Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


Starsector 0.95.1a is out! (12/10/21); Blog post: Hostile Activity (09/01/22)

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - StudentRadio

Pages: [1]
Thanks for the feedback!

'Parsing' my Xml seems to be taking a very long time (probably due to mods, I'm still waiting actually)

The parsing step usually only takes a few seconds at most, so there must have been an error parsing your save file. And yeah, that's probably because of untested mods.

I updated it to show an error message, at least. And when a parse error occurs, you can find details about the error in the help section. That way, you can send me an error report if you want to.

When I posted this in r/Starsector, some users told me it worked (at least in part) despite the mods they had installed, so it seems like not all mods will cause a fatal error. One that might is Beyond the Sector, but I haven't confirmed that.

Also your menus are not really useable on lower screen resolutions.

Fixed! The dialog boxes are now scaled down if they're too tall to fit in the window.

it would be even nicer if you could add tabs to determine the planet type as well (ie Terran, Barren, Jungle, etc)

It searches for the wrong things, you need a list of deposits not some combination of industries.

While I was working on PCRG, I convinced myself that the final stats are what really matter about a colony or set of colonies. Because PCRG runs a detailed simulation of the colonies—including the effects of resource shortages, stability penalties, in-faction demand discounts, and more—you can see how they'll end up operating and compare them on that basis. So I don't think the ability to specify that a colony must be on a Terran world or must have rare ore would improve the results. Can you give me an example of a situation where it would be beneficial?

Also, FYI: it already lets you search for a planet near a gate or cryosleeper. To search for the latter, just add a cryorevival facility to a colony. (This won't spoil undiscovered cryosleepers for you unless you choose the "Show all planets" spoiler option.)


I developed a web app that Starsector players can use to experiment with different colony builds and find good places to establish colonies. It lets you specify how you want to build your (size-6) colonies, then reads your save file and simulates those colonies on planets in your sector.

I tried to make the simulation as accurate as possible. It factors in accessibility, hazard rating, planetary conditions, structure configurations (improvements, AI cores, and special items), administrators, cross-faction imports, and the demand for commodities in your economy. So it can help you decide whether to colonize a nearby planet with a low hazard rating or a more distant planet with more resources or better conditions for special items, for example.

The search results are sorted by profitability, but you can also see statistics like stability, fleet size, ship quality, and ground defenses.

It'll only show fully-surveyed planets by default, but you can configure it to show spoilers as well if you want to.

Check it out!

I've tested it with vanilla Starsector 0.95.1a-RC6 save files.

Yes, thanks! And I suppose you're right that it wouldn't be worth it.

Interesting! Does the "+100%" from gunnery implants set the ETA accuracy to 100%, then? Or does it "double" the accuracy by halving the distance between the old accuracy and 100%? Like, if it was 67% before, does gunnery implants increase it by (100% - 67%) / 2? Just curious.

Maybe it would make sense for target leading accuracy to scale somewhat with a ship's top speed, if it doesn't already? Thematically, you'd expect a fast ship's gunners to be used to their own ship moving fast, and you'd expect its targeting systems to be designed to work at high speeds. (Maybe more for high-tech ships than low-tech ones.) Of course, that would affect game balance.

Just ran a few tests with the modified Paragon in the simulator.

All were at 85% CR, because automatic targeting is already "excellent" at that level, and I figured the other effects, like increased speed and damage dealt, might be more significant than the aiming benefit.

I tried with and without gunnery implants, though. Subjectively, the Paragon seemed to hit more often with it than without it. And it took about 9% longer to kill without gunnery implants, on average. (It's worth noting that gunnery implants has side effects too, though.)

I guess the aiming "problem" I noticed is normal, because target leading is intentionally less-than-optimal without gunnery implants.

Modding / Edge case related to cross-faction imports?
« on: April 17, 2022, 11:09:29 AM »

I might have encountered a weird edge case related to cross-faction imports. I'm posting about it here because I used the Console Commands mod to increase my colony size from 3 to 6, so it might be mod-related. I also edited my save file to test different situations, so it might be that.

My colony has a demand for 8 ship hulls because of High Command. It also has an Orbital Works that produces 4 ship hulls. Its accessibility is 65%, and that's enough for it to import 4 hulls cross-faction. No shortage.

If I edit my save file and add a custom accessibility modifier to decrease the accessibility to 55%, the colony still imports 4 hulls cross-faction and has no shortage.

But if I decrease the accessibility to 45%, which should still be enough to import 4 hulls, I unexpectedly have a shortage of 4 hulls. The breakdown says "+4 Base value for colony size (Orbital Works); +4 Desired import volume (in-faction); -4 In-faction shortage (max in-faction production source has 4)". (In case you're wondering, the Orbital Works' demands are met by in-faction imports.)

I did a bit more testing with different levels of production and demand. The explanation I've come up with is this: It looks like the game will only use a cross-faction import if the number of units it could import is greater than the in-faction supply. In the 45% accessibility case above, I think it says, "I could import 4 hulls cross-faction, but that's not more than the 4 I can get in-faction, so I'll use in-faction sources." It ignores the fact that the 4 it could import cross-faction would be added to the 4 produced locally and would fully satisfy the demand. (Chicomoztoc has 10 hulls and 123% accessibility.)

Can anyone verify this with a non-modded game? Or possibly explain what I'm missing?


Starsector 0.95.1a-RC6
LazyLib 2.7b
Console Commands 2021.12.25

Here's another way to see this effect without modding the properties of any ships:

Create a variant of the Astral (or any carrier) that has no weapons, and just has Thunder wings. Add it to sim_opponents.csv. Take a Monitor into battle against it, activate its fortress shield, remain stationary, and watch the fighters. Sometimes, while they're circling around you, their shots will seem to drift in the same direction they're moving, like I described with the Paragon. The Thunder in the center of screenshot 19 was circling to its left, and its shots were all missing in that direction. At least one of the shots looks like it's going to hit, but the shots aren't actually moving in the direction that their trails would suggest. I'm pretty sure that shot missed.

And sometimes, if the Thunders fire at you while backing away, their shots don't reach you. (You already explained why that might happen, but I'm just noting that it happens with real ships too.)

Hope this helps!

Hi Alex,

Thanks for the reply!

It's not just the range, though. When the modified Paragon is strafing around a target, its shots often miss in a way that seems correlated with the Paragon's movement. For example, in screenshot 13 the Paragon is moving to its left, and the plasma cannon shots are missing on the left of the Onslaught (from the Paragon's point of view). Likewise, in screenshot 17 the Paragon is moving to its right, and the shots are missing on the right. Seeing it in motion, the impression I get is that the Paragon isn't compensating for its own movement somehow when it aims.

I know the Paragon isn't supposed to have such high speed and maneuverability, but these numbers aren't outside the range of values that real ships have. And if this is happening very noticeably with large numbers, I figured it's probably happening less noticeably (but still happening) with smaller numbers.

Anyway, thanks again!


I edited ship_data.csv and gave the Paragon the max speed, acceleration, deceleration, max turn rate, turn acceleration, and mass of a Thunder fighter, just for fun. Then I tried the Forlorn Hope mission, and I refitted the Paragon to use plasma cannons, hypervelocity drivers, autopulse lasers, and advanced turret gyros (among other things). I let the AI pilot the ship.

The Paragon would often miss shots with its projectile weapons--even the ones on turrets--when it was strafing around an enemy ship. It seemed like the aiming AI wasn't accounting for the fact that the Paragon's velocity would be added to the projectiles' velocities. Or in other words, the target leading calculations were only considering the target ship's absolute velocity instead of its velocity relative to the firing ship. Sometimes, while backing away from a target quickly, the Paragon would fire shots that had no chance of hitting because the Paragon's backward velocity was added to them, which basically put the target out of range.

Maybe there's a parameter somewhere else to compensate for this, so it's not enough to edit the spreadsheet? But I can't help wondering if this is happening to a smaller extent all the time. If so, maybe battles don't feel quite as tight as they could?

I was using Starsector 0.95.1a-RC6 for Linux.


I've also encountered performance problems in Starsector (0.9.1a-RC8) for Linux (Ubuntu 20.04) with the amdgpu driver.

Setting uiFadeSpeedMult to 1000 has eliminated some transitions that were slow, like switching between the fleet screen and the refit screen, but jumping in and out of hyperspace is still slow.

Not sure if this is related or could help you track down the cause, but I've noticed another performance problem when I open the sector map, disable the starscape, and zoom in or out: the zoom animation consistently happens at about 5 frames per second. I can pan around just fine; only zooming is slow. Zooming the sector map with starscape enabled is fast, and zooming the system map (regardless of the starscape setting) is fast. In battles and on the refit screen, zooming is also fast.


Pages: [1]