The only reason they get it first is cost, people will not spend the $$ to get something that they have no real use for but as soon as they do then they will buy it, so sometimes tech is in the hands of the public at the same time it is in the hands of the military.

It is all about cost effectiveness for a particular use. case in point, computers on the Apollo missions were very expensive calculators, in 1975 I spent $800 for my first one; it was a Texas instrument and you can buy pretty much the same one now for about $5. Everyone has one now, but at the time it was not cost effective for us civilians to buy one and use it!

and the first true desk top was in the 60s by non other than radio shack.

Radio Shack?!?!?! Wow. I pity whoever bought that monster.

it was a moniter and keyboard with a little memory. designed to be hooked up to a main frame.

Thank you for the pity... I miss my tsr80 color computer. My mother bought it for me in 1978 for $3,000.

Ah, if you can’t remember why how could it be the main argument?
My statement was on construction and then you argued more . . again why? if that was not the same argument? (I though you just did not get it and explained again and again clarifying that I was not talking design)
Also you made a bad analogy, then I called you on it then you wonder why I went there? I think you may be confused reread the posts in order.

Point being? In fact what did that mean?
as close as I can come to deciphering it, it may mean that the military does not have those crappy computers. This is rather irreverent really since lame computers like that are made to be cheap and thrown out in a few years (read 2 years) . Also . . [snicker] I do not expect you have been to too many government agencies. You would be amazed at the CR@P they have as computers. (this includes military offices) . . one good thing is with the security upgrades they are now enforcing they are buying more newer workstations (happy day for us!)
Also GPS is a bad example since it is a strictly military made system opened up for common use.
And as computers go . . .I will state again . .I make systems FOR the military and civilian use. . This is a current fact . . this is my day job. There is NO difference between them other than some software and some peripherals that are not even exclusive to the military (just the security minded) I work with People that has programmed, engineered and tested all sorts of Missiles and radar systems. Some of the needed specifications where precise or over engineered but nothing out of the ordinary (proprietary destines yes, but not way out there – then again that may be from my POV? ). Often items are “over engineered” for reliability but even that is not strictly military. Healthcare, financial and security industries also use “over engineered” systems.
A question for you folks . . a bit of a quiz . .
Given that new PC now have processors with 2 cores (and Intel has one currently out with 4) and these can handle one thread per core (giving 2 and 4 virtual CPUs per processor)
What are the military and civilian companies ordering for their data centers for next year? (# of cores and threads per core?)

Because people jumped onto it.



One track mind. I thought you were saying one thing, and kept reading it that way. (edit: Kinda like how you keep harping on how the military and the civilian markets use the same computer hardware, more or less... as if anyone is even arguing that point).

I was talking about differing design, and interpreted everything that way. Eventually, the argument took on a life of its own, even as I forgot why I felt the original comment relevant.

they actually have an octocore out now, but thats just two quads



one and two?

"I was talking about differing design, and interpreted everything that way. Eventually, the argument took on a life of its own, even as I forgot why I felt the original comment relevant."
Noted . . . and yes it did It is quite hard sometimes on forums one point across then easy to have it misread or misunderstood. . I often worry about that . . I am more of a Techie then a writer.


Computers . . . .

6 and 8 cores that can handle 4 threads per . . Yes that means 24-32 virtual CPUs have been sold for a while . . almost a year?? now (and these are not just two 4 cores with only one thread per)
Anyway 8 cores with 8 threads per (64 virtual CPUs) are already on there way (going out the door) and two or four 8 core chips per motherboard are coming out soon. (128 to 256 virtual CPUs) . . . and these are the mid size ones more is on the way (but can't say)
All in a 1u and 2u form factor or blade, that only Sip power . . (though they are noisy as all heck)
Clock Speed is no longer the only selling point anymore, Parallel possessing and low power usage is!

thanks for not answering ta

i agree that battleships should be part of the tech tree but maybe just 1 or 2 of the more powerful ones, but free choice of your starting flagship.

thing is the tech tree is pretty crowded at the moment, maybe drop some of those missile techs, theres loads of them, fewer but better i think, and we might have room.

thats my 2c

Kenetor

?? sorry what did I not do?

? look at post #159 ? orders for systems with 2x8 core (128 vcpu - 64GB mem) are coming in. While 8 core (32 vcpu) systems have been out for just under a year. . . small/mid server size. Workstations tend to have consumer like stats but tend to be more robust.

. . I was wondering what people thought was cutting edge. People often think what they can currently buy is really is the cutting edge . . it ends up being what we can make cheap enough for personal consumers to buy. This level moves around allot . . Currently consumers can get rather powerful systems (gamming systems) though they can be unstable (compareitably)
The civilian companies and the military agencies do not have this massive limitation for the most part. . so we can build much more interesting items for them. But not radically, they all use the same parts (just different grades) except for some key items.


Anyway, I played another game on this beta, Crash crash crash and the inhibitor does not work! . . other then that with the limitation of Crews and support points the game forces a nice mix of ships. That was quite fun to play till it went boom . .

yes it does, ur just a noobo, its pretty much everywehre on the forums

Herm, So could you kindly point me to this information? I guess Everywhere is still not in plain site.

, though i included linkys, sry

https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/?forumid=402&aid=161955#1298271
https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/?forumid=402&aid=155665&p=11#1298182

Ah, this was not in the Change log . . Bad developers! Thanks,

You mean the change to inhibitors? Yes, it was -- I noticed it and loved the idea myself.

Really I must have missed it . .

Ah, "- New Jump Blocker Behavior: Blockers owned by player A at a planet now only block lanes to planets owned by A connected to the same planet. "

Now not calling it an inhibitor . . through me . . even did a search.
Bah that is what I get for doing 3 betas.

threw you even?

Here's a novel idea. Perhaps ship research and design should be a bit more like economic realities. Researching ships designs, rather that granting you build access, should instead reduce the cost of building. A rational player wouldn't crank out a line of ships if he didn't at first invest in the research to reduce its production costs. And the more you build, the faster the production, the greater the efficiency.

So should it be for capital ships. Your first capital ship prototype should include build and research costs. How could you research a design without ever having to build it. You're free to build whatever you want, but are constrained by the reality of economic considerations. If you want to bankrupt yourself building one of each capital ship, you should be allowed to do it, and suffer the consequences of your impulse.

Yes, that is another good model . The ships could compliment each other to the point that a good variety is much better then just one type, BUT it is also more expensive to achieve that diversity, Prototypes are expensive till industry can ramp up - nice. . . The only downside I see is that the combined fleet bonus needs to be high enough to (or greater) to off set mass construction . . both avenues should be viable . . but the harder avenue should also have greater utility to insure that people would use it. (these RTS's units tend to be simplistic so over lapping or diverse capabilities are often "black and white" or non existent) It would be good for this game to go one step farther.

Again I think that was used once in a game . . but anyway, the point is there are allot of different ways to limit or sequence the building of units (in a very RTS side of this game)

Well...

I too think capital ships should be researched. Well, research in a game of this timeframe is, as in any game wierd if you look at it logically (you dont research anything in 30 mins). But, this is a GAME. And, as a GAME mechanism it's really cool, and adds a lot to the choise of tactics.

So, here's my idea:

At the start of the game you build one ship for free as usual. The rest need to to be researched. So, you have a capital ship of your choise but can't build any other until you do research the right tech so you need to be careful with it. Then to get other capital ships you need to research the neccesary prerequisite tech.

Idea: Tie Capital Ships to cruiser

Capital ship: Needed prereq:
Kol Battleship Kodiak Heavy Cruiser
Sova Carrier Perchirien Light Carrier
Akkan Battlecruiser Hoshiko Robotics Cruiser
Dunov Battlecruiser Cielo Command Cruiser
Marza Dreadnought Krosov Siege Frigate (better yet a new type of cruiser)

Idea2: Tie Capital Ships to research

Capital ship: Needed prereq:
Kol Battleship Advanced Ballistics
Sova Carrier Huge Cargo Holds
Akkan Battlecruiser Arctic and Volcanic Habitation
Dunov Battlecruiser Improved Shield Emitters
Marza Dreadnought Larger Missile Bays

Of course, with these ideas the tech tree needs to be rebalanced.
And, they are just general ideas and not finished in any way.

Cheers

How about instead of researching the ship itself, we have to research the ultilities/upgrade for it?

We can build a capital ship by default but then it will only be a muscle man. Maybe each ship should have one tech by default (maybe the level 6 tech), but other tech should be researched before the capital can use it. This way we achieve some more balance without compromising the existing goal.