|
Post by Cory Trese on Aug 9, 2011 10:44:10 GMT -5
today's update will fix the display of the fuel efficiency for deep space travel in the cargo display, as indicated in the OP and follow on.
I'll post the changelog as soon as it is ready
|
|
|
Post by slawyer on Aug 10, 2011 1:03:15 GMT -5
It looks to me like the code computing actual fuel use in play has diverged greatly from the code computing the numbers for the fuel report. I recall bringing this up back in May: startradersrpg.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=rules&action=display&thread=601When is this update? Are you going to fix the fuel report to show accurate numbers now? That would be nifty. By "accurate number" I mean the same numbers as actual use -- for example, if moving into a red sector causes my fuel to go from 10.0 to 9.5 on the main map HUD, the fuel report should say 0.5 in red (and not .074 which is totally not accurate, at least not anymore). Of course, this is assuming no random event like sail damage or an encounter causes more fuel use. If I am misunderstanding something about the game please correct me. Is it still going to be possible to get close to 0 fuel use in red for fast ships? for quick ships?
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on Aug 10, 2011 1:11:23 GMT -5
No, it has not diverged greatly, that would be somewhat of an exaggeration. They are actually using the same code. Several adjustments are are made to the display in Cargo to make it provide a smoothed average consumption without rolling any accident results. I am going to fix the fuel report to show the most accurate numbers that I can. The same numbers that are in use are always in use in all the places where the numbers are needed. The fuel report in the Cargo is a smoothed average. That is to say that it does NOT nominally reflect the "next" fuel consumption roll, but it shows a weighted factor that is representative of a fuel use roll, given average results and values. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_smoothing
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on Aug 10, 2011 1:13:20 GMT -5
Is it perfect? Nope, not even close.
Is it using Math to try to make a complex thing into a single point of data? Yes, it is.
Does that always make it seem "perfect" -- not by a long shot.
But ... at you do NOT have any accidents when you open the Cargo page. We could get you a totally accurate rating but some Solar Sails and Engines might be damaged.
[Insert cat-in-the-box joke here.]
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on Aug 10, 2011 1:45:12 GMT -5
Well I released the update. It isn't perfect and I see what you mean about blockades. Hard to put a "number of blockades left" in the fuel report, but it might be something to include in the sector report as seen on the bridge.
I'm going to read my e-mail carefully over the next few days and see what the new players say about fuel changes, as well as monitoring the forum.
any change to W-F consumption calculations is going to cause some push-back and unhappiness (it always does) so I'm just going to work as best I can to balance requests and design to produce something that remains fun.
|
|
Fenikso
Templar
[ Star Traders 2 & Elite Supporter ]
Nobody expects the Rychart Inquisition!
Posts: 753
|
Post by Fenikso on Aug 10, 2011 2:56:22 GMT -5
Downloading now. Actually I have found it working well and reflecting damage to the sails before, just last update with added fuel consumption seemed to break the numbers in cargo page.
BTW: I am very happy about the change. It made game more interesting on impossible. The red sectors are real deep space. You think twice if you want to go there. There are also more RP situations like: "Hello merchants. I am a pirate. And I do not care about your artifacts and electronics. Just give me the bloody water and I may let you live!" or "Damn micro-meteorites! You, you and you go there and fix it!" ;D
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on Aug 10, 2011 3:01:27 GMT -5
Great, love to hear your feedback. I think that slawyer's point is related to exactly tracking the remaining floating point fuel values. I'm going to see what I can do for a future release. I do really like this new fuel equation better. It has taken some work testing it one so many different scenarios (and I'm certain I missed some!) Like you said, I think it increases the difficulty and increases the range of useful ships.
|
|
Fenikso
Templar
[ Star Traders 2 & Elite Supporter ]
Nobody expects the Rychart Inquisition!
Posts: 753
|
Post by Fenikso on Aug 10, 2011 14:56:12 GMT -5
Should this report take current ship damage into account right now after update?
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on Aug 10, 2011 14:59:40 GMT -5
It takes into account all the same factors as the main map as it uses the same function.
|
|
Fenikso
Templar
[ Star Traders 2 & Elite Supporter ]
Nobody expects the Rychart Inquisition!
Posts: 753
|
Post by Fenikso on Aug 10, 2011 15:28:45 GMT -5
I am sorry to say it, but it doesn't seem to work for me. After 4 damaged sails I got from 0.7 to 1.7 in average on red, but cargo screen did not change at all. Still showing 0.7 which is now accurate but for undamaged ship.
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on Aug 10, 2011 15:51:50 GMT -5
What device do you use?
|
|
Fenikso
Templar
[ Star Traders 2 & Elite Supporter ]
Nobody expects the Rychart Inquisition!
Posts: 753
|
Post by Fenikso on Aug 10, 2011 15:56:31 GMT -5
HTC Desire
|
|
Fenikso
Templar
[ Star Traders 2 & Elite Supporter ]
Nobody expects the Rychart Inquisition!
Posts: 753
|
Post by Fenikso on Aug 11, 2011 2:05:15 GMT -5
I have also noticed one thing. Damage to the sails does not change any numbers on cargo page, but damage to the engines does.
|
|
Fenikso
Templar
[ Star Traders 2 & Elite Supporter ]
Nobody expects the Rychart Inquisition!
Posts: 753
|
Post by Fenikso on Aug 13, 2011 13:11:18 GMT -5
@cory - I have found that the bug is not affecting any new characters. Just the old ones. Maybe this helps?
|
|
Fenikso
Templar
[ Star Traders 2 & Elite Supporter ]
Nobody expects the Rychart Inquisition!
Posts: 753
|
Post by Fenikso on Aug 24, 2011 16:41:03 GMT -5
I am still having the cargo fuel report bug even with 3.9.17.
The Fuel Report says 2.647 [0.987] but consumption is much lower, about 1.9 [0.25]. Am I the only one?
|
|