Aurora 4x

C# Aurora => C# Bug Reports => Topic started by: Steve Walmsley on April 23, 2020, 05:43:48 PM

Title: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 23, 2020, 05:43:48 PM
Give the number of 'bug' reports concerning the interaction of engineering and maintenance storage, I thought it would be worth explaining the mechanics in detail.

Ships have the following parameters

As can be seen above, the Failure modifier is based on a combination of size and engineering spaces. Two hulls of different sizes with the same percentage of space dedicated to engineering will have the same failure modifier. The base failure rate is based on hull size and failure modifier. If two ships have the same failure modifier, then the base failure rate will be linear with size. A ship of 10,000 tons will have double the failure rate of a ship of 5000 tons. The amount of maintenance supplies is based on cost, because a more expensive ship relative to its size will require additional MSP to fix failures. Two ships with the same failure modifier and the same ratio of size to cost will have the same amount of MSP per engineering space

Below is a table showing failure rates and MSP for different ship sizes, with the same ratios of cost, size and engineering percentages.

(http://www.pentarch.org/steve/Maint1.PNG)

Here is the same table with only 1 ENG per ship. This creates a double problem, as the fail rate increases and the number of MSP decreases. Maintenance life falls exponetially.

(http://www.pentarch.org/steve/Maint2.PNG)

So when you add maintenance storage and don't see the exact number of MSP added you expect, that is because you are changing the size, cost and engineering percentage of the hull, which affects base MSP and in turn the total MSP.
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: kyonkundenwa on April 23, 2020, 06:55:03 PM
Bug report. MSP storage is not totaled correctly in 1.8.0.

Start a new game. These numbers are from a TN start with no additional techs.
Click "new ship class".
Remove the Engineering Space, add 2 fighter engineering spaces instead. MSP: 23.
Add a Large Maintenance Storage Bay. MSP: 2013. So far so good.
Add a Tiny Maintenance Storage Bay. MSP: 53. LMSB is ignored.
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: Inglonias on April 23, 2020, 07:11:40 PM
Yeah, the problem isn't that MSP doesn't add up cleanly. As you say, it's not supposed to. The problem is that you can't mix more than one kind of storage bay without causing weird things to happen  like losing a bunch of MSP for no reason.
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: Droll on April 23, 2020, 07:37:58 PM
Yeah, the problem isn't that MSP doesn't add up cleanly. As you say, it's not supposed to. The problem is that you can't mix more than one kind of storage bay without causing weird things to happen  like losing a bunch of MSP for no reason.

Can confirm - adding multiple different sizes of maintenance storage bays messes up the calculation.
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: MarcAFK on April 23, 2020, 07:46:18 PM
Ive seen it too.  It seems unintended.
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: Erik L on April 23, 2020, 11:28:39 PM
Bug report. MSP storage is not totaled correctly in 1.8.0.

Start a new game. These numbers are from a TN start with no additional techs.
Click "new ship class".
Remove the Engineering Space, add 2 fighter engineering spaces instead. MSP: 23.
Add a Large Maintenance Storage Bay. MSP: 2013. So far so good.
Add a Tiny Maintenance Storage Bay. MSP: 53. LMSB is ignored.

Bugs should be posted in the bugs thread.
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: King-Salomon on April 24, 2020, 03:21:07 AM
Bugs should be posted in the bugs thread.

They are/were, but Steve opened this topic to explain taht it is not a bug.. but it is..

at least that's how I understand him opening this topic and linking to it in the bug thread
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on April 24, 2020, 03:43:00 AM
The bug is that the game only calculate the smallest Maintenance Storage bay you put on the ship. So only one type of Storage Bay is calculated and it always seem to choose the smallest one.

If you construct a ship with maintenance bays and only use one type it works nicely but not if you match different sizes.
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 24, 2020, 04:28:35 AM
Bug report. MSP storage is not totaled correctly in 1.8.0.

Start a new game. These numbers are from a TN start with no additional techs.
Click "new ship class".
Remove the Engineering Space, add 2 fighter engineering spaces instead. MSP: 23.
Add a Large Maintenance Storage Bay. MSP: 2013. So far so good.
Add a Tiny Maintenance Storage Bay. MSP: 53. LMSB is ignored.

Thanks. I'd read the bug reports on maintenance storage not adding the correct amount, and skimmed over the 'multiple storage type' bug without realising it was different. Fixed. now.
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: Energyz on April 24, 2020, 10:12:03 AM
The way maintenance is handled seems to give small components a strange advantage.

Here's a random ship using 60HS engine :

Alpino class Ammunition Transport (P)      3 537 tons       70 Crew       675.7 BP       TCS 71    TH 1 200    EM 0
16967 km/s      Armour 1-20       Shields 0-0       HTK 12      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 0
Maint Life 0.23 Years     MSP 119    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 523    5YR 7 845    Max Repair 600.00 MSP
Officer    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP1200.00 test (1)    Power 1200.0    Fuel Use 24.49%    Signature 1200.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres    Range 52 billion km (35 days at full power)

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

And here its counterpart, using 479 0.1HS engine

Alpino - Copy class Ammunition Transport (P)      3 537 tons       489 Crew       2 591.7 BP       TCS 71    TH 958    EM 0
13545 km/s      Armour 1-20       Shields 0-0       HTK 496      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 0
Maint Life 11.63 Years     MSP 458    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 6    5YR 93    Max Repair 20 MSP
Officer    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP2.00 (479)    Power 958.0    Fuel Use 600.0%    Signature 2.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres    Range 2.1 billion km (43 hours at full power)

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

In this case you may not want to use the ultra small engine as it needs top much crew, but the way maint life skyrockets doesn't make sense. In the game, that makes ultra large military engine barely usefull, as you'll much prefer average sized engine despite the lower fuel efficiency. Is that intended?

IRL, systems with less components are generally more reliable than the same system but with multiple small components
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: Inglonias on April 24, 2020, 10:23:45 AM
The way maintenance is handled seems to give small components a strange advantage.

Here's a random ship using 60HS engine :

Alpino class Ammunition Transport (P)      3 537 tons       70 Crew       675.7 BP       TCS 71    TH 1 200    EM 0
16967 km/s      Armour 1-20       Shields 0-0       HTK 12      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 0
Maint Life 0.23 Years     MSP 119    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 523    5YR 7 845    Max Repair 600.00 MSP
Officer    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP1200.00 test (1)    Power 1200.0    Fuel Use 24.49%    Signature 1200.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres    Range 52 billion km (35 days at full power)

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

And here its counterpart, using 479 0.1HS engine

Alpino - Copy class Ammunition Transport (P)      3 537 tons       489 Crew       2 591.7 BP       TCS 71    TH 958    EM 0
13545 km/s      Armour 1-20       Shields 0-0       HTK 496      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 0
Maint Life 11.63 Years     MSP 458    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 6    5YR 93    Max Repair 20 MSP
Officer    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP2.00 (479)    Power 958.0    Fuel Use 600.0%    Signature 2.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres    Range 2.1 billion km (43 hours at full power)

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

In this case you may not want to use the ultra small engine as it needs top much crew, but the way maint life skyrockets doesn't make sense. In the game, that makes ultra large military engine barely usefull, as you'll much prefer average sized engine despite the lower fuel efficiency. Is that intended?

IRL, systems with less components are generally more reliable than the same system but with multiple small components

I agree. That feels kind of strange. That said, this isn't really an exploitable situation due to the enormous loss in range that ship suffers.
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 24, 2020, 11:24:31 AM
The way maintenance is handled seems to give small components a strange advantage.

Here's a random ship using 60HS engine :

Alpino class Ammunition Transport (P)      3 537 tons       70 Crew       675.7 BP       TCS 71    TH 1 200    EM 0
16967 km/s      Armour 1-20       Shields 0-0       HTK 12      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 0
Maint Life 0.23 Years     MSP 119    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 523    5YR 7 845    Max Repair 600.00 MSP
Officer    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP1200.00 test (1)    Power 1200.0    Fuel Use 24.49%    Signature 1200.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres    Range 52 billion km (35 days at full power)

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

And here its counterpart, using 479 0.1HS engine

Alpino - Copy class Ammunition Transport (P)      3 537 tons       489 Crew       2 591.7 BP       TCS 71    TH 958    EM 0
13545 km/s      Armour 1-20       Shields 0-0       HTK 496      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 0
Maint Life 11.63 Years     MSP 458    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 6    5YR 93    Max Repair 20 MSP
Officer    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP2.00 (479)    Power 958.0    Fuel Use 600.0%    Signature 2.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres    Range 2.1 billion km (43 hours at full power)

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

In this case you may not want to use the ultra small engine as it needs top much crew, but the way maint life skyrockets doesn't make sense. In the game, that makes ultra large military engine barely usefull, as you'll much prefer average sized engine despite the lower fuel efficiency. Is that intended?

IRL, systems with less components are generally more reliable than the same system but with multiple small components

The second ship costs 4x as much, is slower and has 96% less range. All design decisions are trade-offs.
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on April 24, 2020, 01:20:14 PM
The way maintenance is handled seems to give small components a strange advantage.

Here's a random ship using 60HS engine :

Alpino class Ammunition Transport (P)      3 537 tons       70 Crew       675.7 BP       TCS 71    TH 1 200    EM 0
16967 km/s      Armour 1-20       Shields 0-0       HTK 12      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 0
Maint Life 0.23 Years     MSP 119    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 523    5YR 7 845    Max Repair 600.00 MSP
Officer    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP1200.00 test (1)    Power 1200.0    Fuel Use 24.49%    Signature 1200.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres    Range 52 billion km (35 days at full power)

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

And here its counterpart, using 479 0.1HS engine

Alpino - Copy class Ammunition Transport (P)      3 537 tons       489 Crew       2 591.7 BP       TCS 71    TH 958    EM 0
13545 km/s      Armour 1-20       Shields 0-0       HTK 496      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 0
Maint Life 11.63 Years     MSP 458    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 6    5YR 93    Max Repair 20 MSP
Officer    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP2.00 (479)    Power 958.0    Fuel Use 600.0%    Signature 2.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres    Range 2.1 billion km (43 hours at full power)

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

In this case you may not want to use the ultra small engine as it needs top much crew, but the way maint life skyrockets doesn't make sense. In the game, that makes ultra large military engine barely usefull, as you'll much prefer average sized engine despite the lower fuel efficiency. Is that intended?

IRL, systems with less components are generally more reliable than the same system but with multiple small components

You can't compare with a 0.1 engine as that still require 1 crew to operate and will therefore require ten times the amount of crew of any larger engine than 1HS... you should have made the comparison at 1HS engine. But even then you still would have winded up with having to chose between a different important factors. In general the larger engine is better on your economy. In this case you would only get two different values which are maintenance life and fuel usage (range).

Now... the game is not looking at number of items that can brake on the ship... it only calculate the odds of "something" breaking in the ship. While this might not be very realistic that one large engine have the same chance the break as 60 smaller engines break it is a game balance issue. Perhaps it could become a bit more refined in the future, but it works for what it is intended. Giving you choices to make. Large expensive components will make ships very expensive to maintain... it is as simple as that.
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: Energyz on April 24, 2020, 03:13:26 PM
While this might not be very realistic that one large engine have the same chance the break as 60 smaller engines break it is a game balance issue. Perhaps it could become a bit more refined in the future, but it works for what it is intended. Giving you choices to make. Large expensive components will make ships very expensive to maintain... it is as simple as that.

Which is exaclty my point, thats just not realistic and a little couter-intuitive. That's all
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: Father Tim on April 24, 2020, 05:39:50 PM
While this might not be very realistic that one large engine have the same chance the break as 60 smaller engines break it is a game balance issue. Perhaps it could become a bit more refined in the future, but it works for what it is intended. Giving you choices to make. Large expensive components will make ships very expensive to maintain... it is as simple as that.

Which is exaclty my point, thats just not realistic and a little couter-intuitive. That's all

It also completely overlooks that fact that the second ship is going to blow up almost instantly.

If a component with less than one HTK takes damage, it takes full effect and that point of damage continues on to hit something else. . . again and again if necessary until it hits something that has 1 or more HTK to actually absorb it.

So the second ships, with a huge mass of tiny engines, will have fifty to a hundred of them chain fail until the damage finally hits the fuel storage or magazine -- and since it only has enough MSP to cover 22 tiny engines, each one after that has a 10% chance of exploding and destroying the ship.  That's an estimated 12% chance to survive it's first maintenance failure, which on average will happen after six months.

Until then, the ship will gulp down fuel while in operation.

Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on April 24, 2020, 05:47:53 PM
While this might not be very realistic that one large engine have the same chance the break as 60 smaller engines break it is a game balance issue. Perhaps it could become a bit more refined in the future, but it works for what it is intended. Giving you choices to make. Large expensive components will make ships very expensive to maintain... it is as simple as that.

Which is exaclty my point, thats just not realistic and a little couter-intuitive. That's all

No... engines this small require exactly ONE crew to maintain and you are not suppose to use more than ONE engine in any design this small. The crew allotment will not become linear until you reach 1HS size. This is an intentional design decision by Steve for a reason...  ;)

If you need two 0.1 engines you are ALWAYS better of just designing a 0.2 engine instead as they are extremely cheap to design there is no reason not to.
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: Energyz on April 24, 2020, 06:08:46 PM
Why do you focus on the small engine? I'm just pointing out what shriking out components do on maintenance life, i'm not saying that 0.1 HS engine is optimal...

Here's a more realistic approach:

Neptuno II class Cruiser Escort      30 975 tons       605 Crew       6 936.7 BP       TCS 619    TH 2 400    EM 8 520
7748 km/s      Armour 9-87       Shields 284-532       HTK 180      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 24      PPV 120
Maint Life 1.09 Years     MSP 2 759    AFR 548%    IFR 7.6%    1YR 2 342    5YR 35 127    Max Repair 900 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 1 000 tons     Cryogenic Berths 200   
Lieutenant    Control Rating 2   BRG   AUX   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 20    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP1200.00 (4)    Power 4800    Fuel Use 24.49%    Signature 600.0    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 1 250 000 Litres    Range 29.7 billion km (44 days at full power)
Delta S71 / R532 Shields (4)     Recharge Time 532 seconds (0.5 per second)

Quad Gauss Cannon R100-17.00 Turret (20x16)    Range 10 000km     TS: 25000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 10 000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R240-TS25000 (2)     Max Range: 240 000 km   TS: 25 000 km/s     96 92 88 83 79 75 71 67 62 58

Active Search Sensor AS8-R1 (1)     GPS 50     Range 8.9m km    MCR 971.5k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes


Neptuno II - Copy class Cruiser Escort      30 975 tons       605 Crew       6 936.7 BP       TCS 619    TH 2 400    EM 8 520
7748 km/s      Armour 9-87       Shields 284-532       HTK 200      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 24      PPV 120
Maint Life 2.00 Years     MSP 2 759    AFR 548%    IFR 7.6%    1YR 917    5YR 13 751    Max Repair 300 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 1 000 tons     Cryogenic Berths 200   
Lieutenant    Control Rating 2   BRG   AUX   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 20    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP400.00 (12)    Power 4800    Fuel Use 42.43%    Signature 200.0    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 1 250 000 Litres    Range 17.1 billion km (25 days at full power)
Delta S71 / R532 Shields (4)     Recharge Time 532 seconds (0.5 per second)

Quad Gauss Cannon R100-17.00 Turret (20x16)    Range 10 000km     TS: 25000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 10 000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R240-TS25000 (2)     Max Range: 240 000 km   TS: 25 000 km/s     96 92 88 83 79 75 71 67 62 58

Active Search Sensor AS8-R1 (1)     GPS 50     Range 8.9m km    MCR 971.5k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Same cost, same crew, same speed, same everything except maintenance and range. (I think we can ignore HTK here)

So yes, I understand that there's a tradeoff between maintenance and fuel consumption and that it is a direct consequence of the system. But I've always felt that in general bigger components were more efficient in every way but the cost, and I feel the game pushes you to think that way.

Hence it feels weird, as it is not following common sense and from a game balance perspective.

Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: Father Tim on April 24, 2020, 06:30:02 PM
Why do you focus on the small engine? I'm just pointing out what shriking out components do on maintenance life, i'm not saying that 0.1 HS engine is optimal...

Because that's expressly one of the points of multiple small components?  Less efficeint, but easier & cheaper to maintain.

It's the reason why fuel, engines, maintenance storage, magazines, engineering spaces, boat bays, etc., all have various-sized versions where the larger they are, the more efficient they are per ton displacement.

- - - - -

Loading up a unit with hundreds or even thousands of tiny components in order to game the maintenance failure system is a well-known exploit from VB Aurora.  NPRs don't do it, I don't do it, and if you have a problem with it, I suggest you don't do it either.

Certainly, I'd never accept dropping range from 44 days down to only 25, no matter what it did to my expected maintenance life.
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on April 24, 2020, 08:06:10 PM

Same cost, same crew, same speed, same everything except maintenance and range. (I think we can ignore HTK here)

So yes, I understand that there's a tradeoff between maintenance and fuel consumption and that it is a direct consequence of the system. But I've always felt that in general bigger components were more efficient in every way but the cost, and I feel the game pushes you to think that way.

Hence it feels weird, as it is not following common sense and from a game balance perspective.

Which one of he two ship below are more appealing to you?!?

Code: [Select]
Ark Royal I class Carrier     13 429 tons       221 Crew       1 538 BP       TCS 269    TH 750    EM 0
2792 km/s      Armour 3-50       Shields 0-0       HTK 79      Sensors 5/5/0/0      DCR 11      PPV 0
Maint Life 2.47 Years     MSP 787    AFR 131%    IFR 1.8%    1YR 179    5YR 2 678    Max Repair 375.00 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 5 000 tons     Magazine 600   
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 100    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP750.00 (1)    Power 750.0    Fuel Use 28.58%    Signature 750.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 750 000 Litres    Range 35.2 billion km (145 days at full power)

FN/SPN-1A Navigation Sensor (1)     GPS 1000     Range 18.5m km    Resolution 100
FN/SQR-2A Thermal Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 5     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  17.7m km
FN/SER-3A EM Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 5     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  17.7m km

Code: [Select]
Ark Royal II class Carrier     13 429 tons       208 Crew       1 512.2 BP       TCS 269    TH 750    EM 0
2792 km/s      Armour 3-50       Shields 0-0       HTK 84      Sensors 5/5/0/0      DCR 8      PPV 0
Maint Life 2.47 Years     MSP 580    AFR 175%    IFR 2.4%    1YR 132    5YR 1 977    Max Repair 125.00 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 5 000 tons     Magazine 600   
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 100    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP250.00 (3)    Power 750.0    Fuel Use 49.50%    Signature 250.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 917 000 Litres    Range 24.8 billion km (102 days at full power)

FN/SPN-1A Navigation Sensor (1)     GPS 1000     Range 18.5m km    Resolution 100
FN/SQR-2A Thermal Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 5     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  17.7m km
FN/SER-3A EM Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 5     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  17.7m km

The differences between them are basically that the first have more engineering space and a few extra crew requirement and cost slightly more BUT it has a much better fuel economy so will be cheaper in the long run by quite a margin. The second ship traded the engineering space for more fuel storage. Larger engines are better in almost every way except for the cost in research and worse redundancy, it also is harder to fit a larger engine into different classes of ships in different sizes.

If you are not interested in better fuel economy you should not build large engines, period!!!
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: Garfunkel on April 25, 2020, 09:20:30 AM
He is not talking about fuel economy Jorgen_CAB, he's talking about small components being easier to maintain than large components and how that is counter-intuitive to him.

I don't really care about the sizes of the components vis-a-vis maintenance - the maintenance costs go up because the BP cost goes up and that's logical to me.
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on April 25, 2020, 09:33:53 AM
He is not talking about fuel economy Jorgen_CAB, he's talking about small components being easier to maintain than large components and how that is counter-intuitive to him.

I don't really care about the sizes of the components vis-a-vis maintenance - the maintenance costs go up because the BP cost goes up and that's logical to me.

Yes.. I agree that it might be in some way counter intuitive when you don't understand the mechanic... they way it works is that there is a certain % chance every construction cycle that a component breaks... if it breaks it then randomize based in size which component that breaks. This means that a 60HS engone have the same chance to break as three 20HS engines and as one larger engine is more expensive it also means that on average the larger engine is more expensive to maintain.

In reality it probably would not be as black and white and often many smaller components actually is MORE maintenance heavy that a single large component if the same type. So three 20HS engines would in reality be more expensive to maintain than a single HS60. The bigger engine might be twice as likely to fail but when you have three engines there is three chances to fail during the same time period, that is how things work in real life.

But the game work differently and the only reason to build a larger engine is because you want a better fuel economy, otherwise you should avoid them as they are more expensive to maintain, provide less redundancy, cost more in research, provide less HTK etc...

I would like to see some overhaul to the maintenance rules at some point where each component has a maintenance value and that is something you can influence during the design step. That way a large engine would become more efficient in more ways than just fuel as components fail individually.

Part of what I showed was that if you make them have equal maintenance life the ship with a larger engine still get more range and require less fuel per travelled distance. The differences in cost are quite low. Personally I generally prefer the second option of the two as I do value redundancy, cheaper research cost and being able to fit the same engines into multiple hull sizes to be quite important. But really large engines do have their place...
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: Droll on April 25, 2020, 07:09:27 PM
He is not talking about fuel economy Jorgen_CAB, he's talking about small components being easier to maintain than large components and how that is counter-intuitive to him.

I don't really care about the sizes of the components vis-a-vis maintenance - the maintenance costs go up because the BP cost goes up and that's logical to me.

Yes.. I agree that it might be in some way counter intuitive when you don't understand the mechanic... they way it works is that there is a certain % chance every construction cycle that a component breaks... if it breaks it then randomize based in size which component that breaks. This means that a 60HS engone have the same chance to break as three 20HS engines and as one larger engine is more expensive it also means that on average the larger engine is more expensive to maintain.

In reality it probably would not be as black and white and often many smaller components actually is MORE maintenance heavy that a single large component if the same type. So three 20HS engines would in reality be more expensive to maintain than a single HS60. The bigger engine might be twice as likely to fail but when you have three engines there is three chances to fail during the same time period, that is how things work in real life.

But the game work differently and the only reason to build a larger engine is because you want a better fuel economy, otherwise you should avoid them as they are more expensive to maintain, provide less redundancy, cost more in research, provide less HTK etc...

I would like to see some overhaul to the maintenance rules at some point where each component has a maintenance value and that is something you can influence during the design step. That way a large engine would become more efficient in more ways than just fuel as components fail individually.

Part of what I showed was that if you make them have equal maintenance life the ship with a larger engine still get more range and require less fuel per travelled distance. The differences in cost are quite low. Personally I generally prefer the second option of the two as I do value redundancy, cheaper research cost and being able to fit the same engines into multiple hull sizes to be quite important. But really large engines do have their place...

So you want a new "component delicacy" value that affects the MSP characterisics of a component. This could be leveraged in a way where weapons that are lower than you max tech level actually become cheaper to maintain - "tried and tested" vs "cutting edge" so to speak.
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on April 26, 2020, 06:23:46 AM
He is not talking about fuel economy Jorgen_CAB, he's talking about small components being easier to maintain than large components and how that is counter-intuitive to him.

I don't really care about the sizes of the components vis-a-vis maintenance - the maintenance costs go up because the BP cost goes up and that's logical to me.

Yes.. I agree that it might be in some way counter intuitive when you don't understand the mechanic... they way it works is that there is a certain % chance every construction cycle that a component breaks... if it breaks it then randomize based in size which component that breaks. This means that a 60HS engone have the same chance to break as three 20HS engines and as one larger engine is more expensive it also means that on average the larger engine is more expensive to maintain.

In reality it probably would not be as black and white and often many smaller components actually is MORE maintenance heavy that a single large component if the same type. So three 20HS engines would in reality be more expensive to maintain than a single HS60. The bigger engine might be twice as likely to fail but when you have three engines there is three chances to fail during the same time period, that is how things work in real life.

But the game work differently and the only reason to build a larger engine is because you want a better fuel economy, otherwise you should avoid them as they are more expensive to maintain, provide less redundancy, cost more in research, provide less HTK etc...

I would like to see some overhaul to the maintenance rules at some point where each component has a maintenance value and that is something you can influence during the design step. That way a large engine would become more efficient in more ways than just fuel as components fail individually.

Part of what I showed was that if you make them have equal maintenance life the ship with a larger engine still get more range and require less fuel per travelled distance. The differences in cost are quite low. Personally I generally prefer the second option of the two as I do value redundancy, cheaper research cost and being able to fit the same engines into multiple hull sizes to be quite important. But really large engines do have their place...

So you want a new "component delicacy" value that affects the MSP characterisics of a component. This could be leveraged in a way where weapons that are lower than you max tech level actually become cheaper to maintain - "tried and tested" vs "cutting edge" so to speak.

It would not be unreasonable for components to become cheaper to maintain the longer it was they were designed using such a system. You could also make it so brand new components are quite expensive to maintain in the beginning too.
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: Tikigod on April 26, 2020, 07:06:34 AM
He is not talking about fuel economy Jorgen_CAB, he's talking about small components being easier to maintain than large components and how that is counter-intuitive to him.

I don't really care about the sizes of the components vis-a-vis maintenance - the maintenance costs go up because the BP cost goes up and that's logical to me.

Yes.. I agree that it might be in some way counter intuitive when you don't understand the mechanic... they way it works is that there is a certain % chance every construction cycle that a component breaks... if it breaks it then randomize based in size which component that breaks. This means that a 60HS engone have the same chance to break as three 20HS engines and as one larger engine is more expensive it also means that on average the larger engine is more expensive to maintain.

In reality it probably would not be as black and white and often many smaller components actually is MORE maintenance heavy that a single large component if the same type. So three 20HS engines would in reality be more expensive to maintain than a single HS60. The bigger engine might be twice as likely to fail but when you have three engines there is three chances to fail during the same time period, that is how things work in real life.

But the game work differently and the only reason to build a larger engine is because you want a better fuel economy, otherwise you should avoid them as they are more expensive to maintain, provide less redundancy, cost more in research, provide less HTK etc...

I would like to see some overhaul to the maintenance rules at some point where each component has a maintenance value and that is something you can influence during the design step. That way a large engine would become more efficient in more ways than just fuel as components fail individually.

Part of what I showed was that if you make them have equal maintenance life the ship with a larger engine still get more range and require less fuel per travelled distance. The differences in cost are quite low. Personally I generally prefer the second option of the two as I do value redundancy, cheaper research cost and being able to fit the same engines into multiple hull sizes to be quite important. But really large engines do have their place...

So you want a new "component delicacy" value that affects the MSP characterisics of a component. This could be leveraged in a way where weapons that are lower than you max tech level actually become cheaper to maintain - "tried and tested" vs "cutting edge" so to speak.

It would not be unreasonable for components to become cheaper to maintain the longer it was they were designed using such a system. You could also make it so brand new components are quite expensive to maintain in the beginning too.

But old technologies are also most costly to repair in terms of utilising older components that are no longer in standard use so are no longer produced in high frequency.
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: Doren on April 26, 2020, 07:23:04 AM
Maybe glossary in aurora should include short version that MSP provided by stores fluctuate with cost?
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on April 26, 2020, 03:54:39 PM
But old technologies are also most costly to repair in terms of utilising older components that are no longer in standard use so are no longer produced in high frequency.

While that is true most often high maintenance cost for old equipment is the fact that it is old and many parts of the construction can't be replaced and even if you put in some new parts things don't work like it used to... but on the other hand you have very experienced crew who knows the equipment very well and so are very good at fixing and reapiring it... but over time... yes old ships should become more and more expensive to maintain.

But old technologies are tried and often cheap to produce and maintain and as long as they are still in use and you create new components they should be cheaper and cheaper to maintain.

Not sure how viable it would be, but the game could track how many components you have of one type and then use that as one of the parameters to maintenance cost... the more you have of the same component in a fleet the cheaper it should be to both produce and maintain... So... new components would be both expensive to produce and maintain at the beginning but become less so as you get more of them. If you have specific components that you have very few of... say a very large active sensor system then that component will be expensive throughout the entire life cycle... which seems realistic.

You then also could get the same effect as in reality... small component generally are more expensive to produce and maintain due to being more complex for its size compared with a larger component, in terms of price per ton that is. But, you then would see smaller components getting less and less expensive both to produce and maintain as you start mass produce them for yor entire fighters fleet, say a particular fighter engine that you will have like 200 of. But 2000t cruiser engines might be cheaper per ton to build at start but will remain quite expensive as you might just build like 20 of them or so.

It would be very difficult to know how expensive your ships are and will become in the future as it relies entirely on how many components you will build of the types you have in them. A ship can be quite inexpensive after a while when you have a large amount of them.

It would also show they more realistic approach to jack of all trades ship versus more specialised ships... it would be more efficient over time to build all ships with the same sensor suite even if they are not optimal for every ship from an economical perspective. These are real life decisions militarise have to wrestle all the time. Good enough versus the best but very expensive... there are rarely a best answer to that question.
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: SpikeTheHobbitMage on April 28, 2020, 07:44:33 AM
The part that bugs me about maintenance is that armour, which can't suffer failures, counts against the failure rate.  The logical conclusion is that wrapping a ship in armour somehow makes the internal components less reliable.

One of these ships has an operational life measured in decades, the other in seconds.  The only difference between them is the armour.
Code: [Select]
Example 1 class Tin Can      582 tons       20 Crew       72.2 BP       TCS 12    TH 0    EM 0
1 km/s      Armour 1-6       Shields 0-0       HTK 5      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 11      PPV 0
Maint Life 22.16 Years     MSP 77    AFR 3%    IFR 0.0%    1YR 0    5YR 5    Max Repair 25 MSP
Kaigun-Ch?sa    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres    Range N/A

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Code: [Select]
Example 2 class Tin Can      3,272,493,938 tons       20 Crew       392,699,274.9 BP       TCS 65,449,879    TH 0    EM 0
1 km/s      Armour 2000-196349       Shields 0-0       HTK 5      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 11      PPV 0
Maint Life 0.00 Years     MSP 75    AFR 85673732567223%    IFR 1189912952322.5%    1YR 9,495,505,359,534    5YR 142,432,580,393,008    Max Repair 25 MSP
Kaigun-Ch?sa    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres    Range N/A

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This is admittedly an extreme example, but demonstrates the point.  Is the second ship just crushing itself under its own gravity?
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on April 28, 2020, 09:20:09 AM
The part that bugs me about maintenance is that armour, which can't suffer failures, counts against the failure rate.  The logical conclusion is that wrapping a ship in armour somehow makes the internal components less reliable.

One of these ships has an operational life measured in decades, the other in seconds.  The only difference between them is the armour.
Code: [Select]
Example 1 class Tin Can      582 tons       20 Crew       72.2 BP       TCS 12    TH 0    EM 0
1 km/s      Armour 1-6       Shields 0-0       HTK 5      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 11      PPV 0
Maint Life 22.16 Years     MSP 77    AFR 3%    IFR 0.0%    1YR 0    5YR 5    Max Repair 25 MSP
Kaigun-Ch?sa    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres    Range N/A

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Code: [Select]
Example 2 class Tin Can      3,272,493,938 tons       20 Crew       392,699,274.9 BP       TCS 65,449,879    TH 0    EM 0
1 km/s      Armour 2000-196349       Shields 0-0       HTK 5      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 11      PPV 0
Maint Life 0.00 Years     MSP 75    AFR 85673732567223%    IFR 1189912952322.5%    1YR 9,495,505,359,534    5YR 142,432,580,393,008    Max Repair 25 MSP
Kaigun-Ch?sa    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres    Range N/A

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This is admittedly an extreme example, but demonstrates the point.  Is the second ship just crushing itself under its own gravity?

Therefore a system that look more to individual components AND the ship as a whole would be a bit more interesting and also would provide one more dimension when building ships as well. I do agree that this is a very extreme example and probably don't matter that much in a real game... but it certainly do matter to some degree.
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: space dwarf on April 29, 2020, 10:31:56 AM
The part that bugs me about maintenance is that armour, which can't suffer failures, counts against the failure rate.  The logical conclusion is that wrapping a ship in armour somehow makes the internal components less reliable.

One of these ships has an operational life measured in decades, the other in seconds.  The only difference between them is the armour.
Code: [Select]
Example 1 class Tin Can      582 tons       20 Crew       72.2 BP       TCS 12    TH 0    EM 0
1 km/s      Armour 1-6       Shields 0-0       HTK 5      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 11      PPV 0
Maint Life 22.16 Years     MSP 77    AFR 3%    IFR 0.0%    1YR 0    5YR 5    Max Repair 25 MSP
Kaigun-Ch?sa    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres    Range N/A

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Code: [Select]
Example 2 class Tin Can      3,272,493,938 tons       20 Crew       392,699,274.9 BP       TCS 65,449,879    TH 0    EM 0
1 km/s      Armour 2000-196349       Shields 0-0       HTK 5      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 11      PPV 0
Maint Life 0.00 Years     MSP 75    AFR 85673732567223%    IFR 1189912952322.5%    1YR 9,495,505,359,534    5YR 142,432,580,393,008    Max Repair 25 MSP
Kaigun-Ch?sa    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres    Range N/A

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This is admittedly an extreme example, but demonstrates the point.  Is the second ship just crushing itself under its own gravity?

Maybe it represents the fact that heavily-armoured ships would need more complex systems of hookups between sensors and external components to ensure maintainability without compromising on armour integrity. After all, an external sensor which is connected by a thin conduit through 10 meters of armour composite plating is probbably harder to maintain that one which is directly on the pressure hull of the vessel.

Or maybe im just making paper-thin justifications XD
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: dag0net on August 16, 2020, 10:18:56 AM

As to fuel efficiency?

TN is umm, non-newtonian. 

Alright, so I've probably forgotten a lot of lore, but if TN drives are not traditionally plumed (which iirc they are not, it would hardly make any sense) then the intuition/calculation for cooperative drives does not work on a simple power to weight ratio which nixes the FE argument about smaller drives anyway.

As to AFR/IFR

Consider access.

A server array is built of relatively small modular components that can be swapped & repaired as individual components.  The server array is not one giant processor or storage component, but dozens or . .  of smaller components contributing to a whole with greater capacity.

This is, I think, a relatively clear example of why a large system of small components is easier to build & maintain than one large item.  Nobody builds single processor storage units 100m cubed because it's insane.
The individual components are easier to design, make & maintain & once the design philosophy of the matrix is adopted they can be adapted using new components. 

Not precisely contiguous, but it should be intuitive that a device or set of tools custom built to work a given problem are better at that role than devices that are designed to compromise efficiency in favor of multiple uses or .  As we're on scifi - consider comprehensive designs of self-evolving/repairing ships where the whole is the components in a more real sense, eg nanotech.  versus a design philosophy where the components are


As to armour.

In order to repair an item one must have access to it, a user having access to a thing probably means that item is more exposed to the enemy and the environment also.  In order to protect components from damage one emplaces armor or overengineers components, which then have to be grappled with to perform not just repairs & maintenance, but everyday operations.  The more armour/emphasis on protection - the harder they are to access/repair when that protection has been compromised. .  indeed there
are literally hundreds of design examples of military equipment that show that often armor placements even without combat damage make repair or utility impractical.

The problem here one supposes is that the difference in design philosophy is not always evident in a singular field without expert knowledge, because industry standards have already adopted what makes most sense in that application.  For earth moving one big vehicle is preferred over many small ones.


Idk if this helped or hindered, but. . yeh.





Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: Droll on August 27, 2020, 11:48:16 PM

As to fuel efficiency?

TN is umm, non-newtonian. 

Alright, so I've probably forgotten a lot of lore, but if TN drives are not traditionally plumed (which iirc they are not, it would hardly make any sense) then the intuition/calculation for cooperative drives does not work on a simple power to weight ratio which nixes the FE argument about smaller drives anyway.

As to AFR/IFR

Consider access.

A server array is built of relatively small modular components that can be swapped & repaired as individual components.  The server array is not one giant processor or storage component, but dozens or . .  of smaller components contributing to a whole with greater capacity.

This is, I think, a relatively clear example of why a large system of small components is easier to build & maintain than one large item.  Nobody builds single processor storage units 100m cubed because it's insane.
The individual components are easier to design, make & maintain & once the design philosophy of the matrix is adopted they can be adapted using new components. 

Not precisely contiguous, but it should be intuitive that a device or set of tools custom built to work a given problem are better at that role than devices that are designed to compromise efficiency in favor of multiple uses or .  As we're on scifi - consider comprehensive designs of self-evolving/repairing ships where the whole is the components in a more real sense, eg nanotech.  versus a design philosophy where the components are


As to armour.

In order to repair an item one must have access to it, a user having access to a thing probably means that item is more exposed to the enemy and the environment also.  In order to protect components from damage one emplaces armor or overengineers components, which then have to be grappled with to perform not just repairs & maintenance, but everyday operations.  The more armour/emphasis on protection - the harder they are to access/repair when that protection has been compromised. .  indeed there
are literally hundreds of design examples of military equipment that show that often armor placements even without combat damage make repair or utility impractical.

The problem here one supposes is that the difference in design philosophy is not always evident in a singular field without expert knowledge, because industry standards have already adopted what makes most sense in that application.  For earth moving one big vehicle is preferred over many small ones.


Idk if this helped or hindered, but. . yeh.

"versus a design philosophy where the components are", did you forget to finish this sentence? Feels like there should be more there
Title: Standing Orders
Post by: IanD on October 12, 2020, 10:45:30 AM
Just started a v1.12 game, selected Refuel, Resupply & Overhaul in Standing Orders for my first survey ships.

Find they overhaul OK but so far do not refuel or resupply before entering overhaul.

Is this unique to my set up?

Edit: A longer observation reveals the error codes:-

1.12.0 Function #730: Object not set to an instance of an object.

Followed by :-

1.12.0 Function #722: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.

These two error messages occur as the ship defaults to its standing order to Refuel, Resupply & Overhaul .

Ian


Sorry! Posted here in error now posted in bug reports delete if you want.
Title: Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Post by: TheTalkingMeowth on October 12, 2020, 12:54:59 PM
This should go in the V1.12 bug thread.
Title: Re: Standing Orders
Post by: Froggiest1982 on October 12, 2020, 02:16:09 PM
Just started a v1.12 game, selected Refuel, Resupply & Overhaul in Standing Orders for my first survey ships.

Find they overhaul OK but so far do not refuel or resupply before entering overhaul.

Is this unique to my set up?

Edit: A longer observation reveals the error codes:-

1.12.0 Function #730: Object not set to an instance of an object.

Followed by :-

1.12.0 Function #722: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.

These two error messages occur as the ship defaults to its standing order to Refuel, Resupply & Overhaul .

Ian

Yes please, post in bug section. Also please add the condition you using for the order to trigger.