The difference for a PD STO and a normal STO is the fire control speed for the mount, so a weapon in a PD mount will shoot down missiles better. But like on ships and 37.5 cm laser firing every 30 seconds is a poor PD weapon even if it has a PD Mount as the weapon has a low rate of fire and poor speed, however a Twin Gauss turret would have its mount speed negated without the PD STO setting and is a good antimissile weapon but a dreadful anti-ship weapon. 
So like on ships different weapons serve different roles

Quote from: xenoscepter on April 17, 2024, 04:19:38 PM

--- Yes. 4 boat bays is more crew. 4x the crew requirement actually.

Huh?

4 boat bays = 4 x 3 = 12 crew
1 hangar deck = 12 crew

--- There is 20 crew set aside for the parasites crew.

1 Hangar Deck = 32 Crew
4 Boat Bays = 80 Crew for the Parasites alone.

EDIT: Nevermind! Boat Bays used to be 20 crew per bay. Now they're 5!

Is there any reason to research Hangar Deck?

As far as I can tell there are only two things to pay attention to across the three variants of military hangar:
- Boat Bay - Small should be avoided if possible, as its crew and HTK are not in line with the other two on a per-ton basis.
- Some amount of HTK randomness and maintenance life adjustments can be played with by swapping Hangar Decks and Boat Bays for each other.

The three appear otherwise functionally identical if you bolt multiple small hangars together to make something the same size as a larger hangar. I'm actually surprised they're three different techs; I'd have guessed all three modules unlocked from the same tech if you'd asked me before I went digging for info to compare them.

You generally want to keep crew requirements to minimum to avoid tonnage bloat, especially for carriers who have to support the crews of their parasites.

Is there any reason to research Hangar Deck?

The research requires 4000 RP.
The Hangar Deck component has 4x the capacity of the Boat Bay, and has 4x the size, 4x the cost, 4x the crew, and 4x the HTK.
In other words, a Hangar Deck is almost entirely equivalent to 4 Boat Bays.

The only difference is using 4 components at 1 HTK each vs 1 component at 4 HTK.
I guess the latter could provide a terribly slight, terribly situational advantage.
But it hardly seems worth the effort to research.

Am I missing something about it?

Quote from: skoormit on April 16, 2024, 06:38:03 AM

Does anyone know the calculation for the current base temperature of a system body?
I suspect it's a simple matter of star brightness and current distance from star.

Prior to eccentric orbits, the base temperature of a body never varied, so I could just use the value of FCT_SystemBody.BaseTemperature.
But that value seems not to vary over time.

I'm good for this question; I had to derive it to match Aurora's model to get my body planner to work the way I wanted it to. It largely follows Pedroig's link and can be simplified even further for the values we have access to:

BaseTemp (K) = SysConst * L^0.25 / AU^0.5

L is the star's brightness measured in solar units; AU is the body's current distance in AU (works with eccentric orbits as a result). The system constant I didn't bother to break down further; it's value appears to be exactly 255 for all systems other than real Sol when plotted. Real Sol uses something between 255.13 and 255.3406815 (I've been too lazy to nail it down precisely) to determine base temperature. Rotation rate, atmosphere, and albedo are all modeled during the surface temperature calculation while the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is baked into the ~255 system constant.

Because the terraforming tab still uses 255 for its math even in Sol, bodies in Sol are slightly warmer than their listed terraformed values. This is most evident with the maximum periapsis temperature when they're located at periapsis. Venus was the first that I caught doing this as its temperature is the highest and least susceptible to hiding the error in rounding; see attached screenshot.

Here is the code:

                    // base temperature
                    sb.BaseTemp = 255 / Math.Pow(sb.OrbitalDistance / Math.Pow(sb.ParentStar.Luminosity, 0.5), 0.5);
                    if (sb.BaseTemp < 4) sb.BaseTemp = 4;

The result is in Kelvin.

I decided to not to add the effects of other stars in the system. I have the necessary formulae, but it would be hard for players to visualise.

Darn. I thought that the towed ship would be able to fire its engines. Thanks.

I don't know if this (bug?) (exploit?) (intended action?) has been changed since 1.13, but the last time i played Aurora for more than 15 minutes, I made "tuglets" with only a tractor beam and sufficient crew and barracks to operate it, and used them between my actual tugs and the towed object. The mass of the "tuglet" is the only thing that contributes to the slowing of the tug, so they would go at a quite impressive speed.

Does anyone know the calculation for the current base temperature of a system body?
I suspect it's a simple matter of star brightness and current distance from star.

Prior to eccentric orbits, the base temperature of a body never varied, so I could just use the value of FCT_SystemBody.BaseTemperature.
But that value seems not to vary over time.

I'm good for this question; I had to derive it to match Aurora's model to get my body planner to work the way I wanted it to. It largely follows Pedroig's link and can be simplified even further for the values we have access to:

BaseTemp (K) = SysConst * L^0.25 / AU^0.5

L is the star's brightness measured in solar units; AU is the body's current distance in AU (works with eccentric orbits as a result). The system constant I didn't bother to break down further; it's value appears to be exactly 255 for all systems other than real Sol when plotted. Real Sol uses something between 255.13 and 255.3406815 (I've been too lazy to nail it down precisely) to determine base temperature. Rotation rate, atmosphere, and albedo are all modeled during the surface temperature calculation while the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is baked into the ~255 system constant.

Because the terraforming tab still uses 255 for its math even in Sol, bodies in Sol are slightly warmer than their listed terraformed values. This is most evident with the maximum periapsis temperature when they're located at periapsis. Venus was the first that I caught doing this as its temperature is the highest and least susceptible to hiding the error in rounding; see attached screenshot.