Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[forsaken1111]

At least you don't lose the progress. 

[Flying Dice]

Yeah, but now I've got to wait until the random number gods give me another one, because even a research team with 30 lab capacity from another focus would take upwards of a decade to complete the ~10000 or so left on it, and they've got their own stuff to work on.

[PTTG??]

This needs to be rebuilt.

Priorities:

1: Remove redundant/toxic libraries; make compatible with as many OSes as possible.
2: Portable; should be possible to simply have the database, executable, ect., all on portable media.
3: Better distribution. Currently you need four downloads available only from his forum to run the program.
4: Bugfixes and error handling; currently it generally needs to be force-killed when it crashes, which it does frequently
5: Add functional UI; self-explanatory, intuitive, with treelike structure, similar to DF.
6: Swappable, editable ruleset support
7: Default rulesets including simple and balanced versions, and thematic ones such as hard sci-fi, star trek/wars, ect.
8: 3D systems and combat?

[Mini]

This should be interesting for you. Granted, it's still Windows only, but it is apparently going to fix the biggest issue people have had with the game (minimum resolution) along with improving a bunch of other stuff.

[Sheb]

Newtonian Aurora is coming!

Can you imagine the possibilities? Accelerating your ship far away, then glide silently toward the ennemy planet. Taking your time to accelerate and make dash at huge speed. Droping fuel/ammo behing to outrun a pursuing foe.

I'm lovin' it!

[Svampapa]

Whoa. 

But... but... my head hurts.

[Paul]

Haha cool.

I just designed a big tug ship with a 40,000 ton military jump engine (squad size 8) and a bunch of engines and a tractor beam. (commercial vessel)

I then designed a 40,000 ton fuel tanker with 30m liters of fuel and 13k maintenance storage, no engines and a tractor beam (commercial vessel) and a 40,000 ton collier with nothing but magazines (13500 magazine) and some engineering to keep the failure rate low (military vessel).

I now have the tug pulling the fuel tanker which is pulling the collier, and all that together is acting as the jump tender/collier/maintenance supply/tanker ship for my squad of three 20k ton cruisers and two 40k ton carriers (with 80 fighters onboard).


I think the triple linked ships kinda bugged though. Instead of going 1/3 the speed of the tug its still going 1/2, so its not accounting for that third ship. So it's going 9750 instead of the 6500 I designed it for, lol.

[PTTG??]

I would love what he's talking about for Aurora 2, and newtonian flight. It'd be amazing to have a diamond-hard scifi strategy game where you actually deal with light-speed lag between stars and reaction-massless hulks drifting between the stars...

[Flying Dice]

Honestly, it'd be interesting, but for me there would come a time where I would say "yeah, the simulation is cool, but...", as I play Aurora largely for the style of combat it provides, and true Newtonian physics, while more realistic (and possibly more faithful to the source material), would also further dilute the ratio of combat to spreadsheet management.

Haha cool.

I just designed a big tug ship with a 40,000 ton military jump engine (squad size and a bunch of engines and a tractor beam. (commercial vessel)

I then designed a 40,000 ton fuel tanker with 30m liters of fuel and 13k maintenance storage, no engines and a tractor beam (commercial vessel) and a 40,000 ton collier with nothing but magazines (13500 magazine) and some engineering to keep the failure rate low (military vessel).

I now have the tug pulling the fuel tanker which is pulling the collier, and all that together is acting as the jump tender/collier/maintenance supply/tanker ship for my squad of three 20k ton cruisers and two 40k ton carriers (with 80 fighters onboard).


I think the triple linked ships kinda bugged though. Instead of going 1/3 the speed of the tug its still going 1/2, so its not accounting for that third ship. So it's going 9750 instead of the 6500 I designed it for, lol.

Nicely done. As I recall, tractoring has been bugged in general, if I remember correctly a tug pulling a ship with no engines goes at its full speed. But that could be wrong.

[Hanzoku]

What version are you playing? I had thought Steve had specifically fixed that sort of activity to prevent tractor-based modular ships.

[BurnedToast]

The problem with real newtonian physics is combat becomes next to impossible. How do you defending against a fleet moving at 99% c? your window of engagement is a fraction of a fraction of a second....

If damage done due to kinetic impact energy was modeled (which it probably won't be) you wouldn't even need warheads on your missiles - a 1kg relativistic kill vehicle has more energy then the largest nuclear weapon we've ever detonated...... and the minimum missile size in aurora is (I believe) 2.5 tons. Maybe you couldn't hit a ship with that, but a planet? no problem. A couple dozen and it's sterilized before they even realize they are under attack.

Even without that damage modeled, just drop a huge crapton of missiles with sensors and no engines (but lots of agility) as you pass by. At those speeds, PD is useless, and the enemy has no chance to shoot back.

Edit: or if that won't work because it's too fast, just attach them to drones set to slow them down to more reasonable speeds so they can hit targets.

[Sheb]

Well, that fleet got a crappy windows of enggment as well. And hitting something while moving at 90%c is very difficult...

[PTTG??]

Well, you can always play with the numbers. Presumably, relativistic weaponry would only come in at the top of the tech tree, and combat would be somewhat different from what we're familiar with. After all, accelerations significantly higher than 9.8 m/s/s will toast your crew pretty quickly; missiles would be going so fast that nearly no time would pass for it...

And the amount of energy a 2.5 ton relativistic missile would have would be ridiculous. It has to reach that velocity somehow. If you launch it from a planet, you'd practically be nuking the launch site itself.

[BurnedToast]

With beam weapons, yes. Beam weapon combat becomes almost impossible (as if it's not weak enough already)

With missiles? not so much. Planets would be simple to hit, ships harder but see the edit about drones to slow the missiles down, and remember you can put sensors on missiles so they are auto-targetting. You just have to saturate the area where you think they are and let the missiles go to work.

Hmmm.... can you put mines on drones? Drive-by minefields in the enemy's home systems.

But the big thing is planets. Bust all his planets and who cares about his fleet?

[BurnedToast]

Well, you can always play with the numbers. Presumably, relativistic weaponry would only come in at the top of the tech tree, and combat would be somewhat different from what we're familiar with.

Why would relativistic weaponry be at the top of the tech tree? that makes no sense, a relativistic kill vehicle would just be.... an inanimate carbon rod (actually probably neutronium since we have that) going really really fast.

And as for relativistic speeds - did you miss the part about removing jump points and FTL being the way to get between systems? Every ship will be capable of a significant portion of c from near the start..... or it's going to be a really boring game.