Feature Request: Please remove the 15 parsec sensor range cap

Unfortunately, the sensor range and ship range caps are both necessary--apparently, the game starts to do some weird things once either value reaches a certain point.

I can't say whether the Stardock team has any plans to devise a work-around or solution to that problem (provided such is even possible). It'd certainly be nice if anybody could provide some insight into the likelihood of anything happening in that regard.

I would also like to see the sensor cap removed.

I personally do not agree with lifting the cap; however I believe it should be amended. I do think it is ridiculous to be able to see the entire map (huge galaxy size) with only 4 ships. With this being said, IMHO the limit would be more practical if it were doubled. That is, unless 15 PC was found to be optimal for reducing the bugs caused by larger sensor ranges.

When the sensor limit of 15 was imposed Brad said it was for performance reasons.
With "Eyes of the Universe", all your ships and starbases get 15 sensor range. However, planets remain limited to a range of around 4, even those with ships in orbit! This makes no sense!

A much bigger issue is the AI's lack of interest in senors! The AI will not research sensors, not even the inexpensive first one which gives all ships a +1 boost to their sensor range! This places the AI at a large disadvantage, as a skilled human player will quickly research this branch and build "Eyes of the Universe".

In v1.0 the AI did not value speed and that was corrected. Brad has said the AI continues to ignore sensors, for performance reasons.

Paul D.

It was kind of cool, in the early betas (before the 15 limit) to build "AWACS" units (ships loaded up with sensors)to put on the borders. No point to that now. In fact, I never put even one sensor on any ship anymore. And I never purchase a sensor module for a star base. I just go for Eyes of the Universe as soon as practicable. It would be nice if sensors became at least somewhat valuable again. If this situation could be tweaked a bit without compromising performance, that would be nice.

A much bigger issue is the AI's lack of interest in senors! The AI will not research sensors, not even the inexpensive first one which gives all ships a +1 boost to their sensor range!

And yet they still seem to know if you have an undefended economy starbase at the far end of your territory.

And yet they still seem to know if you have an undefended economy starbase at the far end of your territory.

Do they, though? I've seen plenty of times where I've colonized a planet then a few turns later, an AI colony ship has turned up, bumped into the planet and moved away disappointed. Acting on out of date information. Could be the same with starbases?

Nothing mysterious about them making a beeline for undefended planets. You can do that too, as long as you've scouted the area at some point in the past.

Unfortunately, the sensor range and ship range caps are both necessary--apparently, the game starts to do some weird things once either value reaches a certain point.

If the devs have decided not to fix that bug, or have reduced the priority of fixing that bug to the point where it will never happen, then that's a decision of theirs with which I strongly disagree.

It's nothing to do with a bug. Low end computers CANNOT COPE with sensor ranges beyond that, lag, and crash. This has nothing to do with a bug whatsoever.

unless 15 PC was found to be optimal for reducing the bugs caused by larger sensor ranges

Bugs are bugs and as such, should be fixed. The game configured to crank up the maximum sensor range should not crash the game: all such crashes should be coded to be prevented.

If greater than 15 PC blows away a min spec 800 mhz P3 computer, then perhaps what is needed is a configuration option that tests the player's computer and tweaks various features (like max sensor range, graphics quality, etc.) to be appropriate to the capabilities of that machine. TES4: Oblivion has that feature, and it works pretty well, for example.

Bugs are bugs and as such, should be fixed. The game configured to crank up the maximum sensor range should not crash the game: all such crashes should be coded to be prevented.

Please get a clue what you're talk about. This was NOT a bug, but a perfomance issue. Low end machines couldn't handle the increased sensor range, like I said. As such, there is no way to fix it. The cap will probably stay.

Please get a clue what you're talk about. This was NOT a bug, but a perfomance issue. Low end machines couldn't handle the increased sensor range, like I said. As such, there is no way to fix it. The cap will probably stay.

Sure they can fix it.. Stardock can send anyone with low minimum specs a new computer. There, problem solved. Is there enough time to get this in 1.3?

Stardock can send anyone with low minimum specs a new computer.

I like this plan.

Please get a clue what you're talk about. This was NOT a bug, but a perfomance issue. Low end machines couldn't handle the increased sensor range, like I said. As such, there is no way to fix it. The cap will probably stay.

When performance issues cause the game to actually crash, that most certainly is a bug. The game should instead gracefully close after doing a save, and display the cause of the shutdown to the player.

Lacking automated detection of minimum specs compliance, one way to fix this would be with a documentation change upping the minimum specs, of course. heh.

I would think that the AI would have to adjust based on changing sensor caps, and I don't know if that is possible. Should the game lobotomize itself based on the machine its running on?

And will the new Stardock Ultimate Computer be available as a download, or do they sen it to me?

SW Req: Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP HW Req: Pentium III 800MHz or better with 512MB of system memory 3D video card with at least 32MB of video memory. DirectX 9C.

My honest question is how long must companies keep supporting dead technology? I am no computer expert but if I am not mistaken, the kind of computer listed in the minimum requirements has been obsolete for close to 3 or 4 years. The last time I had a computer that slow was in 2001.

Of course someone will probably say that some people cannot afford to upgrade or get a new computer. Realistically, if playing games is a recreational activity one enjoys, it should not be hard to scrape up $400 for a new computer that will be sufficient for gaming. Even if it is a low end system, the fact remains that it would be a modern system, have several years of useful life, and be, assuming the old system was a PIII 800, vastly superior. No, it will not be a hard core gaming computer, but it would work for the most part. Either that or get a PS2 or X-Box and never worry about system requirements again.

IMHO.

My honest question is how long must companies keep supporting dead technology? I am no computer expert but if I am not mistaken, the kind of computer listed in the minimum requirements has been obsolete for close to 3 or 4 years. The last time I had a computer that slow was in 2001.

As long as it's profitable to do so.

Most people I've seen playing GC2 have processors faster than 1Ghz, but a surprisingly large number of players have very old or stripped-down video cards. And until such a time as they fail or are replaced, we have to support them or lose their business.

And FYI, [turn-based] strategy games with massive system requirements are a fairly new thing. A not insignificant segment of the GC2 market don't see the need for upgrading for this purpose, or wish to play on laptops/etc that likely have lesser hardware than their desktops.