Topic: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.1

[Klingon Fanatic]

Firesoul you are awesome. Thank you again for your efforts.

Qapla!

KF

[Atrahasis]

Quote:

2)  F-DGX is based on the Saladin Class DD+.  The shiplist should point to fdd+.mod, not FDDX.mod.  Any "X-reffitted" ship should be an older hull refitted with X-tech.  Maybe I'm wrong here but it seems that the hull should look like a Saladin?  That DDX model is cool. but it's too far from the Saladin origins to me.  Just opinion here.

The Saladin is the F-DD, not the F-DD+, which should be one of the versions that came later, like the Jenghiz or the Siva, which depending on the publication you refer to (Jackill's or SotSF) is either a TOS or a TMP style ship.  

Quote:
3)  F-DNL came out in 2267 should it not still be based on the old Federation class model?  Currently the F-DNL points to the DN+ model in the shiplist.  I know this is a picky question.

That depends....according to some sources the TMP "makoeover" started as soon as 2265.

Quote:
4)  F-FFX is an "x-refitted" frigate based on the Burke class and should point to the op 3.1 shiplist fff.mod instead of the Taldren frigate model.

No Burke class could possibly be worthy to recieve an X-refit because the style and tech for that class are more than 60 years old by the year 2300. That X-refit should be done on a more recent edition of the Burke (which means it's no longer a Burke), not the original class.

Quote:
5)  F-FLG came out in 2234.  It should use the op 3.1 fpol.mod instead of the fpol+.mod.  Picky picky

This is incorrect.......the F-POL are the tiny cutters, whereas the F-FLG and the F-FLG+ are Burke hulls with lesser engines and weapons. The specs are clearly more in line with a Burke than they are with the tiny cutters.

Quote:
6)  Just like item 2 above, F-SCX is based on the Saladin class SC+.  The shiplist should point to fdd+.mod, not FDDX.mod.  Any "X-reffitted" ship should be an older hull refitted with X-tech.  Again, the DDX model is cool, but the model should be more Saladin like......eh?

The Saladin was only the original F-DD, not the F-SC as well, which was the Hermes class. The F-SC+ could be any any newer scout class, possibly and probably TMP style.

 

[Atrahasis]

Quote:

Quote:
FS is the KRCS supposed to only have 39 power? It used to have 41.  

*looks at SSD*
30 warp
4 Impulse
5 APR


Yes.  
Edit addition:  It's a D7C, converted. The "Emer Impulse" which is in the boom is an APR in the Romulan conversion.

-- Luc

You might want to refer to how the ship specs were for SFC1, because between SFC1 and SFC2, many ships were castrated in engine power and weapons, for dubious reasons. The KRCS is probably one of them, I know for a fact that the KCR and the C-7 and the Fed BC's were among the castrated.  

[FireSoul]

Quote:

Quote:

2)  F-DGX is based on the Saladin Class DD+.  The shiplist should point to fdd+.mod, not FDDX.mod.  Any "X-reffitted" ship should be an older hull refitted with X-tech.  Maybe I'm wrong here but it seems that the hull should look like a Saladin?  That DDX model is cool. but it's too far from the Saladin origins to me.  Just opinion here.

The Saladin is the F-DD, not the F-DD+, which should be one of the versions that came later, like the Jenghiz or the Siva, which depending on the publication you refer to (Jackill's or SotSF) is either a TOS or a TMP style ship.  

Quote:
3)  F-DNL came out in 2267 should it not still be based on the old Federation class model?  Currently the F-DNL points to the DN+ model in the shiplist.  I know this is a picky question.

That depends....according to some sources the TMP "makoeover" started as soon as 2265.

Quote:
4)  F-FFX is an "x-refitted" frigate based on the Burke class and should point to the op 3.1 shiplist fff.mod instead of the Taldren frigate model.

No Burke class could possibly be worthy to recieve an X-refit because the style and tech for that class are more than 60 years old by the year 2300. That X-refit should be done on a more recent edition of the Burke (which means it's no longer a Burke), not the original class.

Quote:
5)  F-FLG came out in 2234.  It should use the op 3.1 fpol.mod instead of the fpol+.mod.  Picky picky

This is incorrect.......the F-POL are the tiny cutters, whereas the F-FLG and the F-FLG+ are Burke hulls with lesser engines and weapons. The specs are clearly more in line with a Burke than they are with the tiny cutters.

Quote:
6)  Just like item 2 above, F-SCX is based on the Saladin class SC+.  The shiplist should point to fdd+.mod, not FDDX.mod.  Any "X-reffitted" ship should be an older hull refitted with X-tech.  Again, the DDX model is cool, but the model should be more Saladin like......eh?

The Saladin was only the original F-DD, not the F-SC as well, which was the Hermes class. The F-SC+ could be any any newer scout class, possibly and probably TMP style.

 

Would you mind giving me suggestions for which models to use? (and, I know it's a pain... , where I can find these models..)

[Mr. Hypergol]

 

Quote:
 The Saladin is the F-DD, not the F-DD+, which should be one of the versions that came later, like the Jenghiz or the Siva, which depending on the publication you refer to (Jackill's or SotSF) is either a TOS or a TMP style ship.
 

I was only referring to SFB references since Firesoul said that his shiplist was adding the missing stuff from SFB.  According to SFB the F-DD+ is still considered a Saladin class.  I realize other publications refer to other non-Saladin destroyers, but I think in this case Firesoul is focusing on the SFB master ship chart which lists the F-DD+ under the Saldin class.

In the case of the F-DGX Firesoul used an appropriate model because according to the SFB ship description the single engine was removed and replaced with two engines.  The picture in the book also confirms this.

 

Quote:
 That X-refit should be done on a more recent edition of the Burke (which means it's no longer a Burke), not the original class.  

Again, according to the SFB manual the later versions of the Burke class are still considered Burke classes.

 

Quote:
 This is incorrect.......the F-POL are the tiny cutters, whereas the F-FLG and the F-FLG+ are Burke hulls with lesser engines and weapons. The specs are clearly more in line with a Burke than they are with the tiny cutters.
 

Yes you are absolutely correct.  The FLG is listed under the Burke class.  My bad.

 

Quote:
 The Saladin was only the original F-DD, not the F-SC as well

Same issue as above.  If we are just using SFB, the F-SC+ is still based on the Saladin.  It's definate listed this way in the Master ship chart.  

[Atrahasis]

Is this mod supposed to be a pure SFB mod or something? If that's the case then it'd all have to be TOS models. I get the impression that Firesoul has mixed in some TMP ships in there, in which case he's crossing out of SFB territory and into what the other reference sources say.  

[Atrahasis]

I just checked the start year for the F-DD+ and it says it's 2271, which means you can probably construe it as a TMP style ship, that is if one is OK with the idea of mixing TMP models in with the SFB stats which are essentially for TOS ships.  

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I've allways found TMP era the most appealing to the eye...Must be from seeing the films first run.

[Mr. Hypergol]

I have always considered SFB to be all the Kirk era stuff, not just TOS show.  Even though SFB is supposedly TOS only, I think we can unofficially consider it to include TMP stuff too.

I don't want to speak for Firesoul, but I think he is trying to blend both TOS and TMP Trek with SFB stats.  For example, the F-CA came out in SFB year Y130 which would translate to year 2230 and would use the TOS CA model.  The F-CA+ shows an SFB year of Y165 which would use the Enterprise class TMP model.  This make sense to me.  I think this convention works with the other ship classes and races too.

I like the way Firesoul is doing it.  He's trying to stick to SFB, but also trying to blend in real trek as best he can.

Converting SFB Y-years to real trek years is a "nebulous" process which requires some compromises here and there, but I think the finished OP+ product does a good job.

Don Miller's SFB website also has a good timeline interpretation which relates technology eras from Trek to SFB.  Here it is:  http://www.smileylich.com/sfb/rules/rule.txt  Scroll down a few pages to get to the timeline.  I like the way this SFB to Trek translation was done.

[FireSoul]

Quote:
I have always considered SFB to be all the Kirk era stuff, not just TOS show.  Even though SFB is supposedly TOS only, I think we can unofficially consider it to include TMP stuff too.

I don't want to speak for Firesoul, but I think he is trying to blend both TOS and TMP Trek with SFB stats.  For example, the F-CA came out in SFB year Y130 which would translate to year 2230 and would use the TOS CA model.  The F-CA+ shows an SFB year of Y165 which would use the Enterprise class TMP model.  This make sense to me.  I think this convention works with the other ship classes and races too.

I like the way Firesoul is doing it.  He's trying to stick to SFB, but also trying to blend in real trek as best he can.

Converting SFB Y-years to real trek years is a "nebulous" process which requires some compromises here and there, but I think the finished OP+ product does a good job.

Don Miller's SFB website also has a good timeline interpretation which relates technology eras from Trek to SFB.  Here it is:  http://www.smileylich.com/sfb/rules/rule.txt  Scroll down a few pages to get to the timeline.  I like the way this SFB to Trek translation was done.

You understand the idea behind the work. I wanted to preserve the TMP look and feel of thegame. It seemed to me that the + refit seemed like a perfect excuse to 'upgrade' ships to TMP versions. In other words, all Fed ships in existance previously to the + refit should be in the TOS style, which is pretty much what I've done so far.

Now, it's obvious that I still have some touch-ups to do, such as making sure the F-FLGs are using the Burke class models. However, the mod progress nearer still to what I imagined to be a completed work.


Hm. Question: does anyone know where to find a TMP version of the Texas Class (Old) Light Cruiser? They also recieve a + refit, so I wonder if it would recieve a TMP-era refit.

[Karnak]

Just a friendly FYI.

For the first time ever there is going to be an active effort to integrate the 3.1 shiplist with the EEK missions so that they achieve maximum results.  Basically, I am going to take the OP v3.1 shiplist and re-classify ships into pre-defined slots that will pool ships into restricted and non-restricted categories.  The EEK missions are already constructed to observed such a ship classifying architecture so in order for a dyna to get maximum results out of the missions, the shiplist has to be configured properly.  All present and future EEK missions will be using the CnC architecture as a basis for mission development.

The architecture is detailed in the ISC Inv. CnC rules along with a recommended shipyard cost chart:

CnC Architecture used by EEK missions

You will notice that the restricted ship classes of BATTLESHIP, DREADNOUGHT, CARRIER and SPECIAL are prohibitively costed out (ie. from 10 times to 40 times the cost of a Heavy Cruiser).  Or, the dyna can use the FM-restriction system used in SG3 and SS2 to just manually assigned the ships and take them out of the shipyard completely.  These restricted ship classes also are never used in EEK for enemy AI generation so it's important that only ships meant to be restricted are placed in these class types.

I already have an OP v31 converted shiplist ready to release with the next EEK mission pack but I would first like to vet it in an upcoming project before making it available to all.  

[Mr. Hypergol]

 

Quote:
does anyone know where to find a TMP version of the Texas Class (Old) Light Cruiser? They also recieve a + refit, so I wonder if it would recieve a TMP-era refit.  

Tough question.  Here's my ideas:

I have no problem with all of these ships keeping the TOS look (even the CL+).

In my opinion, since these ships are over 100 years old and were already highly upgraded just to make them warp capable and get shields, I doubt starfleet would have upgraded the engines on these ships to the point that they took on a TMP look.  I think a few of them could have been upgraded that far as prototypes, but my opinion is that it makes little sense to upgrade the Texas class so extensively on top of the previous massive upgrades considering they were developing the NCL about the same time.

Lastly, since these ships are so old, keeping the TOS look gives them that old ship look and feel.

[Mr. Hypergol]

O.K. it's 1:30 in the morning.....do I love this game or what?

I have reviewed Romulan, Lyrans, and Gorn in shiplist.  Here are discrepancies I think I found:

Romulans:

I found no "real" problems with shiplist.  My only comments are about models.

1)  The Centurian PF is related to the old series Eagle class ships, or at least follows their design lineage.  It should use the Feral Yards model currently linked by the Deceurion INT in my opinion.  I would then use the Taldren Romulan PF model for the Decurion.  The Starhawk is fine with the Feral yards Starhawk model.  Just opinion here.

2)  Man I wish there were more Romulan Models out there.  I searched and searched to no avail.  I wish there were a better model for the Demonhawk, Freight Eagle, KRT, Vul, Skyhawk, Seahawk, and Sabrehawk.  The Hawk series is really the delema.  I love the Feral yards models used down to the Sparrowhawk, unfortunately the Feral Yards stopped there.  Below that, all the models available for the Skyhawk and Seahawk are out of character with the Feral yards based models.  If I use the Fleetdock 13 SFB models for the Skyhawk etc. I really need to use them all and should replace the Feral models.  Dunno?


Lyrans:

1)  Should the L-DND Mountain Lion DD use the LFF model?

2)  L-FLG and varients should be a Cheetah FF model.

3)  L-WPBC and varients should use LDW model.

4)  L-DSCX and varients should use OP+ DDW model.

5) L-SCX and varients should use OP+ LDW model.


Gorn:

1)  G-FCR and varients  should use Carnosaurus class DD model.

2)  G-FLG and varients  should use Carnosaurus class DD model.  Check all race FLG's, I bet many are wrong models!!  There's a pattern here.

3)  G-SC and varients  should use Carnosaurus class DD model.

4)  G-SR and varients  should use Megalosaurus class CL model.


O.K. that's enough abuse for tonight.  

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Just a friendly FYI.

For the first time ever there is going to be an active effort to integrate the 3.1 shiplist with the EEK missions so that they achieve maximum results.  Basically, I am going to take the OP v3.1 shiplist and re-classify ships into pre-defined slots that will pool ships into restricted and non-restricted categories.  The EEK missions are already constructed to observed such a ship classifying architecture so in order for a dyna to get maximum results out of the missions, the shiplist has to be configured properly.  All present and future EEK missions will be using the CnC architecture as a basis for mission development.

The architecture is detailed in the ISC Inv. CnC rules along with a recommended shipyard cost chart:

CnC Architecture used by EEK missions

You will notice that the restricted ship classes of BATTLESHIP, DREADNOUGHT, CARRIER and SPECIAL are prohibitively costed out (ie. from 10 times to 40 times the cost of a Heavy Cruiser).  Or, the dyna can use the FM-restriction system used in SG3 and SS2 to just manually assigned the ships and take them out of the shipyard completely.  These restricted ship classes also are never used in EEK for enemy AI generation so it's important that only ships meant to be restricted are placed in these class types.

I already have an OP v31 converted shiplist ready to release with the next EEK mission pack but I would first like to vet it in an upcoming project before making it available to all.    

Good idea...
.. for a D2-based shiplist.

[FireSoul]

Quote:
O.K. it's 1:30 in the morning.....do I love this game or what?

I have reviewed Romulan, Lyrans, and Gorn in shiplist.  Here are discrepancies I think I found:

Romulans:

I found no "real" problems with shiplist.  My only comments are about models.

1)  The Centurian PF is related to the old series Eagle class ships, or at least follows their design lineage.  It should use the Feral Yards model currently linked by the Deceurion INT in my opinion.  I would then use the Taldren Romulan PF model for the Decurion.  The Starhawk is fine with the Feral yards Starhawk model.  Just opinion here.

I could apply the Centurion's model for both the PF and the INT.

Quote:

2)  Man I wish there were more Romulan Models out there.  I searched and searched to no avail.  I wish there were a better model for the Demonhawk, Freight Eagle, KRT, Vul, Skyhawk, Seahawk, and Sabrehawk.  The Hawk series is really the delema.  I love the Feral yards models used down to the Sparrowhawk, unfortunately the Feral Yards stopped there.  Below that, all the models available for the Skyhawk and Seahawk are out of character with the Feral yards based models.  If I use the Fleetdock 13 SFB models for the Skyhawk etc. I really need to use them all and should replace the Feral models.  Dunno?

I do what I can.. but the fleetdock 13 models kinda makes the models look... klunky.

Quote:

Lyrans:
1)  Should the L-DND Mountain Lion DD use the LFF model?

2)  L-FLG and varients should be a Cheetah FF model.

3)  L-WPBC and varients should use LDW model.

4)  L-DSCX and varients should use OP+ DDW model.

5) L-SCX and varients should use OP+ LDW model.

1- It actually deserves its own model. It was supposed to be the middle portion of a Lyran DN Catamaran. Unfortunately, the FeralYards model for the LDN makes the middle part way bigger than it should be (even tho it looks cool). I don't know what to do there.
2- Probably all FLGs need to be checked.
3- It's a modified DD, not a DW.
4- SCX is DD-based, not DW based.
5- see #4.

Quote:

Gorn:
1)  G-FCR and varients  should use Carnosaurus class DD model.

2)  G-FLG and varients  should use Carnosaurus class DD model.  Check all race FLG's, I bet many are wrong models!!  There's a pattern here.

3)  G-SC and varients  should use Carnosaurus class DD model.

4)  G-SR and varients  should use Megalosaurus class CL model.

I'll check these later on..

Quote:

O.K. that's enough abuse for tonight.  

[Klingon Fanatic]

OK, I'll ask: "Are you now going to add Tholians and Andromedans to the OP+ shiplist?" If so, I will love to have a single uniform shiplist rather than patching different parts to the OP+ one.

There are 13 Klingon Academy style Tholian models (higher poly than the GAW 'mini-mod' just released) and a full set of TMP Andromedans based on P81's TMP  Imposer and Cobra all at  SFU....

Please advise.

KF

[FireSoul]

Quote:
OK, I'll ask: "Are you now going to add Tholians and Andromedans to the OP+ shiplist?" If so, I will love to have a single uniform shiplist rather than patching different parts to the OP+ one.

There are 13 Klingon Academy style Tholian models (higher poly than the GAW 'mini-mod' just released) and a full set of TMP Andromedans based on P81's TMP  Imposer and Cobra all at  SFU....

Please advise.

KF  

No.

[CptCastrin]

FS your fighter list has duplicate columns.

I've seen this happen before when using ShipEdit. I don't know if you used that but I figured you should know.

   

[Mr. Hypergol]

 

Quote:
 I could apply the Centurion's model for both the PF and the INT.

I like this idea.

 

Quote:
 3) L-WPBC and varients should use LDW model.

 

Quote:
 3- It's a modified DD, not a DW.

Nope.  I doublechecked.  The WYN pocket "BB" (that's bee bee) is a modified Lyran DD.  The WYN pocket "BC" (that's bee see) is based on the Lyran DW.

Quote:

4) L-DSCX and varients should use OP+ DDW model.
5) L-SCX and varients should use OP+ LDW model.

Quote:

4- SCX is DD-based, not DW based.
5- see #4.

Nope again.  Doublechecked again.  The L-SCX and L-DSCX are both based on Lyran War Destroyer.  The L-SC is the one based on the DD.

Isn't this fun.

Oh and don't forget those klingon "captured" Lyrans I mentioned earlier in the thread.

On to the ISC.  

[Mr. Hypergol]

O.K. Finished reviewing ISC shiplist.  Only found one issue:

Of course it's the I-FLG model link.  Should be ISC DD model, not ISC FF.  Same with I-FLGW.


As you can see I'm mostly reviewing model links in the shiplist right now.  Other issues like hardpoints will have to wait until I have more time.