whitt13 whitt13

Hyperion Shrinker gives you less space?

▼

Hyperion Shrinker gives you less space?

from GalCiv2 Forums
In my current game I built a hyperion shrinker. I went to design a new scout ship and couldn't even add the same components that I had on the previous design? The new cargo hull was 93 space. Did the components scale up more in size and offset the increased space the shrinker gave me?
48,148 views 31 replies
Reply #26 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
What about increasing the span covered by the miniturization technologies? For instance, instead of a 10% gain for the first step, have it at 50% gain. And for the last one, instead of a 100% gain, have it 500% gain in hull space.
Would this reduce the effect to negligible, and at the same time allow enough room to put additional equipment on a ship?
It would work better, because the problem does not show up until around the 100% mark and clears up around the 400% mark, to leave the early min techs where they are and increase the last two to 400% and 500%.
Reply #27 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Why can't rather than rounding each and every item can't the calculations be done behind the scenes and have the TOTAL rounded right at the end? Perhaps even have a rounding for the ship design page for GUI/user simplicity yet have a separate calculation (same but without the rounding routine) for the PROGRESSIVE additions of each component which would show up on the ship page ie 53/73. As it stands there's way too much error in the current rounding system. Either that or each hull size has to be beefed by and increased percentage of the miniturization percentage to compensate for all the increased component sizes which would probably be just as buggy as it is atm. eg: behind the scenes:6.4+6.4+6.4+5.8+5.7+9.8+12.3=52.8 GUI ship design page:6+7+7+6+5+10+12=53 (progressive rounding of the above). Argh the carriage returns aren't working again. where t,u,v,w,x,y,z are the GUI calculations for players adding a ship component at a time t=6 because it just is 6.4+6.4=12.8, 6+u=13, u=7 12.8+6.4=19.2, 6+7+v=19, v=7 19.2+5.8=25, 6+7+7+w=25, w=6 25+5.7=30.7, 6+7+7+6+x=31, x=5 30.7+9.8=40.5 6+7+7+6+5+y=41, y=10 40.5+12.3=52.8 6+7+7+6+5+10+z=53, z=12 give me 10 mins to fix up the layout b4 posting pls
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #28 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Why can't rather than rounding each and every item can't the calculations be done behind the scenes and have the total rounded right at the end? Perhaps even have a rounding for the ship design page for GUI/user simplicity yet have a separate calculation (same but without the rounding routine) for the PROGRESSIVE additions of each component which would show up on the ship page ie 53/73. As it stands there's way too much error in the current rounding system. Either that or each hull size has to be beefed by an increased percentage of the miniturization percentage bonus to compensate for all the increased component sizes which would probably be just as buggy as it is atm.
eg: behind the scenes:6.4+6.4+6.4+5.8+5.7+9.8+12.3=52.8
GUI ship design page:6+7+7+6+5+10+12=53 (progressive rounding of the above).
Argh the carriage returns aren't working again.
where t,u,v,w,x,y,z are the GUI calculations for players adding a ship component at a time, 13/73, 19/73, 25/73 etc
t=6 because it just is
6.4+6.4=12.8, 6+u=13, u=7
12.8+6.4=19.2, 6+7+v=19, v=7
19.2+5.8=25, 6+7+7+w=25, w=6
25+5.7=30.7, 6+7+7+6+x=31, x=5
30.7+9.8=40.5, 6+7+7+6+5+y=41, y=10
40.5+12.3=52.8, 6+7+7+6+5+10+z=53, z=12

Sorry about the double post, had to use IE to manually put in html enter/return codes after every line
Reply #29 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It would work better, because the problem does not show up until around the 100% mark and clears up around the 400% mark, to leave the early min techs where they are and increase the last two to 400% and 500%.

As far as I can tell the problem isn't confined to any particular miniturization setting and/or hull size.

It's more a matter of luck in terms of rounding, if the calculations show something like 6.9 it will be taken as a 6, while a "better" miniturization settings might yield a component size of 7.0 (or 7.1, 7.2 ...) and counted as a 7. In such a situation, the increased hull size might not be sufficient to compensate for the bigger component.

I'm almost 100% convinced that barring these rounding errors, you will never be worse off when moving from the available miniturzation levels, given that the component that scales the most with hull size is only 20% . As long as the scaling mod is less then 100%, you should never be worse off.

Reply #30 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The problem (as others have stated) is with decimal rounding and the size mod which adds a percentage of hull size to component size. - when you research a level of miniaturization, certain compnents will jump up a size when placed in a certain hull, instead of a smooth increace. So combinations of components many of which have just 'jumped' after a given miniaturization tech can end up increasing by a larger percentage than the miniaturization percentage, and may no longer fit in a given hull they fitted in before.

As I said, it's the rounding that is causing you to be worse off.

Given that component size scales less than 100% with hull size, a bigger hull size should never make you worse off, you should always be able to fit in at least as much as before because your components scale up in size slower than hull size.

E.g Your ship hull space increases by an absolute X amount. Your components size increases by y%*X (where y% is the scaling mod).

Obviously as long as y% is less than 100% , X > y%*X

This analysis does not change with the number of components in the ship.

The rounding errors however foul this whole thing up.