We dont have much space travel because of our propulsion tech.
We dont have much space travel because nobody really invested in making space travel affordable.
If NASA would have continued funding after the apollo and space shuttle programs we could have commercial orbital stations, captured icy comets as fuel sources and metallic asteroids in orbit as metal sources with all industry associated with that.
Space would be colonised at least to the moon
Post
Sat Jun 14, 2014 2:05 pm
#17
Re: Fuel Part 2
That's pretty optimistic, car makers still fund cars, where's my flying car?
woops, my bad, everything & anything actually means specific and conformed
Post
Sat Jun 14, 2014 2:41 pm
#18
all the space tech was possible with 70's tech and is as possible now...
Re: Fuel Part 2
they dont fund flying cars.Katawa wrote:That's pretty optimistic, car makers still fund cars, where's my flying car?
all the space tech was possible with 70's tech and is as possible now...
Post
Sat Jun 14, 2014 9:40 pm
#19
soo... our current space tech is = to the 70s.. gotcha, thats what i'm talking about.
Re: Fuel Part 2
Cornflakes_91 wrote:they dont fund flying cars.Katawa wrote:That's pretty optimistic, car makers still fund cars, where's my flying car?
all the space tech was possible with 70's tech and is as possible now...
soo... our current space tech is = to the 70s.. gotcha, thats what i'm talking about.
"C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
"A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems."
- Paul Erdos (1913-1996)
- Bjarne Stroustrup
"A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems."
- Paul Erdos (1913-1996)
Post
Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:44 pm
#20
Re: Fuel Part 2
Fuel is a strategic resource, and will add value to the game as a military target. I would expect that barren desert worlds must have a use somehow. Fuel can matter in what powers your engines, be it nuclear, thorium, deuterium, hydrogen, whatever. And then fuel can be consumed by the population. But, we have Navy ships today that can float around for 20yrs+ without needing fuel. Topping off the tanks before every mission is too much realism. I would expect that to colonize the outer rims of the galaxy like we are, one should have mastered the energy requirements it takes to get there already. Similar arguments can be made for oxygen, water, food. These things are consumed. But this isn't a Mission to Mars simulator either. we're supposed to be flying about, conquering the galaxy.
Last edited by Compugasm on Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post
Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:09 am
#21
I would like people stop using 'Fun' as a magic card.
Re: Fuel Part 2
Different people have different ideas of what is and is not fun.Compugasm wrote:However, if it works like our cars work, they're not efficient enough and filling your car up at the gas station is not NOT fun.
I would like people stop using 'Fun' as a magic card.
Post
Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:38 am
#22
Re: Fuel Part 2
I guess that's why games like The Sims exist. You can do exiting things like, buy an alarm clock, take a shower, get the mail, and decide what outfit to put on that day. But, those painfully mundane details are what the game is about. If you have to make high level, empire wide decisions on what tech path to follow, you shouldn't have to stand at the gas pump too like you would in The Sims. Without knowing, I'm just going to assume that part of the LT economy is going to depend on you having a fleet of ships. Does it really make sense to program the AI pilots to fuel their ships too? Do I really have to rescue AI pilots who forgot to fill a ship with fuel/food/water or whatever? What if I have 1000 ships flying around? If refueling happens to often, it's tedium. If it takes 20yrs for a ship to need refueling, then it's not important enough for me to worry about it. I assume that someone other than me knows how to operate a gas pump, or invented a robot to do it. Possibly, maybe the refueling process is dangerous, takes a team of people, or requires technical expertise that I wouldn't have. Not unlike a modern aircraft. It's not something you can just hop out an do yourself. I think those are acceptable explanations of why we don't have to fuel something.Etsu wrote:Different people have different ideas of what is and is not fun.
Last edited by Compugasm on Sun Jun 15, 2014 1:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post
Sun Jun 15, 2014 1:04 am
#23
I think that actually touches on a key issue here, opportunities should be ignorable but should exist regardless. Fuel, like every other component SHOULD exist in some form with real consequences, to allow anyone who wishes to go down that road and turn LT into a logistics simulator where every unit of fuel can be calculated and allocated, engine efficiency charts, etc. should be able to be drawn up, and allow you to tweak and increase fuel savings of a fleet by 6.02% yet coming at a cost of 4.64% slower speeds by outfitting the ships with new engines, with a net savings of 2,096,431 credits per Time-unit. If this is the way you want to play than you should damn well be able to do so (Limited only by the coding for what information is tracked and judged against other information). However you should at the same time be able to entirely ignore this aspect of the game and just get a tiny message saying "Do you want to increase efficiency by 6.02% by reducing speed by 4.64%, doing so will cost 30,216,140 credits, and will result in 2,096,431 credits saved per Time-Unit. Yes/No/Diversify(partial)" or even less if you are yet a level removed from that, and just give an order for "save money in the long term, cap short term costs at 40 million credits, I don't care how you do it."
If the information is all there but ignorable, you can simply have a small credit reduction for resupplying each ship, but you can hone in and find out exactly how the money is being spent, on what, and how to improve it and walk away with something better. To me this feels very much in line with the rest of LT, being that you pay only as much attention to something as you want, while the rest just does its thing with or without your help.
Re: Fuel Part 2
Looking for quote context only to do an investigation to find it has been edited out of existence is...somewhat stimulating, as a puzzle to solve. is it fun though? I wasn't happy or smiling about it, but it was engrossing for the 60 seconds it lasted.Etsu wrote:Different people have different ideas of what is and is not fun.Compugasm wrote:However, if it works like our cars work, they're not efficient enough and filling your car up at the gas station is not NOT fun.
I would like people stop using 'Fun' as a magic card.
I think that actually touches on a key issue here, opportunities should be ignorable but should exist regardless. Fuel, like every other component SHOULD exist in some form with real consequences, to allow anyone who wishes to go down that road and turn LT into a logistics simulator where every unit of fuel can be calculated and allocated, engine efficiency charts, etc. should be able to be drawn up, and allow you to tweak and increase fuel savings of a fleet by 6.02% yet coming at a cost of 4.64% slower speeds by outfitting the ships with new engines, with a net savings of 2,096,431 credits per Time-unit. If this is the way you want to play than you should damn well be able to do so (Limited only by the coding for what information is tracked and judged against other information). However you should at the same time be able to entirely ignore this aspect of the game and just get a tiny message saying "Do you want to increase efficiency by 6.02% by reducing speed by 4.64%, doing so will cost 30,216,140 credits, and will result in 2,096,431 credits saved per Time-Unit. Yes/No/Diversify(partial)" or even less if you are yet a level removed from that, and just give an order for "save money in the long term, cap short term costs at 40 million credits, I don't care how you do it."
If the information is all there but ignorable, you can simply have a small credit reduction for resupplying each ship, but you can hone in and find out exactly how the money is being spent, on what, and how to improve it and walk away with something better. To me this feels very much in line with the rest of LT, being that you pay only as much attention to something as you want, while the rest just does its thing with or without your help.
Challenging your assumptions is good for your health, good for your business, and good for your future. Stay skeptical but never undervalue the importance of a new and unfamiliar perspective.
Imagination Fertilizer
Beauty may not save the world, but it's the only thing that can
Imagination Fertilizer
Beauty may not save the world, but it's the only thing that can
Post
Sun Jun 15, 2014 1:17 am
#24
Re: Fuel Part 2
That sounds like something in the tech tree, and I agree with that. I think what we're talking about (at least I am), is having to land at a fuel port, and click a fuel button on the interface somewhere. It could be argued, that the super computers of the future would interface with my ships computer, run a diagnostic, and it would detect I'm low on fuel. So, it fueled the ship for me at space dock. Like I said above, the process could be dangerous, or physically impossible to do by a human anyway. If the fuel was created "automatically" by a factory, then it's not much of a stretch to assume a computer system couldn't respond automatically to low fuel levels, and robot built to do this task. Your job as a player, should be to supply the fuel to stations. Not to every piece of equipment that runs off some form of energy.Hyperion wrote:... allow you to tweak and increase fuel savings of a fleet by 6.02% yet coming at a cost of 4.64% slower speeds by outfitting the ships with new engines.
Post
Sun Jun 15, 2014 1:42 am
#25
Excuses are acceptable too, in some degree, because Josh surely will have to make concessions.
I like the rest of your post, by the way. There are some importants notes there.
Re: Fuel Part 2
Yes.Compugasm wrote:Does it really make sense to program the AI pilots to fuel their ships too?
If the AI knows how to refuel their ships, I'm sure they know how to rescue each other. You don't need to do it, unless you decide to get your hands dirty. Maybe that's what you do: you are from the rescue service. Some players are going to chose to build an empire. Others will prefer the dirty work of been a minner, an explorer, a bounty-hunter or whatever they want.Compugasm wrote:Do I really have to rescue AI pilots who forgot to fill a ship with fuel/food/water or whatever?What if I have 1000 ships flying around?
That's not an explenation. It's an excuse.Compugasm wrote:Possibly, maybe the refueling process is dangerous, takes a team of people, or requires technical expertise that I wouldn't have. Not unlike a modern aircraft. It's not something you can just hop out an do yourself. I think those are acceptable explanations of why we don't have to fuel something.
Excuses are acceptable too, in some degree, because Josh surely will have to make concessions.
That's exactly the point. If you manage a fleet or whatever, including a big ship with complex expenses, there is no need to worry about every detail, because in real life you would not need to do it.Hyperion wrote:If the information is all there but ignorable, you can simply have a small credit reduction for resupplying each ship, but you can hone in and find out exactly how the money is being spent, on what, and how to improve it and walk away with something better. To me this feels very much in line with the rest of LT, being that you pay only as much attention to something as you want, while the rest just does its thing with or without your help.
I like the rest of your post, by the way. There are some importants notes there.
Post
Sun Jun 15, 2014 1:43 am
#26
A game should look to offer as much fun and engrossing activity as possible. This activity should have a meaningful positive impact if carried out, and avoidable without causing a negative impact if ignored. Logistics which can be delegated to a chunk of CPU running a "good enough" piece of code does just that. Fuel adds significant amounts of strategic gameplay, and while I don't think messing that up should result in a game over, it should come with harsh and natural consequences, like having to wait for some kind stranger, or sell yourself into labor to pay for a rescue, etc. Some people find puzzles like that more fun than any dogfight ever could be, its why some people become accountants and scientists and engineers. Not everyone gets their kicks from directing fleets or making numbers grow for the sake of growing, adding a little logistics zen could be quite rewarding.
Re: Fuel Part 2
Agreed, there is no reason to think that computers in the time of spaceships can't do everything necessary automatically, but I don't really think how we are going to say fueling of a ship is done really matters, it could just be beamed in just for S&G. The only difference what you said makes to my statement is that it would be different terminology. It could be crew, robots, sentient fuel sacrificing itself for the glory of some higher calling, whatever, doesn't matter what you call it, it is the fact that you can go in and tweak with it if you want, and ignore it if you don't care and just want to auto-pay for all your resupplying anywhere you go.Compugasm wrote:That sounds like something in the tech tree, and I agree with that. I think what we're talking about (at least I am), is having to land at a fuel port, and click a fuel button on the interface somewhere. It could be argued, that the super computers of the future would interface with my ships computer, run a diagnostic, and it would detect I'm low on fuel. So, it fueled the ship for me at space dock. Like I said above, the process could be dangerous, or physically impossible to do by a human anyway. If the fuel was created "automatically" by a factory, then it's not much of a stretch to assume a computer system couldn't respond automatically to low fuel levels, and robot built to do this task. Your job as a player, should be to supply the fuel to stations. Not to every piece of equipment that runs off some form of energy.Hyperion wrote:... allow you to tweak and increase fuel savings of a fleet by 6.02% yet coming at a cost of 4.64% slower speeds by outfitting the ships with new engines.
A game should look to offer as much fun and engrossing activity as possible. This activity should have a meaningful positive impact if carried out, and avoidable without causing a negative impact if ignored. Logistics which can be delegated to a chunk of CPU running a "good enough" piece of code does just that. Fuel adds significant amounts of strategic gameplay, and while I don't think messing that up should result in a game over, it should come with harsh and natural consequences, like having to wait for some kind stranger, or sell yourself into labor to pay for a rescue, etc. Some people find puzzles like that more fun than any dogfight ever could be, its why some people become accountants and scientists and engineers. Not everyone gets their kicks from directing fleets or making numbers grow for the sake of growing, adding a little logistics zen could be quite rewarding.
Challenging your assumptions is good for your health, good for your business, and good for your future. Stay skeptical but never undervalue the importance of a new and unfamiliar perspective.
Imagination Fertilizer
Beauty may not save the world, but it's the only thing that can
Imagination Fertilizer
Beauty may not save the world, but it's the only thing that can
Post
Sun Jun 15, 2014 2:22 am
#27
Re: Fuel Part 2
I like fuel concept in game called FTL, fuel is used to make sector jumps, one fuel cell - one time use. Its simple enough to avoid unnecessary micromanagement. And we all know that Josh loves simplicity. So my take on this: All Sub light engines uses only energy produced by ships energy reactor, faster than light drives: warp; wormhole uses fuel cells. Probably dark energy fuel cells
Post
Sun Jun 15, 2014 3:16 am
#28
Re: Fuel Part 2
We both agree that it doesn't matter how the fuel got in the ship, and you offered more explanations of how it could be done without personal direction from the player. That tweaking your talking about, sounds like info aquired in the tech tree, and deciding if researching the next level is cost effective or not. Which, doesn't sound at all like putting more gas in your engine before a mission to me. We're not talking about the same thing as far as I can tell.Hyperion wrote:...it is the fact that you can go in and tweak with it if you want, and ignore it if you don't care and just want to auto-pay for all your resupplying anywhere you go.
Post
Sun Jun 15, 2014 3:30 am
#29
this button would most likely have a price tag attached to it, as it should matter in the economy.
so i wouldnt want that money gets spent at every and any station i dock at just because the auto-refueler buys gasoline.
even NERVA type engines would need to carry along some mass (usually it was planned to be hydrogen) to expell out of the back
even tough the fuel was the uranium in the reactor, which would last those 20 years you say
i say all the nice things that could come with commercial space travel would have been possible in the 80's if the funding and interest havent dried out
Re: Fuel Part 2
it would boil down to pressing a button that says "refuel my ship".Compugasm wrote:I assume that someone other than me knows how to operate a gas pump, or invented a robot to do it. Possibly, maybe the refueling process is dangerous, takes a team of people, or requires technical expertise that I wouldn't have. Not unlike a modern aircraft. It's not something you can just hop out an do yourself. I think those are acceptable explanations of why we don't have to fuel something.
this button would most likely have a price tag attached to it, as it should matter in the economy.
so i wouldnt want that money gets spent at every and any station i dock at just because the auto-refueler buys gasoline.
those navy ships dont need to carry along their reaction mass, as they are floating on it.Compugasm wrote:But, we have Navy ships today that can float around for 20yrs+ without needing fuel.
even NERVA type engines would need to carry along some mass (usually it was planned to be hydrogen) to expell out of the back
even tough the fuel was the uranium in the reactor, which would last those 20 years you say
thats not what im saying.Jacobi1981 wrote: soo... our current space tech is = to the 70s.. gotcha, thats what i'm talking about.
i say all the nice things that could come with commercial space travel would have been possible in the 80's if the funding and interest havent dried out
Post
Sun Jun 15, 2014 4:33 am
#30
Say I had a 100% electric car. Every night I park my car in a special parking spot that recharged the batteries by transfering energy from the pad, to the car. All that needed to be done on my part, was to park in that spot. This is not any different than the auto-pay mentioned earlier. We don't have to click that refueling button. It should just happen.
Re: Fuel Part 2
This is the part I'm saying we can do without. It's unneccessary to click that button. The cost of refueling isn't a concern. Like, if you drive from home to work, maybe you use $1 of gas. That sum of money isn't the barrier preventing you from refueling. Similarly, it won't matter for your space ship either.Cornflakes_91 wrote:it would boil down to pressing a button that says "refuel my ship".
Say I had a 100% electric car. Every night I park my car in a special parking spot that recharged the batteries by transfering energy from the pad, to the car. All that needed to be done on my part, was to park in that spot. This is not any different than the auto-pay mentioned earlier. We don't have to click that refueling button. It should just happen.