Next patch requests

[kalthalior]

I like Ratqueen's idea about the game saving your settings. It would be really cool if I didn't have to go in and change everything every time I started a new game, like add planet names, turn on system grid, turn off galactic map grid.

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin...;f=23;t=005529

[oleg]

[quote]Originally posted by kalthalior:
I like Ratqueen's idea about the game saving your settings. It would be really cool if I didn't have to go in and change everything every time I started a new game, like add planet names, turn on system grid, turn off galactic map grid.

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin...;f=23;t=005529[/QUO TE]

Just like with ship designs: saving empire during the game saves all settings, like turn on system grid, for later use. There is no need to sort out all empire settings every time.

[Jmenschenfresser]

Maybe this was mentioned a long time ago somewhere, but it is my only wish. I don't want any of the previous ones I mentioned. If I get this one, I will be the happiest camper in the whole galaxy.

-Take out the requirement that in order to create a constructed planet (i.e a sphereworld) there must be a star present, or at least make it moddable that one needs to be there or not.

Why?

I really don't care about building sphereworlds on anything but a star, but this would allow other designs, smaller designs, to be built as bases anywhere in the system.

Think about it folks. This one small change solves the problem, from a certain point of view, of having facility abilites on vehicles. Not on ships obviously, but on bases, which I think would be the only logical place for say an intel facility.

Yes, this doesn't help the AI, but what mod does really, 'cept the TDM and maybe one or two others.

You'd have to colonize these planet-bases, and their only weapons capabilities would come from WPs, but I sort of like the idea of having to invest population in a base. And the weapons capabilities of such a base could change with the weather, not needing to retrofit.

Dear Santa,
...

[tesco samoa]

I Still want my sortable screens.

Ie. Cargo on planents

Show me what i want to see. Not all cargo on all planets.

This should subdivide into all,mines,fighters, etc...

Royal Pain the way it is now.

[Dracus]

Originally posted by Jmenschenfresser:
-
I really don't care about building sphereworlds on anything but a star, but this would allow other designs, smaller designs, to be built as bases anywhere in the system.
...

The sphereworld concept is based on some forumula/table where a super advanced race would build them around a star. I will try to find that site that talks about sphereworlds. it is one of the few things that follow and actual concept.

[TerranC]

Sphearworlds: Dyson Sphears:

Ring or shell constructed around a star or black hole. In the ring live people;
the ring is powered by the energy emissions of the star/black hole.
The construction of this habitats are proposed by the 20th century physician
Dyson, but never taken serious.

The Dyson sphere is named for the 20th Century Earth scientist Freeman Dyson; Dyson suggested that civilizations could be classified by the amount of power which they could tap and control. He proposed that eventually a civilization would tap the entire energy output of a star; some suggested that this would best be achieved by orbiting huge numbers of solar collectors, but this idea was quickly replaced by the idea of constructing a large solid sphere around it. This would not only allow all of the suns energy to be tapped if required, but would also potentially allow a colossal living area to be built.

Got it from
The Daystrom Institute

[Dracus]

Originally posted by TerranC:
Sphearworlds: Dyson Sphears:

Ring or shell constructed around a star or black hole. In the ring live people;
the ring is powered by the energy emissions of the star/black hole.
The construction of this habitats are proposed by the 20th century physician
Dyson, but never taken serious.

Got it from
The Daystrom Institute

Good old Star trek

Here is an interview with Dyson about this:

http://www.omnimag.com/archives/interviews/dyson.html

[TerranC]

Ironic.

Nuclear reactors in space, 30 years ago and now, absolutely no difference.

At least the Jet Propulsion Lab are researching Ion Engines.

[jimbob]

JPL's ion engines are low thrust, long burn engines, quite a departure from what most of us think of (ion drives on TIE fighters). But hey, it'll help JPL sucker money out of some of the... er, less sharp politicians.

[Phoenix-D]

"But hey, it'll help JPL sucker money out of some of the... er, less sharp politicians."

It's not just suckering..

Let's say you have two cars. One can go 0-60 in one minute, but can only stay at 60 for one hour. Distance traveled: 60 miles. Time: 1 hour.

The second car can go 0-60 in one hour, but can stay there for a week. Distance traveled: 10,020 miles. Time: 168 hours. So you go 167 times the distance, for 168 times the time spent. Clearly if you need to go farther than a mile the second is a better choice..

That's why the current ion engines are useful. I have no idea why SF hit on "ion" engines being these speed demons, really.

Phoenix-D