on a planet with a lot of moons and not have the planet vanish off of the screen at the next build cycle).

I have not see that mod, then again i have not played KSP since Squad sold the game. I'll have to check out that code.

Center of view is probably doable in the code, barycenters would be nice too.

[Borealis4x]

I think Max Temperature Factor should be name-changed to Max Colony Cost just to be more clear as to what it is.

[Density]

I think Max Temperature Factor should be name-changed to Max Colony Cost just to be more clear as to what it is.

If a body has say, a temp factor of 1 and a max temp factor of 1.5, then I can think of plenty of situations where this isn't the max cc (and I would want to know this).

[Borealis4x]

I think Max Temperature Factor should be name-changed to Max Colony Cost just to be more clear as to what it is.

If a body has say, a temp factor of 1 and a max temp factor of 1.5, then I can think of plenty of situations where this isn't the max cc (and I would want to know this).

Pretty sure I read that max temp factor = max colony cost, so I don't see any reason not to change it to be more clear.

Anyways, the only reason you care about the temp factor in the first place is due to its effect on colony costs.

[nuclearslurpee]

I think Max Temperature Factor should be name-changed to Max Colony Cost just to be more clear as to what it is.

If a body has say, a temp factor of 1 and a max temp factor of 1.5, then I can think of plenty of situations where this isn't the max cc (and I would want to know this).

Pretty sure I read that max temp factor = max colony cost, so I don't see any reason not to change it to be more clear.

Anyways, the only reason you care about the temp factor in the first place is due to its effect on colony costs.

Not strictly true, because if the maximum temperature factor stays under 2.0x you can easily have a higher colony cost due to lack of oxygen, no water, dangerous gas, etc. all of which impose a flat 2.0x CC.

I suspect the confusion was due to linguistic imprecision, in most cases when there is a significant temperature variation due to eccentricity the max temperature cost will probably exceed 2.0x without terraforming. However the two quantities are different and we should not confuse them.

[Borealis4x]

I think Max Temperature Factor should be name-changed to Max Colony Cost just to be more clear as to what it is.

If a body has say, a temp factor of 1 and a max temp factor of 1.5, then I can think of plenty of situations where this isn't the max cc (and I would want to know this).

Pretty sure I read that max temp factor = max colony cost, so I don't see any reason not to change it to be more clear.

Anyways, the only reason you care about the temp factor in the first place is due to its effect on colony costs.

Not strictly true, because if the maximum temperature factor stays under 2.0x you can easily have a higher colony cost due to lack of oxygen, no water, dangerous gas, etc. all of which impose a flat 2.0x CC.

I suspect the confusion was due to linguistic imprecision, in most cases when there is a significant temperature variation due to eccentricity the max temperature cost will probably exceed 2.0x without terraforming. However the two quantities are different and we should not confuse them.

I never realized how much circles (or i guess ovals in this case) could hurt my brain...

Anyways, I'd like it if Steve could make Max Colony Cost readily apparent on the planet browser. Its the information I need to know the most as a player.

Also hoping 2.0 will let us use multiple tugs at once that contribute all their engine power to towing instead of having to build what amounts to a giant engine with a tow winch on it. Would be more realistic/flexible. Although I hear it might not be possible on the engine for some reason...