PlanetsCentral

PCC 2.0.5 is out now.

It fixes a few bugs (including a follow-up bug to the one discussed here).

There is one noteworthy new feature: help texts can now be extended with plugins. The PHost help are therefore now available packaged as a plugin.

Usual downloads (Windows+Linux) are available here: http://phost.de/~stefan/pcc2.html

Have fun,
--Stefan

Thx here is some for the next version. Well if you have the time.

1. If towing a Merlin fuel estimation now takes alchemy into account accordingly. Very nice. Using FC NAL also works well, but if the Merlin does not have any fuel the estimation will fail (it will still assume that the supplies are converted).
2. When I sent a ship with impuls engines somewhere (in my case about 16ly away) PCC did automatically set warp to 1. Why? I was really really reeeeeaaaaaaally lucky to to see that before the host run...

1. If towing a Merlin fuel estimation now takes alchemy into account accordingly. Very nice. Using FC NAL also works well, but if the Merlin does not have any fuel the estimation will fail (it will still assume that the supplies are converted).

In general, PCC2 assumes everything you do succeeds. It is hard to decide when you are trying to do something and fail, or not trying at all. 'NAL' is clear, leaving the ship fuel-less sounds like a mistake you'll fix up.

I mean, if PCC2 tells you that you need 0 kt to fail your 81 ly movement that'd be (a) correct and (b) useless.

(However, for a ship being towed, we can probably do a little better.)

• When I sent a ship with impuls engines somewhere (in my case about 16ly away) PCC did automatically set warp to 1. Why? I was really really reeeeeaaaaaaally lucky to to see that before the host run...

PCC always does that. It wants to prevent you from accidentally burning too much fuel. Again, it's hard to decide what is accidental and what is intentional.

To avoid that, my final step each turn is using the search function, "Ships: Multi-turn movement" to find such ships. Because PCC2 has auto-tasks, I've almost never needed to do actual multi-turn movement. Just click a path of multiple one-turn movements.

--Stefan

Hi again

the following is long and I'm not sure it's something you are interested in. So use it as you will. But it would be nice to tell me, because in case you are not interested in detailed proposals as below at all, it would be less bothersome for both of us if I simply don't give them in the first place.

Oh yeah, and anyway the priority is quite low too. Naturally.

PCC always does that. It wants to prevent you from accidentally burning too much fuel. Again, it's hard to decide what is accidental and what is intentional.

Well yes and no. I was able to reproduce this with interuniversals (tech lvl 8 but engine lvl 7!) and warp9 which PCC didn't set. It stuck to w8.
Still it's unintuive in my oppinion. Though there is more. I agree that it is hard to decide wether some effect is accidental or intended. So simply don't do so. There is no need.

That's why this is somehow illogical:

'NAL' is clear, leaving the ship fuel-less sounds like a mistake you'll fix up.

You tell me filling a merlin with supplies but no fuel and in succession failing to tow it to the intended waypoint (because PCC calculated too few fuel to be used) is intentional? That's hard to believe. But anyway there is an easy way around it at least in case of the Merlin. Don't try to read what's intended but stick to the orders you have. The order is to reach the Waypoint X with the towing ship S. But since the Merlin to be towed doesn't have fuel for alchemy the conversion will fail. No Problem here. But if S doesn't have enough fuel to reach it's waypoint there is but one way to show this: give the real fuel consumption and mark it red as usual. There is simply no way around there.
PCC MUST tell me what will happen, and not what I might have planned to happen.

So for the stated cases I would mark the Ship screen as follows (in addition to the checks you already have). Ship screen for Merlin with loaded supplies:
If the FC is NAL there would be no need for fuel aside from movement. So no changes here.
If the FC is something else but there is no fuel (and no waypoint set) the fuel-estimation should turn yellow but still show '0' which is the right number for no movement.
If there is a waypoint set but there is not enough fuel the fuel-display should turn red as usual in defiance of any other possible fails.

Shipscreen for any ship towing such a Merlin:
First the fuel consumption should be calculated with the total mass the Merlin would have in the movement phase with the current settings not regarding possible NE which I may or may not add to the Merlin later on.
Second if the calculations show not enough fuel to reach the waypoint this is a serious red. There is no way around. Orders will fail and that's it. IF and really IF I intend to let this fail then I am obviously an advanced player and I do know what I'm doing perfectly well. So displaying the fuel consumption in red wouldn't hurt. But it will hurt if you mark it green and show lesser fuel than actually needed.
Third you may or may not mark the fuel consumption yellow if there is enough fuel to reach the waypoint even without alchemy, but the Merlin isn't using NAL but simply doesn't have fuel. Though I wouldn't. Because this is a problem with the Merlin and not with the towing ship. So it's got nothing to do with this ship.

Last but not least there is that multi-turn issue. Frankly I don't get why lvl7 engines do use warp8 automatically but lvl1 engines don't use w2 even if there is no real distance and fuel consumption is not noteworthy. This means PCC is "too" intelligent. But I think this will pretty sure fail if some game uses alternative engine defines. I would prefer a simple rule here, something that I can learn from using PCC but without looking into the code. So no "hidden" checks with even more hidden parameters.
Knowing you you'll probably prefer your solution. And I agree that it's not too bad at all (as long as you use standart shiplists). In that case I would make two suggestions for the display without doing any real changes to what PCC is doing. First if PCC sets a speed/waypoint combination (including warp 9/further than 81ly away) which results in multiturn movement then simply display the ETA (Reisezeit) in yellow. That way you'll be able to notice an unexpected multiturn movement more easily. Second if I manually set the speed to something PCC regards as 'overdrive' of the engine type (as in the example above) then mark the warpspeed in yellow as well. This gives a strong hint to why PCC decided to choose a lower speed priviously.

So far my 10 cents.

streu in Re: PCC 2.0.5:

PCC always does that. It wants to prevent you from accidentally burning too much fuel. Again, it's hard to decide what is accidental and what is intentional.

Well yes and no. I was able to reproduce this with interuniversals (tech lvl 8 but engine lvl 7!) and warp9 which PCC didn't set. It stuck to w8.
Still it's unintuive in my oppinion. Though there is more. I agree that it is hard to decide wether some effect is accidental or intended. So simply don't do so. There is no need.

For warp speeds, the rule is simple: PCC2 considers all warp factors with 120% fuel consumption or less efficient.

This is especially useful for PList. If you use your Improbability drives to go 30 ly, you can still save fuel by going only warp 6 (78%). If next turn you're going 81 ly, you want warp 9 (100%) again. Thus, PCC2 changes the speed.

You can change what speed PCC2 considers efficient by changing the Speed$ property of the engine. For example, place this command in your game's autoexec.q file:

   On Load Do ForEach Engine Do Speed$ := 9

This means: if you set a 80 ly waypoint, not matter what the engine is, warp will be set to warp 9.

PCC 1.x had an option to enable/disable this behaviour. This is missing in PCC2, and by the maxim that a feature that cannot be turned off is a bug I will probably add that option back.

streu in Re: PCC 2.0.5:

'NAL' is clear, leaving the ship fuel-less sounds like a mistake you'll fix up.

You tell me filling a merlin with supplies but no fuel and in succession failing to tow it to the intended waypoint (because PCC calculated too few fuel to be used) is intentional?

No, I tell you that leaving a merlin with no fuel is most likely not intentional. This is the excuse why fuel is not honored here. But it's indeed not a very strong one.

Towing-a-merlin-with-no fuel sounds not so mistakey.

--Stefan

No, I tell you that leaving a merlin with no fuel is most likely not intentional. This is the excuse why fuel is not honored here. But it's indeed not a very strong one.

Towing-a-merlin-with-no fuel sounds not so mistakey.

--Stefan

Sorry but this argument is still defeating the whole purpose.

If you think that towing a Merlin without fuel might be intentional than PCC MUST MUST MUST calculate the fuel consumption with taking into account that there won't be any fuel loaded onto the merlin.

But generally the whole argument is silly. If the Merlin has fuel than the fuel calculation has to take that into account if it has not, than it has to take the fact into account that it doesn't. You can't make calculations on a basis that's not actually true. It's a bug and nothing else.

btw planet experience calculation