VB6 Aurora > Wiki Discussion

Rule confirmations

(1/1)

Alsadius:
I'm working on cleaning up various bits of the wiki as I see things that bug me.  Thing is, I'm something of a newbie, so I'm not 100% sure the stuff I'm posting is right. 

If someone wants to confirm the following, and clean it up if needed, then I'd appreciate it:

1) aurorawiki. pentarch. org/index. php?title=Active_Sensors/Fire_Control

--- Quote ---Active sensors emit an EM signature when they are turned on.  The signature is equal to the grav pulse strength(or "GPS") of the sensor.

Grav pulse strength = Active Grav Sensor Strength x Size x Resolution

Larger search radars emit substantial signatures - even at basic tech(strength 10), a 50 HS sensor at resolution 500 will have a signature of 10x50x500 = 25,000, which is almost as large as a starting home planet.  As such, it's generally wise to keep active sensors turned off when not in combat, and rely on passive sensors to detect the presence of enemies.
--- End quote ---

2) Same article. 


--- Quote ---In order to fire missiles, a fleet must be able to both detect the target and send missiles against it - in other words, you need both an active sensor and a missile fire control.  The active sensor may be located anywhere, and a whole fleet can use detection data provided by a single active sensor.  Conversely, fire control is ''not'' shared between ships, and every missile-equipped ship (even one as small as a fighter) must have a missile fire control capable of illuminating its target in order to fire at that target.  Note that missiles may be fired at a waypoint without need for a missile fire control, but in general this is only useful for missiles with built-in sensors(either to target themselves, or to act as sensor drones).
--- End quote ---

I'll probably add more to this thread as I make edits.  Thanks. 

Alsadius:
I've made a new damage template photo as well, based on Steve's comments in the C# changes thread: aurora2. pentarch. org/index. php?topic=8495. msg107125#msg107125

It seems from his post that the gradients are the same in VB6 for normal amounts of damage, it's just how they're calculated that will change.  I've used that assumption, and the assumption of all weapon types being the same in VB6 as in C#, to create this graphic.  aurorawiki. pentarch. org/index. php?title=File:DamageTemplate. png#Summary

(Also, sorry for the links all being broken.  Because I'm a fairly new forum poster, I don't seem to have the right to post URLs in text or as links, presumably as an anti-spam measure.  Copy-paste and delete the spaces to get the URLs to work).   

Erik L:
There is a C# Namespace for C# stuff. The main Namespace is for VB Aurora.

Alsadius:

--- Quote from: Erik Luken link=topic=10541. msg117673#msg117673 date=1577226789 ---There is a C# Namespace for C# stuff.  The main Namespace is for VB Aurora.
--- End quote ---

I'm aware, but the way that specific post was written made me think it also applied equally to VB6.  The charts I made (using the algorithm Steve described) match up perfectly with the old version of the image made by TMarkos years ago.  It just gave a more complete description, which let me build it out larger with confidence. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

Reply

It appears that you have not registered with Aurora 4x. To register, please click here...