Re: [Plantool-developer] shipmovent processing.

[Maurits v. R. <ma...@va...>]

Hello Alexander,

Part 2 is here.

avlomwel wrote:
 > 2) When we want tows to always succeed for feulconsumption
 > calculation. The hostRun will derail on this, unless we recalculate.
 > Do we want this? Or shall we split the fuelconsumption into 2 values
 > (Real consumption (For HostRun), and worst case consumption (For
 > Reports))

I wanted to write that we should only do the real consumption, but the 
longer I think about it, the more I think that the worst case 
consumption can be handy in some cases.

Some thoughts.

We want to avoid:
- unnecessary sanity warnings
- surprises

Sanity checks (mostly ETA1 and checkNeut) will probably want to know the 
worst case consumption. If a player sets A tows B tows C for some reason 
(he fears an enemy tow or something) he should not only be warned of the 
failing tow of C by B but also of fuel shortage in case that tow 
unexpectedly succeeds.

Maybe it would be something for a nag level. There is a feature request 
for that. The failing tow and a fuel shortage of ship A or C would be 
errors. The fuel shortage of B in case of a succesful tow would be a 
warning and would only be printed if the nag level is set high.


Let's have an example:
ship A tows ship B tows ship C.
Result of tow resolution: ship A tows ship B, ship C travels on his own
The worst case consumption would mean: all three ships burn fuel.
Real consumption would mean: only ship A and C burn fuel.

There is a danger: ship A tows ship B and travels two turns. What is the 
weight of ship B after the first turn? The worst case fuel consumption 
(WCFC) for B would be that it burns fuel towing ship C. This makes B 
lighter, which results in lower fuel consumption for A.
The HostRun should definitely use the Real Consumption.


What do you mean with reports? Future reports should use Real 
Consumption. Reports on the current turn (stats -x) is less clear. For 
the above case say ship A has a waypoint of only one lightyear into the 
gravity well, falling back to the planet. Ship B then ends up on that 
planet as well. Let's have stats -xb print the WCFC. stats -xslb will 
then show that ship B does not travel, but still burns fuel. That would 
be inconsistent.


Maybe the WCFC could be thought of as Succesful Movement Consumption. It 
would indicate the consumption if the tow mission of the ship succeeds 
or if it moves on its own power instead of being towed by another ship.


 > 3) What shall we do with your Sanaty check on multiturn travels.
 > Shall we split feul consumption into this turn and whole distance?

Yes, I think that would be good.

 > 3b) We also need something like Feul need, this should include the
 > feul weigth when not in the shiip yet.

You mean for something like: load a ship with just enough (+1) fuel to 
get to its destination? That would be good.

Bye,

-- 
Maurits van Rees | ma...@va...
http://maurits.vanrees.org/
"Peace is not the absence of war; it is the absence of fear."