|
|
Post by Apotheon on Aug 13, 2018 11:07:55 GMT
Do we know how the interstellar credits in the game are calculated? According to the old blog, the costs are based on solar abundance.
Ultimately, I wonder if it's even worth optimising things for cost or whether that's almost arbitrary. Especially what caught my attention is how cheap it is to make rockets out of a ton of diamond... really? Diamond is solar abundant? |
|
ghgh
Full Member
Still trying to make kinetics work.
Posts: 136
|
Post by ghgh on Aug 13, 2018 11:16:00 GMT
Not to be pedantic but wouldn't they be solar credits or maybe just.. credits? The entire game takes places within the solar system barring user made maps so they aren't really interstellar. As for your question they are calculated using solar-abundance, ease of transport/storage (that's why hydrogen is cheaper then deuterium), melting point (easier to forge), density, and other things which escape me. Carbon is fairly abundant in the solar system which is probably why diamond is so cheap (the game does not simulate manufacturing costs).
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Aug 13, 2018 11:56:17 GMT
Materials that have this IsFibrious tag tend to be more expensive as well, as it's assumed those materials are more complex and need a more involved manufacturing process.
|
|
|
|
Post by Apotheon on Aug 13, 2018 21:23:13 GMT
Not to be pedantic but wouldn't they be solar credits or maybe just.. credits? The entire game takes places within the solar system barring user made maps so they aren't really interstellar. As for your question they are calculated using solar-abundance, ease of transport/storage (that's why hydrogen is cheaper then deuterium), melting point (easier to forge), density, and other things which escape me. Carbon is fairly abundant in the solar system which is probably why diamond is so cheap (the game does not simulate manufacturing costs). Ooops... the icon in-game looks kinda like "IC" if I remember correctly.
How much is 1 credit?
|
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Aug 13, 2018 21:32:30 GMT
Not to be pedantic but wouldn't they be solar credits or maybe just.. credits? The entire game takes places within the solar system barring user made maps so they aren't really interstellar. As for your question they are calculated using solar-abundance, ease of transport/storage (that's why hydrogen is cheaper then deuterium), melting point (easier to forge), density, and other things which escape me. Carbon is fairly abundant in the solar system which is probably why diamond is so cheap (the game does not simulate manufacturing costs). Ooops... the icon in-game looks kinda like "IC" if I remember correctly.
How much is 1 credit?
You're talking about monetary value wise? Or, something else? |
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Aug 14, 2018 10:42:08 GMT
Do we know how the interstellar credits in the game are calculated? According to the old blog, the costs are based on solar abundance.
Ultimately, I wonder if it's even worth optimising things for cost or whether that's almost arbitrary. Especially what caught my attention is how cheap it is to make rockets out of a ton of diamond... really? Diamond is solar abundant? What's interstellar about them?
As for diamond, carbon is abundant and CoADE is pretty derp about manufacturing costs.
Hopefully this gets fixed at some point - I want to hear gnashing of teeth over having to pay through the nose for multi-cm diamond layers and broken, graphitized diamond combustion chambers (myself I only use diamond in <=mm thick layers).
|
|
|
|
Post by Apotheon on Aug 14, 2018 16:42:52 GMT
The thing is, optimising hard for low cost when cost feels arbitrary makes the entire optimisation process feel pretty arbitrary. I can optimise for mass instead, but that’s quite irrelevant in space.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Aug 14, 2018 16:53:18 GMT
The thing is, optimising hard for low cost when cost feels arbitrary makes the entire optimisation process feel pretty arbitrary. I can optimise for mass instead, but that’s quite irrelevant in space. No. Optimizing for mass is very much not irrelevant. More mass means that more mass needs to be shipped around to build your spacecraft, and that it will consume more propellant for a given amount of delta-v with a given exhaust velocity. It doesn't matter if you can design an extremely powerful, well armored space battleship if it can't move anywhere without requiring dozens of tankers, and odds are, you will always be outnumbered by people designing something more practical. If the game had a strategic component in addition to a tactical one, this would be very clear. |
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Aug 14, 2018 23:28:22 GMT
Cost optimization is arbitrary, yes.
Mass optimization is almost not optional. Granted mass optimization is dictated by the intended role of the ship in question.
|
|
ghgh
Full Member
Still trying to make kinetics work.
Posts: 136
|
Post by ghgh on Aug 15, 2018 1:54:13 GMT
I think the cost system is fairly accurate at the moment, with the exception of manufacturing costs. ( I think RCC is WAY overpriced and diamond is too easy to use.) As far as converting this to real money..... taking the normal elements (iron, aluminum, silicon, u-233, silver, graphite, etc.) and figuring out the cost per Kg of these gives a very wonky credit to USD Ratio
Iron is currently (8/14/18) priced at 1.48 USD per Kg. In game it is 9.55 Credit per Kg.
Using iron as our mark you get 6.47 credit per USD. To put into context, the Saturn 5 rocket (just the rocket by itself) cost 110 million USD (in 1967)These numbers might make sense due to the massive reduction in earths population causing a deflation in the economy. For context, the population of the world in 1900 was around 1.7 billion (about the same as the pop of the solar system in game). Adjusting for inflation, a USD in 1900 is worth 27 dollars today.
I wonder what it would take to make a 4x game out of the current level editor. You could build mines and habitats, simulate the trade of supplies and propellant. each planet/moon/asteroid could produce certain elements needed to build your ships. You could then use forges/manufactories to produce more advanced materials ((Iron + Carbon + Vanadium + Chromium + some-other-element) = Vanadium Chromium Steel). You would need to add population centers to generate manpower for your crews and mines. Wouldn't even have to add a research mechanic since all the materials already exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Aug 15, 2018 8:16:02 GMT
The thing is, optimising hard for low cost when cost feels arbitrary makes the entire optimisation process feel pretty arbitrary. I can optimise for mass instead, but that’s quite irrelevant in space. No. Optimizing for mass is very much not irrelevant. More mass means that more mass needs to be shipped around to build your spacecraft, and that it will consume more propellant for a given amount of delta-v with a given exhaust velocity. It doesn't matter if you can design an extremely powerful, well armored space battleship if it can't move anywhere without requiring dozens of tankers, and odds are, you will always be outnumbered by people designing something more practical. If the game had a strategic component in addition to a tactical one, this would be very clear. This. Mass optimization is the king, it affects logistics manoeuvrability and available mission profiles. You want to put maximum amount of oomph in minimum mass, and have maximum fraction of this mass be propellant (up until the point where your ship starts killing the crew when near empty).
Personally I tend to build up to core ships budgets and delta-v. Building up to a budget is more fun than aggressive minimization anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Apotheon on Aug 15, 2018 13:24:29 GMT
The thing is, optimising hard for low cost when cost feels arbitrary makes the entire optimisation process feel pretty arbitrary. I can optimise for mass instead, but that’s quite irrelevant in space. No. Optimizing for mass is very much not irrelevant. More mass means that more mass needs to be shipped around to build your spacecraft, and that it will consume more propellant for a given amount of delta-v with a given exhaust velocity. It doesn't matter if you can design an extremely powerful, well armored space battleship if it can't move anywhere without requiring dozens of tankers, and odds are, you will always be outnumbered by people designing something more practical. If the game had a strategic component in addition to a tactical one, this would be very clear. Yeah, the CDE campaign mentions why you're mass restricted at one point and it's to do with the space infrastructure. I've also looked at propellant efficiency yesterday, but it didn't scale with mass, probably because I was only comparing ships with various exhaust velocities. I've also experimented with propellant tankers and they're the worst part of infrastructure in my experience. Can't get propellant anywhere.
Edit: also, is exhaust velocity really what matters? I just built a fluorine hydrogen rocket that's way more (2x) propellant efficient than a nuclear thermal rocket with 2x the exhaust velocity... about the same wet mass, dry mass, and dV.
|
|
ghgh
Full Member
Still trying to make kinetics work.
Posts: 136
|
Post by ghgh on Aug 15, 2018 14:08:52 GMT
The thing is, optimising hard for low cost when cost feels arbitrary makes the entire optimisation process feel pretty arbitrary. I can optimise for mass instead, but that’s quite irrelevant in space. No. Optimizing for mass is very much not irrelevant. More mass means that more mass needs to be shipped around to build your spacecraft, and that it will consume more propellant for a given amount of delta-v with a given exhaust velocity. It doesn't matter if you can design an extremely powerful, well armored space battleship if it can't move anywhere without requiring dozens of tankers, and odds are, you will always be outnumbered by people designing something more practical. If the game had a strategic component in addition to a tactical one, this would be very clear. I think methane stations are also a large part of the economy. A port to consolidate propellant at would give you a system of waypoints to reach. I think tankers are used in offensive actions when there is no friendly or neutral port to dock in and you need to reach beyond your DV budget. |
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Aug 16, 2018 8:29:30 GMT
No. Optimizing for mass is very much not irrelevant. More mass means that more mass needs to be shipped around to build your spacecraft, and that it will consume more propellant for a given amount of delta-v with a given exhaust velocity. It doesn't matter if you can design an extremely powerful, well armored space battleship if it can't move anywhere without requiring dozens of tankers, and odds are, you will always be outnumbered by people designing something more practical. If the game had a strategic component in addition to a tactical one, this would be very clear. Yeah, the CDE campaign mentions why you're mass restricted at one point and it's to do with the space infrastructure. I've also looked at propellant efficiency yesterday, but it didn't scale with mass, probably because I was only comparing ships with various exhaust velocities. I've also experimented with propellant tankers and they're the worst part of infrastructure in my experience. Can't get propellant anywhere.
Edit: also, is exhaust velocity really what matters? I just built a fluorine hydrogen rocket that's way more (2x) propellant efficient than a nuclear thermal rocket with 2x the exhaust velocity... about the same wet mass, dry mass, and dV.
That's weird. How I understand it is, the more exhaust velocity your rocket has, the less propellant mass you need to expel to get the same amount of delta-v. |
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Aug 16, 2018 8:49:26 GMT
I optimize modules (while keeping a certain desired performance) for low cost mostly; this tends to go hand-in-hand with low mass (since it costs more to have more of the same mass, obviously). Real-life costs and masses may not exactly mirror CoaDE, but they'll be close enough for the purposes of the simulation, and replacement materials should be available for most outliers.
Diamond will be easier to make when we have manufacturing in space (which CoaDE assumes), since having vacuum is part of the CVD process, and solar power is continuous and plentiful. Carbon can be sourced from Venus' CO2; it's a great place for the diamond industry to locate.
|
|
